PC Reso 2024-05CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95024
RESOLUTION No. 2024-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROV AL OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE MAP, AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW IMPLEMENT ATION OF
THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ST ATE
LAW
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the General Plan
Amendment, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as
Exhibit GPA with the modification that APN: 359-08-029 be removed from the Housing
Priority Sites list.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Cupertino the 29th day of April 2024, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Fung, Lindskog, Mistry
COMMISSIONERS: Madhdhipatla, Scharf
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
ATTES : ,
Piu Ghosh
Planning Manager
David Fung
Chair, Planning Commission
EXHIBIT GPA
RESOLUTION NO._________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING
ADOPTION OF THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT,
CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, AND OTHER
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPA-2022-001
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide/Various locations
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS, state law requires the City to prepare and adopt an updated Housing
Element every eight years to accommodate its fair share of housing and identify housing
needs, resources and opportunities;
WHEREAS, the City has been notified in December 2022 that the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation for Cupertino is 4,588 units; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 4, Appendix A, and Appendix B have been prepared to address
adoption of 6th Cycle (2023 – 2031) Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, Chapters 3, 5, Appendix ___ and the General Plan Land Use Map have been
amended to address implementation of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a Stipulated Judgement dated January 8, 2024 pursuant
to a lawsuit related to adoption of the Housing Element which included requirements for
coming into compliance with state housing element law ________ and exempted the City
from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Government Code
section 65759; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code 65759, the General Plan Amendment to adopt
the Housing Element and associated amendments to the General Plan zoning is fully
described and analyzed in the Environmental Assessment, which is incorporated into the
General Plan as Appendix G; and
WHEREAS, the existing uses on the sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate
the lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and
therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during
the period covered by the housing element based on a variety of factors as described more
fully in the Housing Element, including but not limited to property owner interest in
redeveloping the site, age and condition of the structures on the property, vacant store
fronts and/or, land to improvement values of the properties, apparent investments in the
property.
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote
that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2022-001), in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. ______); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of
Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, on May 14, 2024, the City Council
held a public hearing to consider the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution.
SECTION III: RESOLUTIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
After careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, and based on the preceding findings, the City Council hereby:
1. Adopts amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2022-001),
including amendments to Chapter 3 (Land Use and Community Character),
Chapter 4 (Housing), and Chapter 5 (Mobility) and Appendices A (Land Use
Definitions), and B (Housing Element Technical Report), and adoption of a new
Appendix G (General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments Environmental
Assessment) as shown in Exhibits GPA-1 – GPA-6, which is incorporated herein by
reference as part of this resolution; and
2. Adopts changes to the Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit GPA-7, which is
incorporated herein by reference as part of this resolution, to reflect the changes to
the general plan land use designation, residential density - required minimum and
maximum allowable, and allowable maximum heights of the parcels in the table on
the following page, necessary to implement the Housing Element and to ensure
internal consistency; and
3. Authorizes the staff to make any grammatical, typographical, numbering, and
formatting changes in the amended Chapters, and any updates to figures in Chapter
2 (Planning Areas) to ensure internal consistency with the Land Use and
Community Character Element, the General Plan Land Use Map, and the Housing
Element, necessary to assist in production of the final published General Plan.
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
316 23 027 0.64 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
369 03 005 0.47 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
326 34 047 1.09 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
359 07 006 0.32 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
375 06 006 1.71 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70
375 06 007 0.96 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70
316 21 031 1.81 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
316 23 026 1.78 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
326 32 050 0.83 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
326 27 053 0.75 Transportation 0 0 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
323 36 018 0.42 Commercial /
Residential 35 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
316 04 064 0.44 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential - Medium Density 10.01 20 No change
326 07 022 1.64 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70
326 07 030 0.92 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70
326 07 031 0.24 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70
326 07 036 1.74 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70
369 37 022 0.39 Medium (10-20
DU/Ac) 20 30 Residential - Very High Density 50.01 65 70
369 37 023 0.22 Medium (10-20
DU/Ac) 20 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes - 30
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
369 37 024 0.17 Medium (10-20
DU/Ac) 20 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes - 30
369 34 053 0.54 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes - 30
359 18 044 0.26 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
366 10 121 1.34 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes – 30
366 10 137 0.92 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes – 30
366 19 047 2.33 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
366 19 078 0.08 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
359 09 017 1.00 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
316 20 088 5.16 Reg Shopping 0 60 Residential – High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70
359 13 019 0.99 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential - Medium Density 10.01 20 30
356 06 001 0.73 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 30
356 06 002 0.69 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 30
356 06 003 0.25 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change
356 06 004 0.87 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change
N/A (Evulich Ct) 0.43 Transportation 0 0 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change
362 31 001 0.25 Res Medium 10-20 20 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change
362 31 030 0.23 Res Medium 10-20 20 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change
326 20 034 1.34 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Low/ Medium 5.01 10 No change
316 23 093 1.35 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
316 23 036 0.24 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
369 06 002 0.9 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
369 06 003 0.53 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
369 06 004 1.29 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
359 10 015 1.18 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
359 10 060 0.98 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
359 10 044 0.18 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
359 08 025 0.83 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
359 08 026 0.45 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
359 08 027 0.87 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
359 08 028 1 0.85 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
359 08 029 0.92 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
326 09 052 0.74 Commercial 35 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
326 09 060 2.75 Commercial 35 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
326 09 061 1.12 Commercial 35 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
369 34 052 2.70 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
369 37 028 0.56 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70
366 19 055 0.40 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes – 30
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
366 19 053 0.56 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes – 30
366 19 054 1.75 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60
Townhomes – 30
316 05 050 1.02 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
316 05 051 0.62 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
316 05 052 0.73 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
316 05 053 0.92 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
316 05 056 6.94 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
316 05 072 0.54 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70
359 20 028 2 0.75 Quasi-Public 0 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 No change
1 Land Use designation and residential density changed only for a 178 feet by 208 feet portion of this site on the western portion closest to Stevens Creek
Boulevard as shown in Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office’s records Book 359 Page 8 (Revised 2022-2023).
2 Land Use designation and residential density changed only for a 180.75 feet by 180.75 feet portion of the northwest corner of the site is rezoned as shown in
Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office’s records Book 359 Page 20 (Revised 2022-2023). rezoned as shown in Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office’s records
Book 359 Page 20 (Revised 2022-2023).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May 2024, at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Shiela Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
________________________
Date
Land Use Element
GOAL LU‐1
Create a balanced community with a mix of land uses that supports thriving businesses,
all modes of transportation, complete neighborhoods, and a healthy community.
LU‐1.2.1: Planning Area AllocationsPOLICY LU‐1.2: NON‐RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION.
The City shall maintain non‐residential dDevelopment allocations, which are assigned
for by various Planning Areas. However, sSome flexibility may be allowed for
transferring non‐residential allocations among between Planning Areas provided that no
significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Community Vision 2040.
STRATEGIES:
LU‐1.2.1: Planning Area Allocations. Maintain and update the non‐residential
development allocation table (Table LU‐1) to ensure that the allocations for various land
uses adequately meet Ccity goals for economic vitality, financial stability, and
placemaking.
LU‐1.2.2: Major Employers. Reserve an office development allocation for major
companies with sales offices and corporate headquarters in Cupertino. Prioritize
expansion of office space for existing major companies. New office development must
demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well‐being of the
city.
LU‐1.2.3: Unused Non‐Residential Development Allocation. Unused non‐residential
development allocations may be re‐assigned to the citywide allocation table per Planning
Area, when development agreements and development permits expire.
LU‐1.2.4: Neighborhood Allocation. Allocate residential units in neighborhoods through
the building permit process unless subdivision or development applications are required.
Table LU‐1: Citywide Non‐Residential Development Allocation
Between 2014‐2040
commercial (s.f.) office (s.f.) hotel (rooms) residential (units)
current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
build
out
availa
ble
current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
buildou
t
availa
ble
current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
build
out
availa
ble
current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
build
out
availa
ble
Hear
t of
the
1,351,73
0
214,50
0
793,270 2,447,50
0
2,464,61
3
17,113 404 526 122 1,336 1,805 469
City
Vallco
Shoppin
g
District**
1,207,77
4
1,207,77
4
‐
‐
‐
‐
148
339
191
‐
389
389
Homeste
ad
291,40
8
291,40
8
‐ 69,550 69,550 ‐ 126 281* 155 600 750 150
N. De
Anza
56,708 56,708 ‐ 2,081,02
1
2,081,02
1
‐ 126 126 ‐ 49 146 97
N. Vallco 133,14
7
133,14
7
‐ 3,069,67
6
3,069,67
6
‐ 123 308 185 554 1,154 600
S. De
Anza
352,28
3
352,28
3
‐ 130,70
8
130,708 ‐ 315 315 ‐ 6 6 ‐
Bubb ‐ ‐ ‐ 444,75
3
444,753 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Monta
Vista
Village
94,051 99,698 5,647 443,14
0
456,735 13,595 ‐ ‐ ‐ 828 878 50
Other 144,96
4
144,96
4
‐ 119,89
6
119,896 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18,039 18,166 127
Major
Emplo
yers
‐ ‐ ‐ 109,93
5
633,053 523,11
8
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Citywid
e
3,632,06
5
4,430,98
2
798,917 8,916,17
9
9,470,00
5
553,82
6
1,116 1,769 653 21,412 23,294 1,88
2
POLICY LU‐1.3: LAND USE IN ALL CITYWIDE MIXED‐USE DISTRICTS
Encourage land uses that support the activity and character of mixed‐use districts and
economic goals.
STRATEGIES:
LU‐1.3.1: Commercial and Residential Uses. Review the placement of commercial and
residential uses based on the following criteria:
1. All mixed‐use areas with commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial
component. The North De Anza Special Area is an exception.
2. All mixed‐use residential projects should be designed onshall comply with the “mixed
‐use village” concept discussed earlier later in this Element.
3. On sites with a mixed‐use residential designation, residential densities are established
in Figure LU‐2 with specifics inby the land use map, where required, with land use
designations defined in Appendix Ais a permitted use only on Housing Element sites
and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area.
4. Conditional use permits will be required on mixed‐use Housing Element sites that
propose units above the allocation in the Housing Element, and on non‐Housing Element
mixed‐use sites.100% residential development is allowed on mixed‐use sites, if at least
40% of the total units are affordable, including at least 20% of the total units affordable to
lower income households.
Figure LU‐2: Community Form Diagram
Edits at end of Exhibit GPA‐1.1
Mixed‐Use Urban Villages
Many of the City’s Priority Housing Element sSites are located alongin major corridors
to reduce traffic and environmental impacts and preserve neighborhoods (Figure LU‐2).
Priority Housing Element sSites, which are further identified and defined in the Housing
Element, represent the City’s priority for residential development. Residential uses on
sites with mixed‐use zoning shall should be designed oncomply with the “mixed‐use
village” concept discussed below.
4. Uses. Include a substantial viable, retail component.Uses shall be consistent with the
underlying land use district as defined by Land Use Definitions (Appendix A). Retail and
active uses such as restaurants, outdoor dining, and features like entries are required
along the ground floor of main street frontages, and such uses are optional on the ground
floor of residential buildings within the Regional Shopping/Residential designation.
Live/work units shall be oriented with active commercial, or office uses along the street
frontage with the residential component of the unit located behind or above the
commercial or office space. Developments are encouraged to provide aM mix of unit
types for households of varying income levels and household types, including, but not
limited to, young professionals, couples, families, and/or active seniors who like to liveto
allow housing choices in an active “mixed‐use village” environment. Office uses, if
allowed, should must provide active uses on the ground floor street frontage, including
restaurants, cafes, entries, lobbies, etc.
Neighborhood Commercial Centers
Neighborhood Commercial Centers serve adjacent neighborhoods and provide shopping
and gathering places for residents…Housing Element sites represent the City’s priority
for residential development. Residential uses should beshall comply with designed on
the “mixed‐use village” concept discussed in this Element.
GOAL LU‐3
Ensure that project site planning and building design enhance the public realm through
a high sense of identity and connectivity.
POLICY LU‐3.3: BUILDING DESIGN
Ensure that building layouts and design are compatible with the surrounding
environment and enhance the streetscape and pedestrian activity.
STRATEGIES:
Strategy LU‐3.3.4: Compatibility. Ensure that the floor area ratios of multi‐family
residential developments are compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. Include
a mix of unit types and avoid excessively large units.
LU‐3.3.45: Building Location. Encourage building location and entries closer to the street
while meeting appropriate landscaping and setback requirements.
LU‐3.3.56: Architecture and Articulation. Promote high‐quality architecture, appropriate
building articulation and use of special materials and architectural detailing to enhance
visual interest.
LU‐3.3.67: Street Interface. Ensure that development enhances pedestrian activity by
providing active uses within mixed‐use areas and appropriate design features within
residential areas along a majority of the building frontage facing the street. Mixed‐use
development should include retail, restaurant, outdoor dining, main entries, etc.
Residential development should include main entrances, lobbies, front stoops and
porches, open space, and other similar features.
LU‐3.3.78. Drive‐up Services. Allow drive‐up service facilities only when adequate
circulation, parking, noise control, architectural features, and landscaping are compatible
with the expectations of the Planning Area, and when residential areas are visually
buffered. Prohibit drive‐ up services in areas where they conflict with pedestrian oriented
activity and design are highly encouraged, such as Heart of the City, North De Anza
Boulevard, Monta Vista Village, and neighborhood centers.
LU‐3.3.89: Specific and Conceptual Plans. Maintain and update Specific/ Conceptual
plans and design guidelines for Special Areas such as Heart of the City, Crossroads,
Homestead Corridor, Vallco Shopping District, North and South De Anza corridors, and
Monta Vista Village.
LU‐3.3.910: Entrances. In multi‐family projects where residential uses may front on
streets, require pedestrian‐scaled elements such as entries, stoops, and porches along the
street.
LU‐3.3.101: Multiple‐Story Buildings Taller Than 30 Feet and in Residential
DistrictsNeighborhoods. Allow construction of multiple‐story buildingsbuildings taller
than 30 feet in Neighborhoods only if the buildings abut an arterial or major collector or
if allowed by State law. it is found that nearby residential districts will not suffer from
privacy intrusion or be overwhelmed by the scale of a building or group of buildings.
POLICY LU‐3.5: LIGHT POLLUTION
Reduce light pollution and other adverse effects associated with night lighting from
streets and urban uses.
STRATEGIES:
LU‐3.5.1: Dark Sky Ordinance. Maintain Glass and Lighting Standards in the City’s
Municipal Code and require new development and other applicable projects to comply
with the adopted ordinance standards, which provide Dark Sky regulations to reduce
light pollution.
POLICY LU‐3.6: BIRD SAFETY
Enhance bird safety and reduce bird mortality from windows, other glass features, and
certain lighting elements that are known to increase the risk of bird collisions.
STRATEGIES:
LU‐3.6.2: Bird Safe Design Ordinance. Maintain Glass and Lighting Standards in the
City’s Municipal Code and require new development and other applicable projects to
comply with the adopted ordinance standards, which provide Bird Safe Design
regulations to reduce the potential risk of bird collisions.
GOAL LU‐4
Promote the unique character of planning areas and the goals for community character,
connectivity, and complete streets in streetscape design.
POLICY LU‐4.1: STREET AND SIDEWALKS
Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian and bicycle amenities are
consistent with the vision for each Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.
STRATEGIES:
LU‐4.1.1. Streetscape Improvements. Retain, and require implementation of sidewalk
and streetscape design standards established in any approved Specific Plan, Concept
Plan, Zoning, or other area plans.
GOAL LU‐8
Maintain a fiscally sustainable city government that preserves and enhances the quality
of life for its residents, workers, and visitors.
POLICY LU‐8.3: INCENTIVES FOR REINVESTMENT
Provide incentives for reinvestment in existing, older commercial areas.
STRATEGIES:
LU‐8.3.3. Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements. Consider Improve
infrastructure and streetscape improvements in areas, such as the Crossroads or South
Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a pedestrian‐oriented area that meets
community design goals.
GOAL LU‐12
Preserve and protect the City’s hillside natural habitat and aesthetic values.
POLICY LU‐12.5: DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY JURISDICTION
Development in the County, particularly if located near Cupertino’s hillsides and urban
fringe area, should consider the goals and policies in Community Vision 2040.
STRATEGIES:
LU‐12.5.1. County Development. Require Ddevelopment in these areas should be
compatibleto comply with Cupertino’s hillside policies of low‐intensity residential,
agricultural or open space uses, and to preserve. Preservation of the natural environment
through, clustering development sites to minimize impact and dedication of open space
are encouraged. Visual impacts, access, traffic and other impacts, and service demands
should shall be assessed in consultation with Cupertino’s goals and policies.
PLANNING AREA GOALS AND POLICIES
As outlined in the Planning Areas chapter, Community Vision 2040 organizes the city
into 21 distinct Planning Areas, divided into two categories: (1) Special Areas that are
expected to transition over the life of the General Plan and (2) Neighborhoods where
future changes are expected to be minimal. The following goals, policies, and strategies
are specific to the Planning Areas and provide guidance for future change in accordance
with the community vision. Figure LU‐2 shows maximum heights and residential
densities allowed in each Special Area. Certain sites may be allowed a different maximum
height or maximum, and minimum, density as identified in Resolution 24‐XXXX.
GOAL LU‐16
Maintain a mixed‐use and civic district that will enhance community identity and
activity, and support the crossroads subarea.
POLICY LU‐16.1: CITY CENTER NODE.
Establish Maintain the City Center Node as a moderately‐scaled, medium‐density mixed‐
use office, hotel, retail and residential area, with an integrated network of streets and
open space.
GOAL LU‐19
Create a distinct and memorable mixed‐use ʺtown centerʺ that is a regional destination
and a focal point for the community.
POLICY LU‐19.1: ALLOWED LAND USES
The following uses are allowed in the Vallco Shopping District Special Area (see Figure
LU‐2 for residential densities and criteria and Figure LU‐4 for location of allowable land
uses):
1. Residential: Permit residential and ground floor commercial development within the
portion of the site designated for Regional Shopping/Residential uses in advance of
creating a specific plan, at a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre and a
minimum density of 29.7 dwelling units per acre by right, with maximum heights as
shown in Figure LU‐2. Limited ground floor commercial uses are permitted, but not
required, in connection with residential development in the Regional
Shopping/Residential portion of the Special Area. Residential uses are permitted within
the portion of the sites designated for Residential – High/Very High Density uses, at a
maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre and a minimum density of 50.01 dwelling
units per acre, with a maximum height of 70 feet.
Figure LU‐4: Vallco Shopping District Allowable Uses
Edits at end of Exhibit GPA‐1.1
GOAL LU‐20
Support a sustainable campus‐like environment that is served by a mix of pedestrian‐
oriented retail and commercial uses in a walkable and bikeable environment.
POLICY LU‐20.2. STREETSCAPE AND CONNECTIVITY.
Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road, Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue
should shall be coordinated with planned improvements to improve pedestrian, bike and
transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian environment
with street trees, attractive bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should shall
continue to provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street. Future improvements
to the Wolfe Road bridge should be coordinated to preserve the vision for this area.
GOAL LU‐25
Retain and enhance Monta Vista Villageʹs small townvillage‐like character as a pedestrian
oriented, small scale, mixed‐use residential, neighborhood commercial and industrial
area.
POLICY LU‐ 25.2. LAND USE.
Encourage Require the commercial district to serve as a neighborhood commercial center
for Monta Vista Village and its adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed‐use with residential is
encouraged. The industrial area should be retained to provide small‐scale light industrial
and service industrial opportunities, while remaining compatible with the surrounding
residential and commercial uses. See General Plan Figure LU‐ 2 for residential densities
and criteria.
GOAL LU‐26
Retain commercial areas adjacent to neighborhoods and retrofit or encourage
redevelopment as neighborhood centers in a pedestrian‐oriented and bike‐friendly
environment.
POLICY LU‐26.2: BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN (FOR OTHER NON‐
RESIDENTIAL/MIXED‐USE SPECIAL AREAS)
Encourage Require buildings to be designed in a pedestrian‐oriented format. Buildings
should shall be located along the street with pedestrian‐scale architecture and retail and
active uses on the ground floor. Parking should shall be located to the sides or rear of
buildings. Buildings may be one to two stories in height. In some instances where taller
hHeights are as allowed, buildings may be three stories in height, unless otherwise
specified by Figure LU‐2 and/or the Land Use Map, with one to two story heights
preferred closest to lower density residential uses.
GOAL LU‐27
Preserve neighborhood character and enhance connectivity to nearby services to create
complete neighborhoods.
POLICY LU‐27.6: MULTI‐FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Maintain an attractive, livable environment for multi‐family dwellings.
LU‐27.6.2: Ordinance Updates. Update the Planned Development (residential) and R‐3
ordinances to achieve the policies and strategies applicable to multi‐family development
in neighborhoods.
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
eee
io
n
io
nononnnnnnonononon
iioiiiiti
o
iti
otiiitiiti
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
sitsittiotioonnon
tio
280
280
280
85
85
SARATOGA
SUNNYVALE
SANTA CLARA
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
Maximum Residential Density
20 units per acre
Bubb Road Special Area
Maximum Height
45 feet
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
Regional Shopping/Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre in areas
identified in Figure LU-4
Minimum Residential Density
29.7 units per acre in areas
identified in Figure LU-4
Maximum Height*
Up to 60 feet
Regional Shopping
Maximum Residential Density
N/A - residential is not a
permitted use
Maximum Height*
Up to 60 feet
Residential – High/Very High
Maximum Residential Density*
65 units per acre in areas
Maximum Height*
Up to 70 feet
Homestead Special Area
Maximum Residential Density*
15 units per acre (two parcels at
southeast corner of Homestead
Road and Blaney Avenue)
All other areas - Maximum density
as indicated in the General Plan
Land Use Map or 35 units per acre
where none indicated.
Maximum Height*
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side
between De Anza and Stelling)
North Vallco Park Special Area
Maximum Residential Density*
25 units per acre, or as indicated
in North Vallco Gateway
Maximum Height*
60 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
South Vallco - 35 units per acre
All other areas - Maximum density
as indicated in each subarea the
Heart of the City Land Use Map and,
if none indicated, 25 units per acre
Heart of the City Special Area
Maximum Height*
45 feet, or 30 feet where
designated by hatched line
Maximum Residential Density*
Maximumdensityis25 units per acre
North De Anza Special Area
Maximum Height*
45 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
North of Bollinger Rd. - maximum
density is 25 units per acre
South of HWY 85 - maximum
residential is 5-15 units per acre
South De Anza Special Area
Maximum Height*
30 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
Maximum density as indicated in
the General Plan Land Use Map, and
if none indicated,15 units per acre
Monta Vista Village Special Area
Maximum Height*
30 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
Maximum density as indicated in
the General Plan Land Use Map; 15
units per acre for Neighborhood
Commercial Centers
Neighborhoods
Maximum Height*
30 feet
North De Anza Gateway
Maximum Residential Density*
35 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet
Hotel Development for APN 326-10-061:
Maximum Height
85 feet (The City will reconsider this height limit if building
permits for the hotel project approved on March 3, 2020 are not
issed by March 3, 2025.)
Stelling Gateway
West of Stelling Road:
Maximum Residential Density*
15 units per acre (southwest
corner of Homestead and
Stelling Roads) and 35 units
per acre (northwest corner of
I-280 and Stelling Road)
Maximum Height*
30 feet
East of Stelling Road:
Maximum Residential Density*
35 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet
Oaks Gateway
Maximum Residential Density
3025 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Maximum Residential Density*
25 units per acre, except 35 units
per acre for APN 326 34 066
Maximum Height*
45 feet
South Vallco Park
Maximum Residential Density*
35 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet, or 60 feet with retail
North Vallco Gateway
West of Wolfe Road:
Maximum Residential Density*
25 units per acre
Maximum Height*
60 feet
East of Wolfe Road:
Maximum Residential Density*
825 units per acre
Maximum Height*
75 feet (buildings located within 50 feet of the property lines
abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple Campus 2
site shall not exceed 60 feet)
City Center Node
Maximum Residential Density*
25 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet or as previously approved with past
height exceptions for existing taller
buildings
*Density and Height: Unless a different minimum and maximum density and/or height is established through Resolution
24-XXXX. The Vallco Shopping District Special Area shall be subject to the heights and densities shown above, with
residential uses permitted in the Regional Shopping/Residential designation and Residential High/Very High Density
designation as shown in Figure LU-4.
Building Planes (does not apply to housing development projects on sites listed in Resolution 24-XXXX):
• Maintain the building below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial/boulevard curb line or lines except for the
Crossroads Area.
• For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.
• For projects outside of the Vallco Shopping District Special Area that are adjacent to residential areas: Where slope lines
or other applicable height and setback limits for projects adjacent to residential areas are not established in a specific
plan, conceptual zoning plan or land use plan and in any adopted design guidelines, project review shall be required.
• For projects within the Vallco Shopping District Special Area that are adjacent to the North Blaney/Portal neighborhood:
Maintain the building below a 2:1 slope line drawn from the adjacent residential property line.
Legend
City Boundary
Special Areas
Homestead
North Vallco Park
Vallco Shopping District
North De Anza
South De Anza
Bubb Road
Monta Vista Village
Avenues (Major Collectors)
Boulevards (Arterials)
Key Intersections
Neighborhood Centers
Heart of the City Hillside Transition
Urban Service Area
Sphere of Influence
Urban Transition
Avenues (Minor Collectors)
Neighborhoods
Neighborhoods
• For the North and South Vallco Park areas: Maintain the building below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for
every 1 foot of building height) slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Homestead Road curb
lines and below 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue curb line.
• Parcel APN 326-10-061 within the N. De Anza Gateway: For hotel development, maintain the building below
the variable slope lines as shown in Figure LU-5. For all other developments, the 1:1 slope line shall be
maintained.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated
height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets.
Priority Housing Sites: Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above, the maximum heights and
densities for Priority Housing Sites identified in the adopted Housing Element other than the Vallco
Shopping District Special Area shall be as reflected in the Housing Element. The Vallco Shopping District
Special Area shall be subject to the heights and densities shown above, with residential uses permitted in
the Regional Shopping/Residential designation as shown in Figure LU-4.
Figure LU-2
COMMUNITY FORM DIAGRAM
13.1 ACRES
LEGEND
WO
L
F
E
R
D
Regional Shopping
Regional Shopping/Residential
High/Very High Density
50.01-65 Units per Acre
Figure LU-4: Vallco Shopping
District Allowable Land Uses
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING | cupertino community vision 2040
City of Cupertino
2023-2031 Housing Element
Adoption Draft
May 2024
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. HE-1
Role and Content of the Housing Element ................................................................................. HE-1
California’s Housing Crisis .......................................................................................................... HE-2
Summary of Key Facts ............................................................................................................... HE-2
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ......................................................................................... HE-4
Regional Housing Needs Allocation ........................................................................................... HE-5
2. Goals, Policies, and Strategies ............................................................................... HE-9
Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................................... HE-55
Tables
Table H-1 Regional Housing Need Allocation - Cupertino ............................................... HE-5
Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary ....................................................................... HE-55
H‐1
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (herein after “City”) is a community with a high quality of life, a renowned
school system, and a robust high-technology economy. The long-term vitality of the City and the local
economy depend upon the availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing
needs. As Cupertino looks towards the future, increasing the range and diversity of housing options
will be integral to the City’s success. Consistent with the goal of being a balanced community, this
Housing Element continues the City’s commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential
development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our existing neighborhoods.
This 2023-2031 Housing Element represents the City of Cupertino's intent to plan for the housing
needs of the Cupertino community while meeting the State's housing goals as set forth in Article 10.6
of the California Government Code. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of
a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian as the State's major housing
goal. The Cupertino Housing Element represents a sincere and creative effort to meet local and
regional housing needs within the constraints of being a fully established built-out community with
limited land availability and extraordinarily high costs of land and housing.
ROLE AND CONTENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
This Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan to address the housing needs in Cupertino.
The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population.
Per State Housing Element law, the document must be periodically updated to:
Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional
growth projections;
Describe goals, policies and implementation strategies to achieve local housing objectives;
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations;
Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production;
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements; and
Evaluate Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
This 6th Cycle Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period, from January 31, 2023 through
January 31, 2031 and replaces the City's 5th Cycle Housing Element that covered January 31, 2015
through January 31, 2023 planning period.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐2
CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING CRISIS
The 6th Cycle Housing Element update comes at a critical time because California is experiencing a
housing crisis, and as is the case for all jurisdictions in California, Cupertino must play its part in
meeting the growing demand for housing. In the coming 20-year period, Santa Clara County is
projected to add 169,450 jobs,1 which represents a 15 percent increase. These changes will increase
demand for housing across all income levels, and if the region can’t identify ways to significantly
increase housing production, it risks worsening the burden for existing lower-income households,
many of whom don’t have the luxury or skill set to move to new a job center but that are nonetheless
faced with unsustainable increases in housing cost.
If the region becomes less competitive in attracting high-skilled workers and increasingly unaffordable
to lower-income workers and seniors, then social and economic segregation will worsen, only
exacerbating historic patterns of housing discrimination, racial bias, and segregation. This potentiality
has become so acute in recent years that the California Legislature addressed the issue with new
legislation in 2018. SB 686 requires all state and local agencies to explicitly address, combat, and relieve
disparities resulting from past patterns of housing segregation to foster more inclusive communities.
This is commonly referred to as Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing, or AFFH.
Cupertino has had modest success in meeting its housing needs. During the 2015–2023 planning
period, Cupertino added 546 new units to its housing stock, achieving approximately 51 percent of
the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which called for the construction of 1,064
housing units. Of the units built, approximately 41 percent (225 units) were affordable to lower- and
moderate-income households,2 and 59 percent were affordable to above moderate-income
households.
SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
Cupertino is renowned as a center of innovation in Silicon Valley that far surpasses its moderate size.
Around the world, Cupertino is famous as the home of high-tech giant Apple Inc. In the San Francisco
Bay Area, Cupertino is known as one of the founding cities of Silicon Valley and as a city with excellent
public schools. Quality schools and closeness to technology jobs make Cupertino a desirable address
for a highly educated and culturally diverse population. The following is a summary of key
demographic and economic facts about Cupertino:
POPULATION
Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and
because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Cupertino
increased by 17.7 percent from 2000 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the Bay Area,
primarily due to annexations of large portions of County unincorporated areas;
1 Source: Plan Bay Area, Projections 2040. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, November 2018.
2 Source: City of Cupertino post construction surveys.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐3
Population growth in Cupertino began leveling off in 2014, with the county and regional
growth index rates increasing, albeit slowly, while Cupertino’s growth has stagnated;
Cupertino has a higher Asian population compared to the county (68 percent of residents
identify as Asian). The City’s residents have grown less racially diverse since 2000 with the
Asian population increasing by 22 percentage points.
EMPLOYMENT
Cupertino residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional Services industry.
From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Cupertino decreased by 5.0
percentage points. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction
increased by 19,322 (59.1 percent).
HOUSEHOLDS
Most households in Cupertino earn more than 100 percent of the regional Area Median Income
(AMI), and this is true across most racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic and non-Hispanic White
households have the most income diversity.
Poverty rates highlight the disparity in income and opportunities by race, with the Hispanic
(16.7 percent) and Black/African American (16.9 percent) populations experiencing
disproportionately higher poverty rates. No other group is above 7 percent.
The City is home to very high performing schools. According to educational opportunity
indices, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive
educational outcomes.
HOUSING STOCK
Close to 550 residential permits were issued between 2015 and 2022. Jobs have grown
significantly since 2004, with nearly all of the growth due to a boost in manufacturing and
wholesale jobs (likely technology related jobs), which increased by 19,322 since 2010. At two
jobs per household, housing these new workers would have required construction of more
than 9,000 housing units. Cupertino’s jobs to household ratio is 2.60—higher than Santa Clara
County overall (1.71) or the Bay Area (1.47).
Access to Cupertino is limited by housing pricing and supply. Eighty-three percent (83 percent)
of houses in the area are valued over $1 million. Zillow reports an average market value of
$2.25 million, significantly above the county’s and Bay area’s market values. Fifty-seven percent
(57 percent) of Cupertino’s housing units are single family units. The next closest share is
multifamily at 21 percent of units, followed by 12 percent attached units and 10 percent
du/tri/fourplexes. While owners mostly occupy 3- to 4-bedroom homes (72 percent), 68
percent of renters occupy 1- or 2-bedroom units.
Renters, who make up 40 percent of all households in the City, are facing the same cost
pressures as owners with 87 percent of units renting for more than $2,000 per month, and 52
percent renting for $3,000 and more. Just 14 percent of the City’s rental units rent for $2,000
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐4
per month and less. The County has almost three times the proportion of rentals priced under
$2,000 than the City.
Regionally, mortgage denial rates are modest (14 percent to 17 percent of loans denied) and
vary little across races and ethnicities except for Black/African American applicants, who are
more frequently denied.
OVERPAYMENT
There are disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity—and minimally
by tenure (renters/owners). Hispanic households experience by far the highest rates of cost
burden in the City (43.8 percent) followed by Asian households at 28.1 percent, White
households at 26.6 percent, and Black/African American households at 11 percent. CHAS data
did not report any American Indian and Alaska Native households overpaying for housing.
Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the City’s very high costs of housing and lack
of production of sufficient affordable housing. Since 2015, while the City has not denied any
housing developments, housing for which building permits have been requested to
accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households (321
units or 58.8 percent of all units), followed by moderate income households (158 or 28.9
percent). Forty-eight (48) building permit applications were received and issued for low-
income units and 19 building permit applications were received and issued for very low-income
units, totaling 546 permits.
SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS
Cupertino has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities than the county. However,
unemployment among residents with disabilities is higher relative to those without a disability,
with 16 percent of Cupertino residents with a disability unemployed, compared to 3 percent of
residents without a disability.
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
In 2018, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), signed in 2018, established an independent state mandate to
AFFH. AB 686 extends requirements for federal grantees and contractors to “affirmatively further
fair housing,” including requirements in the federal Fair Housing Act, to public agencies in California.
Affirmatively furthering fair housing is defined specifically as taking meaningful actions that, taken
together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity by replacing
segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns; transforming racially and
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; and fostering and maintaining
compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.
AB 686 requires public agencies to:
Administer their programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a
manner to affirmatively further fair housing;
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐5
Not take any action that is materially inconsistent with the obligation to affirmatively further
fair housing;
Ensure that the program and actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing
Element affirmatively further fair housing; and
Include an assessment of fair housing in the Housing Element.
The AFFH requirement AFFH is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited
discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion,
national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability. The 2015 U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to
address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. AB 686 requires that
jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community
participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development
of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government
(in this case, ABAG), and local governments must collectively determine each locality’s share of
regional housing need allocation (RHNA). In conjunction with the State mandated housing element
update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their elements by January 31, 2023, ABAG
has determined housing unit production needs for each jurisdiction within the Bay Area. These
allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from January 31, 2023
through January 31, 2031 (Table H-1).
Table H-1 Regional Housing Need Allocation - Cupertino
Income Group Unit Allocation Percent
Very Low Income (<50% of AMI) 1,193 26.0%
Low Income (50%-80% of AMI) 687 15.0%
Moderate Income (80%-120% of AMI) 755 16.5%
Above Mod. Income (>120% of AMI) 1,953 42.6%
Total 4,588 100.0%
SOURCE: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Final Methodology, 2021
*It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low- income category (596 units) is allocated to the extremely low-income category.
AMI = Area Median Income
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐6
OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that a sufficient supply of land exists in
the City to accommodate the fair share of the region’s housing needs during the Housing Element
planning period (January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031). The Government Code requires that the
Housing Element include an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant
sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment” ((Section 65583[a][3]). It further requires that
the Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible
during the planning period.
Figure HE-1 indicates the potential opportunity sites to meet the identified regional housing need
pursuant. More detailed maps are available in Appendix B4.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐7
Figure HE-1 Priority Housing Sites Map
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
Note: Maps reflect the current parcel boundaries rather than the developable area assumed for redevelopment.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐8
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐9
2. GOALS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES
The City is responsible for enabling the production of housing by reducing regulatory barriers,
providing incentives, and supporting programs that create or preserve housing, especially for
vulnerable populations. To enable the construction of quality housing, the City has identified the
following goals:
Goal HE-1: An adequate supply of residential units for all economic segments;
Goal HE-2: Housing is affordable for a diversity of Cupertino households;
Goal HE-3: Stable and physically sound residential neighborhoods;
Goal HE-4: Energy and water conservation;
Goal HE-5: Special services for lower-income and special-needs households;
Goal HE-6: Equal access to housing opportunities; and
Goal HE-7: Coordination with regional organizations, local school districts, and colleges.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐10
GOAL HE-1 AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR ALL
ECONOMIC SEGMENTS
Policies
Policy HE-1.1 Provision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Need. Designate
sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertino’s Regional
Housing Needs Allocation of 4,588 units for the 2023-2031 planning period.
(Formerly Policy HE-1.1)
Policy HE-1.2 Housing Densities. Provide a full range of densities for ownership and rental
housing.
(Formerly Policy HE-1.2)
Policy HE-1.3 Mixed-Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near
transportation facilities and employment centers.
(Formerly Policy HE-1.3)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐11
Strategies
Strategy HE-1.3.1 Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions. To accommodate the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will continue to:
Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA while maintaining a balanced land
use plan that offers opportunities for employment growth,
commercial/retail activities, services, and amenities.
Amend development standards for housing as required to provide
objective standards that are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range
of housing in the community.
Monitor the sites inventory and make it available on the City’s website.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe:Ongoing;
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: 4,588 units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687 low-, 755
moderate-, and 1,953 above moderate-income units). Prioritize
projects for lower-income households in areas with high rates of
housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side, and areas with
high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney
neighborhood, and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become
available. Additionally, target development for lower-income
households in high-opportunity areas, such as the Rancho
Rinconada and Oak Valley neighborhoods, as well as lower-
density neighborhoods, as sites become available. (Formerly HE-
1.3.1)
Strategy HE-1.3.2 Rezoning to Achieve RHNA. To ensure that the City has sufficient sites
zoned appropriately to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), rezone sites listed in Table B4-7 and B4-9 (Appendix B4). The
rezone will include 33.52 acres of residential land that will allow for a realistic
capacity of 1,855 units, and 32.67 acres of commercial/residential land that
will allow for a realistic capacity of 1,727 units.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐12
The City will ensure compliance with Government Code Sections 65583 (c)(1)
and 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i), as listed below.
Permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right and not
require a conditional use permit or other discretionary review or approval
for developments in which 20 percent or more of the total units are
affordable to lower-income households.
Ensure that each site can accommodate at least 16 units per site and require
that all residential development achieve a minimum density of 20 dwelling
units per acre on sites designated for lower income housing.
Ensure (a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and very low-income
regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for
exclusively residential uses, or (b) if accommodating more than 50 percent
of the low- and very low-income regional housing need on sites designated
for mixed uses, all sites designated for mixed uses must allow 100 percent
residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of
the floor area in a mixed-use project.
Ensure sites will be available for development during the planning period
where water and sewer can be provided.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Complete rezoning concurrently with adoption of the Housing
Element.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Create opportunity for 4,588 units, including 1,880 units for
lower-income households that will be within close proximity to
services, employment opportunities, frequent transit and other
resources in high-opportunity areas, such as in the Heart of the
City Special Area.
Strategy HE-1.3.3 New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations. To
ensure the City can meet the RHNA, the following actions will be taken:
Zoning. Create a new R4 Zoning District that will align with the two new
General Plan Land Use designations, High/Very High Density allowing 50.01
to 65 units per acre, and Very High Density allowing 65.01 to 80 units per acre.
The City will create development standards that will allow the maximum
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐13
density of this district to be achieved. This will include increased height limits
to allow at least three stories, reduced setbacks, reduced lot coverage, and
reduced parking requirements.
General Plan Land Use Designations. Create two new General Plan Land
Use Designations – High/Very High Density, which will allow for 50.01–65
units per acre, and Very High Density, which will allow for 65.01–80 units per
acre. The City will also revise the Commercial/Residential designation to
identify different densities at which residential development could occur on
property zoned for Residential mixed uses for clarity, and allow 100 percent
residential on sites with a General Plan Land Use designation of
Commercial/Residential, if the project is affordable.
Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Create new R4 Zoning District and General Plan Land Use
designations and development standards concurrently with adoption of
the Housing Element.
Funding Sources: General Fund
Quantified Objective: Create opportunity for 600 units, including 300 units for lower-
income households that will be within close proximity to services and
other resources in high-opportunity areas. Prioritize projects for lower-
income households in areas with high rates of housing cost burden,
such as the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement,
such as the South De Anza Special Area, Homestead Special Area,
Heart of the City Special Area, and in the South Blaney
neighborhood, and, if sites become available, in the Garden Gate and
Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods.
Strategy HE-1.3.4 Development on Nonvacant Sites. Establish an outreach and coordination
program to connect developers, builders, and owners of nonvacant sites. The
program shall:
a. Emphasize reaching out to owners of nonvacant sites to discuss any
interest in redeveloping and available incentives.
b. Market and advertise these sites to the development community along with
any incentives that might be available.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐14
c. Establish biennial meetings with developers and builders to discuss
development opportunities.
If no projects are proposed on non-vacant sites within the first half of Housing
Element planning period, the City will provide additional incentives, which will
include, but are not limited to:
a. Priority project processing
b. Waive development impact or delay permit fees for affordable units
c. Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and
landscaping requirements
d. Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for
infrastructure upgrades.
e. Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with
securing additional financing.
Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Initiate by June 2024 and maintain throughout planning period on a
biennial basis.
Funding Source: None required.
Quantified Objective: Engage with three property owners of high-potential nonvacant
sites each year. Create opportunity for 500 units, including 300 units
for lower-income households that will be within close proximity to
services, frequent transit and other resources in high-opportunity areas.
Prioritize sites in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as
the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement, such as
the South Blaney neighborhood, and, if sites become available, in the
Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods and other lower-
density neighborhoods. Additionally, target sites with high unit
potential, such as sites in the De Anza Boulevard corridor and the
sites with the highest allowable densities. If no projects are proposed on
non-vacant sites within the first half of the Housing Element planning
period, the City will adopt additional incentives as described above
beginning in the third year.
Strategy HE-1.3.5 Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones.
The City will incentivize development of residential units in mixed-use projects
that include affordable units (at least 20 percent), by providing incentives,
which will include, but are not limited to:
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐15
Priority project processing
Delay payment of development impact or permit fees for affordable units
Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and
landscaping requirements
Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for
infrastructure upgrades.
Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with
securing additional financing.
Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Annually reach out to developers to inform them of the available
incentives and obtain feedback by December 2025 on the provided
incentives, review annually and amend as needed. Offer alternative
incentives within six months of receiving feedback.
Funding Source: None required.
Quantified Objective: 150 extremely low-income units, 150 very low-income units, and
300 low-income units. Prioritize projects for lower-income
households in areas with close proximity to job opportunities, such
as the Heart of the City Special area; areas with high rates of
housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in the
proximity of the Homestead Special Area); and areas with high
risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood and
the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available.
Strategy HE-1.3.6 Encourage Missing-Middle Housing Developments to Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing. The City will encourage the development of missing-
middle housing types that are affordable by design that can provide
opportunities for housing that can accommodate the needs, preferences, and
financial capabilities of current and future residents in terms of different
housing types, tenures, density, sizes, and costs.
Missing middle housing is typically multiple rental units on a single parcel
(whether attached or detached) that are compatible in scale and form with
traditional single-family homes with one- or two- story forms. Examples
include duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments. Allowing the development
of units in this form will help the incorporation of rental housing within the
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐16
existing, primarily single-family ownership units within neighborhoods. The
City will accomplish this by:
Allowing corner lots in R1 zoning districts to develop as multi-family rental
housing using R23 zoning regulations to encourage missing-middle
developments.
Allowing lots zoned for single-family residential uses that abut (either
shares a property line or is directly across the street from) property that
fronts an arterial or major collector and is zoned and used for commercial
or mixed-use development, to develop with rental multi-family housing
using R23 zoning regulations to encourage missing middle housing.
Pursuing the establishment of maximum average unit size as a tool to
moderate unit sizes for such developments.
The City will promote the missing middle strategy through City publications
and online newsletters, and via the City’s website
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Complete zoning code changes by December 2025, outreach at
least twice in the planning period, and track annual planning
applications received.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 250 lower- and 250 moderate-
income households, prioritizing projects in areas with high levels of
renter overpayment, including the Creston-Pharlap and South
Blaney neighborhoods and lower-density neighborhoods.
Strategy HE-1.3.7 Lot Consolidation. The City will help facilitate lot consolidations to combine
small residential lots (lots 0.5 acres or smaller) into larger developable lots. The
City will continue the following actions to accomplish this:
Facilitate and approve lot consolidation when contiguous smaller,
underutilized parcels are to be redeveloped.
Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated access and
circulation.
Provide technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to
facilitate coordinated redevelopment where appropriate.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐17
Facilitate intra- and interagency cooperation in working with applicants at
no cost prior to application submittal for assistance with preliminary plan
review.
Provide information on the City’s website about development
opportunities and incentives for lot consolidation to accommodate
affordable housing units and discuss these opportunities and incentives
with interested developers. As developers/owners interested in lot
consolidation and the development of affordable housing projects on
small lots approach the City, the City will offer the following incentives:
o Allow affordable projects to exceed the maximum height limits,
o Reduce setbacks,
o Reduce parking requirements, and/or
o Offset fees (when financially feasible) and offer concurrent/fast
tracking of project application reviews to developers who provide 100
percent affordable housing.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Identify incentives by December2025, offer incentives by June
2026. Ongoing thereafter, as projects are processed through the
Planning Department. Annually meet with local developers to
discuss development opportunities and incentives for lot
consolidation.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: 27 moderate-income units, and 48 above moderate-income units.
Prioritize projects for lower-income households in areas with high
rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and
in proximity of the Homestead Special Area), and areas with
high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney
neighborhood and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become
available. Additionally, target development for lower-income
households in high-opportunity areas, such as the Homestead,
Heart of the City Special Area, South De Anza Special Area,
and North and South Monta Vista Village neighborhoods, as
well as other lower-density neighborhoods.
(Formerly HE-1.3.3)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐18
Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units. The City will encourage the construction of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) throughout the city through the following
actions, which are aimed at providing an increased supply of units affordable
to very low, low, and moderate-income households and therefore provide
affordable housing in high opportunity neighborhoods and help reduce
displacement risk for low-income households resulting from overpayment:
Amend the municipal code to be consistent with the latest State legislation
related to ADUs, in accordance with California Government Code
Sections 65852.2 et seq.
Continue to provide guidance and educational materials for building
ADUs on the City’s website, including permitting procedures.
Additionally, the City will biennially present homeowner associations with
information about the community and neighborhood benefits of ADUs,
and inform them that covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs)
prohibiting ADUs are contrary to State law.
To increase mobility for lower income households, proactively advertise
the benefits of ADUs by distributing multilingual informational materials
in areas of high opportunity and a limited number of renter households,
including the Monta Vista North and Oak Valley neighborhoods, to
increase mobility for low-income households by posting flyers in
community gathering places and providing information to community
groups and homeowners’ associations at least annually.
Continue to offer the pre-approved ADU program and post links to
approved plans as available.
Annually monitor ADU production and affordability as a part of the
Annual Progress Report process and adjust or expand the focus of the
education and outreach efforts.
Apply annually, if grants are available, for funding to provide incentives,
for homeowners to construct ADUs affordable to very low, low, and
moderate-income tenants.
Permit up to a maximum of three, 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs,
JADUs, or conversion ADUs on all single family zoned properties and a
maximum of up to two 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs or
conversion ADUs on all duplex zoned properties, which is in excess of the
number of ADUs allowed under state law.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐19
Identify incentives for construction of affordable ADUs with new
development, which may include deferring collection of impact fees for
the square footage associated with the ADU until issuance of the certificate
of occupancy.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
and Housing Divisions.
Timeframe: Amend the municipal code by June 2024 and update ADU
materials available by June 2024. Allow ADUs ongoing beyond
State law requirements, Present proposed code amendment within
six months of Housing Element adoption. Identify incentives by
June 2025, and apply annually for funding to support ADU
incentives. Evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals annually,
starting April 2024, and identify additional incentives within
one year if ADU targets are not being met.
Funding Sources: Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund
Objectives: 60 ADUs to improve housing mobility and improve proximity
to services and employment opportunities for lower- and moderate-
income households, with targeted outreach in high-opportunity
areas with high rates of renter overpayment, such as the Rancho
Rinconada neighborhood, and areas in close proximity to jobs,
such as the North Blaney and Garden Gate neighborhoods, as
well as lower-density neighborhoods. (40 ADUs are assumed to
address the displacement risk).
(Formerly HE-1.3.2)
Strategy HE-1.3.9 Review Development Standards. The City recognizes the need to encourage
a range of housing options in the community. The City will review and revise
its zoning code to:
Review and revise design and development standards (setbacks, height
limits, lot coverage, etc.) and guidelines for multifamily housing,
specifically in the R4 Zone and the Priority Development Area (PDA) to
ensure standards are objective and that maximum densities can be
achieved.
Provide flexibility in development standards to accommodate new models
and approaches to providing housing, such as live/work housing to allow
housing to adapt to the needs of occupants.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐20
Offer flexible residential development standards in planned residential
zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, setbacks, and higher
floor-area ratios particularly for higher-density and attached housing
developments.
Consider granting reductions in off-street parking for senior housing.
Analyze local parking standards compared to those of neighboring
jurisdictions with similar characteristics and reduce parking standards to
ensure parking is not a constraint on development. Specifically, reduce
parking requirements for studio apartments, senior housing, and single-
room occupancy (SRO) units and others as required by the analysis.
Require implementation of universal design standards for new multifamily
development to provide disabled access. These standards would require
the adoption of features like at least one “no-step” entry point, interior and
exterior doors with 32 inches of clear passage, and one bathroom on the
main floor that is able to be maneuvered in a wheelchair. Encourage the
implementation of universal design standards for new single-family homes.
Remove the following bolded text from the major development permit
findings. The proposed housing developments and/or use, at the
proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Analyze parking standards by December 2025 and revise
standards by June 2025. Review and revise standards by June
2025; annually review objective design standards and amend as
needed.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Development of 150 units for lower-income households, 150
units for moderate-income households, and 500 for above-
moderate income households by revising development standards.
(Formerly HE-1.3.4)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐21
Strategy HE-1.3.10 Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options. Explore innovative
and alternative housing options that provide greater flexibility and affordability
in the housing stock that would address housing needs for intergenerational
households, students, special-needs groups, and lower-income households.
The City will implement the following:
Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract multigenerational
households by encouraging housing features and more bedrooms
(including four-bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as
usable outdoor open space for multigenerational use to promote place-
based revitalization, and multipurpose rooms that can be used for after-
school homework clubs, computer, art, or other resident activities.
Facilitate at least one partnership with social service organizations to
provide programming in community spaces within a 100 percent
affordable project during the planning period.
Research the possibility of a Home Sharing program that would help to
match “providers” with a spare room or rooms with “seekers” who are
looking for an affordable place to live. This could either be done at a
countywide level or the City could consider partnering with De Anza
Community College to facilitate a home-sharing program to account for
the high number of empty rooms across Cupertino’s single-family home
supply. If the program is determined to be feasible, implement within one
year of feasibility determination. Priority outreach for program
implementation will focus on the city’s lower-density neighborhoods
including, but not limited to, Ranchonada, Fair Grove, Monta Vista North,
and Inspiration Heights.
The City will use the findings of this program to target development of a
variety of housing types in areas of concentrated overpayment to reduce
displacement risk as well as promote inclusion and support integration of
housing types based on income to facilitate mobility opportunities in high
resource areas and areas of high median income.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
and Housing Divisions
Timeframe: Explore innovative and alternative housing options to help
further housing production by December 2025, amend the
zoning code as needed by October 2024.
Funding: None required.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐22
Quantified Objective: 200 lower-income units to improve housing mobility and reduce
displacement risk, aiming for at least 50 in close proximity to
jobs, transit, open space, and other services and 50 integrated
into predominantly single-family, and higher-income areas, and
10 – 4 bedroom units.
Strategy HE-1.3.11 Replacement Housing. To facilitate place-based revitalization for
households at risk of displacement due to new development, the City will
require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government
Code, Sections 66300.5, 65583.2, and 65915(c)(3), on all sites in the City when
any new development (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a
site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-income
households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies
to nonvacant sites and vacant sites with previous residential uses that have
been vacated or demolished.
Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: The replacement requirement will be implemented immediately
and applied as applications on identified sites are received and
processed.
Funding Source: None required.
Quantified Objective: Replace any units identified in the sites inventory if:
(a) they are planned to be demolished or have been demolished
in the past 5 years, and
(b) they are ”protected units” as defined in the statutes. Ensure
that housing development projects create at least as many total
units as are planned to be demolished.
Strategy HE-1.3.12 Track Housing Production. The City will monitor housing production
throughout the planning period and ensure the Pipeline Projects (Table B4-
2) and sites identified to meet the RHNA (Tables B4-7 and B4-9,) maintain
sufficient housing capacity to meet the RHNA target by income level. The city
will not adopt reductions in allowable residential densities for Pipeline Projects
in the Appendix B4 through General Plan update/amendment or rezone or
approve development or building permits for sites identified in the inventory
with fewer units or affordable to a different income category than identified in
the inventory, unless findings are made that the remaining capacity is sufficient
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐23
to accommodate remaining unmet RHNA for each income level. The City will
track and report on:
Pipeline projects (Table B4-2) and progress towards completion;
Unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels in the sites
inventory (Tables B4-7 and B4-9);
Actual number of units permitted and constructed by
income/affordability;
Net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity by income level
in meeting remaining RHNA;
In accordance with No Net Loss law, if project approval results in the
remaining sites capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate RHNA by
income category, the City will identify or rezone sufficient sites to
accommodate the shortfall within 180 days of approval. Further, the City will
track progress of pending projects towards completion and if projects are not
assumed to be completed in the planning period, the City will evaluate whether
there are sufficient sites available to accommodate the RHNA. If sufficient
sites are not available, the City will take necessary actions (e.g., rezoning or
identify additional sites) to maintain adequate sites within one year. The results
of the tracking will be reported in the Housing Element Annual Progress
Report reported annually to the City Council and posted online for public
review.
Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Ongoing. If projects are approved on inventory sites with fewer
units or at a different income level than shown in the Housing
Element, make no net loss findings as required by Section
65863. If insufficient sites remain by income category, designate
additional sites within 180 days. Complete a mid-term
evaluation of the City’s pipeline projects to review progress
towards competition and if additional actions are necessary,
complete additional actions within one year.
Funding Source: None required.
Quantified Objective: Ensure sufficient capacity is maintained to accommodate the
RHNA.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐24
Strategy HE-1.3.13 Housing Element Monitoring and General Plan Consistency. As
required by State law, the City will review the status of Housing Element
programs annually. Annual review will cover consistency between the Housing
Element and the other General Plan Elements. As portions of the General
Plan are amended, the Housing Element will be reviewed and revised to ensure
that internal consistency is maintained.
Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Review and revise as elements are updated.
Funding Source: None required.
GOAL HE-2 HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE FOR A DIVERSITY OF
CUPERTINO HOUSEHOLDS
Policies
Policy HE-2.1 Housing Mitigation. Ensure that all new developments, including market-
rate residential developments, help mitigate project-related impacts on
affordable housing needs.
(Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
Policy HE-2.2 Range of Housing Types. Encourage the development of diverse housing
stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate-cost
housing) and affordability levels. Emphasize the provision of housing for
lower- and moderate-income households, including wage earners who provide
essential public services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public
safety employees, etc.). (Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
Policy HE-2.3 Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons with
Special Needs. Make every reasonable effort to disperse affordable units
throughout the community but not at the expense of undermining the
fundamental goal of providing affordable units. Ensure that the City’s
development standards accommodate housing needed by persons with special
needs.
(Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐25
Strategies
Strategy HE-2.3.1 Support Affordable Housing Development. Work with housing developers
to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income housing for special-
needs groups, including persons with physical and developmental disabilities,
female-headed households, large families, extremely low-income households,
and persons experiencing homelessness by creating partnerships, providing
incentives, and pursuing funding opportunities.
Prioritize projects that are in areas with currently low percentages of
renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration
of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North
neighborhood. Additionally, prioritize projects in areas with high rates of
housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of
the Homestead Special Area).
Support affordable housing development and give priority to permit
processing for projects providing 100 percent affordable housing for
special-needs groups throughout the city, including in areas that are
predominantly single-family residential. The target populations include
seniors; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities;
female-headed households; and persons experiencing homelessness to
reduce the displacement risk for these residents from their existing homes
and communities.
Promote the use of the density bonus ordinance, application process
streamlining, fee deferrals, and consider development fee exemption for
projects that are 100 percent affordable to encourage affordable housing,
with an emphasis on encouraging affordable housing in high-resource
areas and areas with limited rental opportunities currently.
Facilitate the approval process for land divisions, lot line adjustments,
and/or specific plans or master plans resulting in parcel sizes that enable
50 percent (of the total number of units) affordable housing development
and process fee deferrals related to the subdivision for 50 percent (of the
total number of units) affordable projects.
Work with public or private sponsors to identify candidate sites for new
construction of housing for special needs, including transitional and
supportive households, and take all actions necessary to expedite
processing of such projects.
Encourage residential development near transit routes, civic uses, social
services, grocery stores, parks, open space, and other health resources.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐26
Partner with nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers to
support their financing applications for State and federal grant programs,
tax-exempt bonds, and other programs that become available.
Pursue federal, State, and private funding for low- and moderate-income
housing by applying for State and federal monies for direct support of
lower-income housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for
development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
and Housing Divisions
Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects are processed by the City. Annually apply
for funding and engage with housing developers.
Funding: Where feasible, leverage State and federal financing, including
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, CHFA multifamily
housing assistance programs, HCD Multifamily Housing
Loans, CDBG funds, HOME funds, and other available
financing.
Quantified Objective: Create opportunity for 450 units for lower-income households
that will be within close proximity to services and other resources
in high-opportunity areas. Include development of 250 units
affordable to special-needs, lower-income households to reduce
displacement risk for these populations. Target 100 units in close
proximity to services and transit, and 100 in higher-income,
predominantly single-family neighborhoods to promote mobility
opportunities. Opportunity areas for targeting include the Monta
Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, target areas with high
rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and
in proximity of the Homestead Special Area)
Strategy HE-2.3.2 Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. The City will
continue to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program.
This program requires that developers of office, commercial, and industrial
space pay a mitigation fee, which will then be used to support affordable
housing in Cupertino. These mitigation fees are collected and deposited in the
City’s Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF).
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐27
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: With limited office and industrial development, facilitate
development of 20 units for very low- and low-income households.
(Formerly HE-2.3.1)
Strategy HE-2.3.3 Residential Housing Mitigation Program. The City will continue to
implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program to mitigate the need
for affordable housing created by new market-rate residential development.
This program applies to new residential development. Mitigation includes
either the payment of the “Housing Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below
Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of five or more for-sale units must
provide on-site BMR units. Projects of four units or fewer for-sale units can
either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers of
market-rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay
the Housing Mitigation fee to the BMR AHF. The BMR program specifies the
following:
Priority. To the extent permitted by law, priority for occupancy is given
to Cupertino residents, Cupertino full-time employees, and Cupertino
public service employees, as defined in Cupertino’s Residential Housing
Mitigation Manual.
For-Sale Residential Developments. Require 20 percent for-sale BMR
units in all residential developments where the units can be sold
individually (including single-family homes, common interest
developments, and condominium conversions) or allow rental BMR units.
Rental Residential Developments. Require 15 percent l very low- and
low-income BMR units in all rental residential developments.
Rental Alternative. Allow rental BMR units in for-sale residential
developments and allow developers of market-rate rental developments to
provide on-site rental BMR units, if the developer: (1) enters into an
agreement limiting rents in exchange for a financial contribution or a type
of assistance specified in density bonus law (which includes a variety of
regulatory relief); and (2) provides very low-income and low-income BMR
rental units.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐28
Affordable Prices and Rents. Continue to implement guidelines for
affordable sales prices and affordable rents for new affordable housing and
update the guidelines each year as new income guidelines are received.
Development of BMR Units Off Site. Allow developers to meet all or a
portion of their BMR or Housing Mitigation fee requirement by making
land available for the City or a nonprofit housing developer to construct
affordable housing or allow developers to construct the required BMR
units off site, in partnership with a nonprofit. The criteria for land donation
or off-site BMR units (or combination of the two options) will be
identified in the Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.
BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of
99 years; enforce the City’s first right of refusal for BMR units and other
means to ensure that BMR units remain affordable.
Monitor the affordable for-sale inventory by requiring BMR homeowners
to submit proof of occupancy, such as utility bills, mortgage loan
documentation, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax bills.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually monitor program to ensure that it is not acting as a
constraint on development. Conduct economic feasibility study if
it appears to be a constraint and make any required changes
within one years.
Funding Sources: BHR AHF
Objectives: 200 BMR units over eight years in areas with high rates of
housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in
proximity of the Homestead Special Area), and areas with high
risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood
and Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available.
(Formerly HE-2.3.2)
Strategy HE-2.3.4 Below-Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). The City’s
BMR AHF will continue to support affordable housing projects, strategies,
and services, including, but not limited to:
BMR Program Administration
Substantial rehabilitation
Land acquisition
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐29
Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of buildings for permanent affordability
New construction
Preserving “at-risk” BMR units
Rental operating subsidies
Down payment assistance
Direct gap financing
Fair housing
The City will target a portion of the BMR AHF to benefit extremely low-
income households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims
of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental
disabilities), to the extent that these target populations are found to be
consistent with the needs identified in the nexus study the City prepares to
identify the connection, or “nexus” between new developments and the need
for affordable housing. Additionally, development of housing for lower-
income households will be facilitated citywide, but priority will be given to
areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to
facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units,
including the Monta Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, priority will also
be given to areas with high rates of cost burden, such as the city’s north side
(in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing/annually publish requests for proposals (RFPs) to
solicit projects.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 50 units affordable to very low- and
low-income households.
(Formerly HE-2.3.3)
Strategy HE-2.3.5 Housing Resources. Cupertino residents and developers interested in
providing affordable housing in the city have access to a variety of resources
administered by other agencies. The City will continue to provide information
on housing resources and services offered by the County and other outside
agencies. These include, but are not limited to:
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐30
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) – Santa Clara County Housing and
Community Development Department.
First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and Developer Loans for Multifamily
Development - Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV).
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) - Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County (HASCC).
Affordable housing development - Santa Clara County HOME
Consortium.
The City will also continue to identify and pursue various affordable housing
resources available at the local, regional, state, and federal levels that could be
used to address housing needs in the community. Outreach on these programs
will be conducted citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with
historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the
Interstate (I-) 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway
85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (western edge
of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue, north of
Creekside Park.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Annually identify and pursue various housing resources and
inform residents and developers on available programs, update
website as funding is available.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Provide information about available programs to 50 households
each year, with targeted outreach to areas with historically higher
areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the I-280
corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85
and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard
(western edge of Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along
Miller Avenue, north of Creekside Park.
(Formerly HE-2.3.4)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐31
Strategy HE-2.3.6 Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-Based Housing. The City will
partner with local developers or organizations to purchase surplus properties,
infill lots, and other green fields within the city to use for the development of
affordable housing. Encourage mixed-use development (i.e., retail on ground
floor with residential on the upper levels) as a pull factor for individuals to live
in the new development as follows:
Work with local public agencies, school districts, and churches to identify
surplus properties or underutilized properties that have the potential for
residential development.
Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned by the City
or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and
accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city.
The City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit
developer interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’. The
City will publicize the inventory, post it on the website, make it available
to non-profit developers, and prioritize affordable housing on these sites
in accordance wit the Surplus Lands Act (Government Code sections
54220-54234).To create housing mobility opportunities for lower-income
households, conduct outreach to religious institutions to inform them of
their development rights under SB 4 and encourage housing proposals
within one year of Housing Element adoption. If no application for
housing on a religious institution/faith-based site is received within twelve
months after outreach is completed, the City will expand outreach efforts
to be conducted annually. This will include direct mailings to faith-based
sites highlighting successful affordable housing units on other faith-based
sites, as well as available City resources and programs to support such
projects if available. Additional outreach focus will be given to religious
institutions located in lower-density neighborhoods to promote housing
mobility in these areas.
Encourage long-term land leases of properties from churches, school
districts, and corporations for construction of affordable units.
Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other
employee groups on the surplus properties.
Research other jurisdictions’ housing programs for teachers for their
potential applicability in Cupertino.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
and Housing Divisions
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐32
Timeframe: Ongoing, Reach out to affordable housing developers biennially to
discuss opportunities. Review and update City-owned properties
list annually. Conduct initial outreach within one year of
Housing Element adoption and additional outreach as new
legislation is passed. If no applications for housing projects on
religious sites are received by December 2025, conduct outreach
annually.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 5 new affordable housing projects
on sites owned by religious institutions.
(Formerly HE-2.3.5)
Strategy HE-2.3.7 Incentives for Affordable Housing Development. The City will continue
to offer a range of incentives to facilitate the development of affordable
housing. These include:
Financial assistance through the City’s Below-Market Rate Affordable
Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds.
Partner with CDBG and/or support the funding application of qualified
affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable
housing funds, including HOME funds, Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.
Density bonus incentives (see Strategy HE-2.3.8).
Flexible development standards
Technical assistance.
Waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax.
Parking ordinance waivers.
Expedited permit processing.
Development of housing for lower-income households will be facilitated
citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with currently low percentages
of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of
ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood
Additionally, focus will be given to areas with high rates of housing cost
burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead
Special Area).
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐33
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually review incentives and include additional incentives as
needed to facilitate affordable housing development, annually
publish RFPs to solicit projects. If additional incentives are found
to be needed and feasible, implement within one year of
determination.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME, General Fund
Objectives: Facilitate development of 400 units available to very low-income
households and 250 units affordable to low-income households.
(Formerly HE-2.3.6)
Strategy HE-2.3.8 Density Bonus Ordinance. The City will continue to review and revise the
Zoning Code to be consistent with State density bonus law. Although most
housing developers are familiar with density bonus law and frequently request
bonuses, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions, the city will provide
available guidelines and other information to developers regarding the statute.
The City currently allows a 100% bonus for all affordable housing
developments.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Update ordinance to comply with state law by June 2025.
Annually review and revise ordinance as needed to comply with
State law. Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 200 units of housing affordable to
very low- income households and 300 units affordable to low-
income households. Ensure density bonus ordinance complies with
state law and target citywide. (Formerly HE-2.3.7)
Strategy HE-2.3.9 Review Impact Fees. To ensure that impact fees are not a constraint on the
development of housing, the City will:
Review and revise impact fees by researching surrounding jurisdictions to
determine other possible fee structures, grant funding opportunities and
similar funding sources, review of average persons per unit at higher
densities of development and will consider:
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐34
o Alternatives, such as privately owned, publicly accessible (POPA)
areas, or allowing parkland credit for pedestrian connections and trails.
o Incorporating priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals for
100 percent affordable projects, and modifying development
standards,
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Finance; City Manager’s Office,
Department of Community Development – Housing and
Planning Divisions
Timeframe: Review current fees by December 2025, revise based on research
outcome by June 2026.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Through revised fees or fee alternatives, facilitate the development
of 500 units affordable to lower-income households, 300 units
affordable to moderate-income households, and 500 units
affordable to above moderate-income households.
Strategy HE-2.3.10 Extremely Low-Income Housing
The City will continue to encourage the development of adequate housing to
meet the needs of extremely low-income households particularly for seniors,
victims of domestic violence, and persons with disabilities (including persons
with developmental disabilities), through a variety of actions. The development
of housing for extremely low-income households will be facilitated citywide,
but priority will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renter-
occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of
ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood.
Additionally, priority will be given to areas with high rates of housing cost
burden, such as the city’s north side.
Provide financing assistance using the Below-Market Rate Affordable
Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds.
Review available State and Federal NOFAs on an annual basis and support
funding applications for affordable housing projects as funding becomes
available.
Adopt a priority processing procedure for projects with extremely low-
income units within one year of Housing Element adoption.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐35
Grant reductions in off-street parking as required by density bonus law and
other state statutes.
Expand regulatory incentives for the development of units affordable to
extremely low-income households and housing for special-needs groups,
including persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities),
and individuals and families in need of emergency/transitional housing.
The City will work with developers and evaluate additional proposed
development standards reductions for projects that include housing for
extremely low-income households, and will present findings and proposed
code amendments to the Planning Commission and City Council for
adoption within nine months of identified findings.
Partner with and/or support the funding application of qualified
affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable
housing funds, including HOME funds, Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bond.
Amend the Zoning Code to define single-room occupancy (SRO) units
and allow them in the R4 zoning districts with a use permit, in compliance
with Government Code Section 65583(c)(1).
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Adopt zoning code amendments within 18 months after Housing
Element adoption. Ongoing, as projects are processed by the
Planning Division. By June 2025 outreach to organizations that
support extremely low-income residents to understand funding
needs, and review and prioritize local funding at least twice in the
planning period, and support expediting applications as they are
submitted. Annually coordinate to address and identify the needs
and inform developers of available funding and incentives. Present
findings and proposed code amendments for adoption within nine
months of identified findings.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME, LIHTC.
Objectives: Assist 250 extremely low-income households to reduce
overpayment and displacement risk for special-needs groups, as
identified in the program.
(Formerly HE-2.3.8)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐36
Strategy HE-2.3.11 Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. To increase
housing mobility opportunities and support persons with developmental
disabilities, the City will:
Provide referrals to the San Andreas Regional Center to inform families
with persons with developmental disabilities of the resources available to
them.
Continue to support the development of small group homes that serve
developmentally disabled adults; adopt a policy to establish priority
processing and offer fee waivers or deferrals within one year of Housing
Element adoption.
Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units
for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing
developments.
Encourage housing providers to pursue funding sources designated for
persons with special needs and disabilities and notify housing providers of
available funding opportunities as they become available. Offer technical
assistance to project developers on funding applications.
Encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable
housing developments for persons with disabilities, including persons with
developmental disabilities, to increase housing mobility opportunities and
pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and
disabilities.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; Meet with disability providers by December 2025 and
annually coordinate with regional offices and developers to pursue
housing opportunities and help facilitate the development of
housing for persons with disabilities. Adopt priority processing
and fee deferral/waiver policy within one year of Housing
Element adoption.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: 10 housing units for persons with disabilities to reduce
displacement risk. Prioritize areas with high risk for
displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood, and areas
with higher concentrations of residents with disabilities, such as
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐37
the Rancho Rinconada and Fairgrove neighborhoods, as sites
become available.
Strategy HE-2.3.12 Live/Work Units. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable
live/workspace units to reduce displacement of residents and employees,
specifically when replacing older strip mall type developments along busier
streets (e.g., S. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard) to preserve
the more urban and mixed-use character of the street. This would allow the
street frontage to remain commercial use while the residential portion of the
units would be located towards the rear of the site or in upper floors.
The City will also help to market the Homeownership Assistance Programs
offered by Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) in an effort to expand
affordable homeownership options.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Conduct outreach to commercial property owners by June 2025. .
Adopt any required zoning amendments by December 2025.
Annually monitor applications and modify program if required.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: 10 live-work units to reduce displacement risk. Prioritize
development in areas with high risk for displacement, such as the
South Blaney neighborhood.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐38
GOAL HE-3 STABLE AND PHYSICALLY SOUND RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS
Policies
Policy HE-3.1 Housing Rehabilitation. Pursue and/or provide funding for the
acquisition/rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and
moderate-income households. Actively support and assist nonprofit and for-
profit developers in producing affordable units.
(Formerly Policy HE-3.1)
Policy HE-3.2 Maintenance and Repair. Assist lower-income homeowners and rental
property owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units.
(Formerly Policy HE-3.2)
Policy HE-3.3 Conservation of Housing Stock. The City’s existing multifamily units
provide opportunities for households of varied income levels. Preserve
existing multifamily housing stock, including existing duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes, by preventing the net loss of multifamily housing units upon
remodeling, with new development and the existing inventory of affordable
housing units that are at risk of converting to market-rate housing.
(Formerly Policy HE-3.3)
Strategies
Strategy HE-3.3.1 Residential Rehabilitation. The City will continue to:
Use its Below-Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support
residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include:
o Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental housing.
o Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing.
Provide assistance for home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility
improvements to income-qualified owner-occupants using CDBG funds.
The focus of this strategy is on the correction of safety hazards.
Partner with and/or support the funding application of qualified
affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable
housing funds, including HOME funds, Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐39
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Ongoing/annually publish RFPs to solicit projects. Provide
information on the City’s website as funding is available.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME, LIHTC
Objectives: 100 households assisted with home safety repairs and
mobility/accessibility improvements. Target outreach in areas
with higher rates of older housing stock, including the South
Blaney neighborhood, as well as higher rates of households with
disabilities, such as the Fair Grove neighborhood.
(Formerly HE-3.3.1)
Strategy HE-3.3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units. Beardon Drive (8 units), WVCS
Transitional Housing (4 units), and Sunny View West (100 units), as well as
several below-market rate (BMR) units are considered at risk of converting to
market-rate housing in the next 10 years. For units at risk of converting to
market rate, the City shall:
Contact property owners of units at risk of converting to market-rate
housing three years before affordability expiration to discuss the City’s
commitment to preserve these units as affordable housing.
Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure the required
notices to tenants and to affordable housing developers are sent out at 3
years, 12 months, and 6 months or otherwise as required by state law.
Reach out to agencies and to nonprofit housing developers interested in
purchasing or otherwise preserving at-risk units.
Work with tenants and other organizations to reduce displacement and
refer residents to an agency that can assist in providing alternative housing,
if preservation is not possible. Ensure that tenants have received all
required notices and other information regarding conversion procedures.
The City will further monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by ordering
title company lot books, reviewing property profile reports, and updating
its public database annually.
The City will monitor its affordable rental inventory by verifying proof of
occupancy and performing annual rental income certifications for each
BMR tenant. To help further preserve the City’s affordable housing stock,
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐40
the City may consider providing assistance to rehabilitate and upgrade the
affordable units as well.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Annually monitor status of affordable projects to ensure noticing
is provided as required per California law. In addition, contact
property owners and tenants of at-risk project, at least three years
in advance of potential conversion date to provide time for
conservation. and to avoid displacement of current tenants.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME
Objectives: Preserve existing affordable housing units in the City’s BMR
inventory and attempt to preserve rental units at risk of loss.
(Formerly HE-3.3.2)
Strategy HE-3.3.3 Condominium Conversion. The existing Condominium Conversion
Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in multifamily housing
development to preserve the rental housing stock. Condominium conversions
are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and certain adjacent
areas is less than 5 percent at the time of the application for conversion and
has averaged 5 percent over the past six months. The City will continue to
monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance in providing opportunities for
homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental
housing.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Monitor annually and as projects come forward.
Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-3.3.3)
Strategy HE-3.3.4 Multifamily Housing Preservation Program. When a proposed
development or redevelopment of a site would cause a loss of multifamily
housing, the City will grant approval only if:
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐41
The project will comply with the City’s Below Market Rate Housing
Mitigation Program Procedural Manual;
The number of units provided on the site is at least equal to the number
of existing units;
Adverse impacts on displaced tenants, in developments with four or more
units, are mitigated; and
The project replaces existing units at the same or deeper affordability, with
the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and comparable square
footage to the units demolished and provides displaced tenants with right
of first refusal to rent new comparable units at the same rent as demolished
units.
The City will review the program biannually and revise as needed; if revisions
are needed, they will be adopted within one year of determination of need. In
addition, indirect displacement may be caused by factors such as increased
market rents as areas become more desirable. The City will participate, as
appropriate, in studies of regional housing need and displacement, and
consider policies or programs to address the indirect displacement of lower-
income residents as appropriate.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, as projects come forward. Review program biannually;
if revisions are needed, adopt revisions within one year of
determination of need.
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Prevent displacement of 50 households during the Housing
Element period.
(Formerly HE-3.3.4)
Strategy HE-3.3.5 Park Land Ordinance The City will review and revise its Park Land
Ordinance to reduce any potential constraints on residential development
while maintaining access to quality open space. The City will review
requirements for higher-density projects and evaluate the possibility of open
space credits.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐42
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development and
Cupertino Department of Public Works, Development Services
Division
Timeframe: Review by December 2025, revise by June 2026.
Funding Sources: General Fund
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 350 units of housing affordable to
lower-income households and 100 units affordable to moderate-
income households by removing constraints, as needed.
Strategy HE-3.3.6 Tenant Protections. Study rent stabilization and tenant protection
ordinances in California and displacement in Cupertino due to rising rents and
evictions. Work with relevant stakeholders to establish tenant protection
and/or a rent stabilization to ensure protection for renters, as appropriate
based on findings.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Complete a study by December 2025; present implementing
ordinance to Council by June 2026.
Funding Sources: General Fund
Objectives: Present an implementation plan for a rent stabilization or tenant
protection ordinances to City Council. Prevent displacement of
100 households during the Housing Element period and work
with relevant stakeholders to establish tenant protection and/or
a rent stabilization to ensure protection for renters, as appropriate
based on findings.
Strategy HE-3.3.7 Monitor Nongovernmental Constraints Impeding Residential Development.
The City will monitor residential developments that have been approved by
the City and where building permits or final maps have not been obtained, the
City will make diligent efforts to contact applicants to discover why units have
not been constructed within two years after approval. If due to
nongovernmental constraints, such as rapid increases in construction costs,
shortages of labor or materials, or rising interest rates, to the extent appropriate
and legally possible, the City will seek to identify actions that may help to
reduce or remove these constraints. Additionally, the City will proactively work
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐43
with stakeholders to identify nongovernmental constraints or other
considerations that may impede the construction of housing in Cupertino and
work collaboratively to find strategies and actions that can eliminate or reduce
identified constraints.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development
Timeframe: Monitor two years after project approval, implement as needed.
Funding Sources: General Fund
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐44
GOAL HE-4 ENERGY AND WATER CONSERVATION
Policies
Policy HE-4.1 Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation
in all existing and new residential development.
(Formerly Policy HE-4.1)
Strategies
Strategy HE-4.1.1 Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24
requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate using some of the other
suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Element.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Building
Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, as projects come forward.
Funding Sources: None required.
(Formerly HE-4.1.1)
Strategy HE-4.1.2 Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape
Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted
in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and nonresidential
development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of 10 or more
units. To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the City will
evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees,
for energy conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (existing
or new) with fewer than 10 units to exceed the minimum requirements of the
California Green Building Code. The City will also implement the policies in
its climate action plan to achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas emission
reductions and further these community energy and water conservation goals.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; consider further incentives in Fiscal Year 2024-25 to
encourage green building practices in smaller developments
Funding Sources: None required.
(Formerly HE-4.1.2)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐45
Strategy HE-4.1.3 Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing. The City will work with and
support housing developers to develop sustainable, energy-efficient housing.
Such development should include solar panels, green roofs, energy-efficient
lighting, and other features that aim toward carbon-neutral impacts while
lowering energy costs.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required, as projects come forward.
Objectives: Facilitate the development of energy-efficient measures in all
projects, approximately 2,000 units over the Housing Element
period.
Strategy HE-4.1.4 Water and Wastewater Priority. Consistent with the provisions of
Government Code Section 65589.7 (Senate Bill 1087), the City will
immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater
providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed
developments that include units affordable to lower-income households.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Forward the Housing Element following adoption.
Funding Sources: None required.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐46
GOAL HE-5 SPECIAL SERVICES FOR LOWER-INCOME AND SPECIAL-
NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS
Policies
Policy HE-5.1 Lower-Income and Special-Needs Households. Support organizations
that provide services to lower-income and special-need households in the city,
such as persons experiencing homelessness, extremely low-income
households, seniors, large households, persons with disabilities, and single-
parent households.
(Formerly Policy HE-4.1)
Strategies
Strategy HE-5.1.1 Emergency Shelters. The City commits to complying with the requirements
of AB 2339 regarding emergency shelters. As part of this compliance, the City
will:
Continue to facilitate housing opportunities for special-needs persons by
allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use, without discretionary
review in the R4 zoning district and continuing to permit emergency
shelters in the Quasi Public (BQ) zoning district.
Amend the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim
interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge
housing, and respite or recuperative care.
Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use,
without discretionary review, in the new R4 zoning district.
Review and revise managerial standards, consistent with State law.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; amend the Zoning Code by December 2024. Review
and revise standards by June 2025 and amend the Zoning Code
as needed.
Funding Sources: None required
(Formerly HE-5.1.1)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐47
Strategy HE-5.1.2 Supportive Services for Lower-Income Households and Persons with
Special Needs. The City will continue to use its Below-Market Rate
Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF), Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) funds
to provide for a range of supportive services for lower-income households and
persons with special needs.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Through the annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
process, allocate CDBG, BMR AHF, and HSG funding to
organizations that cater to the needs of lower-income and special-
needs households.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HSG.
Objectives: Facilitate the provision of supportive services to 1,500 residents
over the Housing Element period. Funding will be used to
facilitate services citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas
with historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the
areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the
intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along
N. Foothill Boulevard (western edge of Creston-Pharlap
neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside
Park.
(Formerly HE-5.1.2)
Strategy HE-5.1.3 Rotating Safe Car Park. The City will continue to support the operation of
a Rotating Safe Car Park program in collaboration with local nonprofit service
providers, such as West Valley Community Services.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required.
Objectives: Support the operation of a rotating safe car park program to serve
at least 100 unhoused community members who are living in
their vehicles.
(Formerly HE-5.1.3)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐48
Strategy HE-5.1.4 Low-Barrier Navigation Center and Supportive Housing. The City will
amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow supportive housing and low-barrier
navigation centers for the homeless by right in mixed-use and nonresidential
zoning districts where multifamily uses are permitted, per Government Code
Sections 65650 et seq. and 65660 et seq.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.
Funding Sources: None required.
Strategy HE-5.1.5 Residential Care Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance now allows residential
care facilities for six clients or fewer to be treated as a single-family use
consistent with California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections . The City
will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow larger residential care facilities that
operate as a single housekeeping unit in all zones that permit residential uses,
with objective standards similar to those applied to other residential uses
permitted in that zoning district.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.
Funding Sources: None required.
Strategy HE-5.1.6 Manufactured Homes. The City will amend the Zoning Code to permit
manufactured homes, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.3, in the
same manner and in the same zoning districts as conventional or stick-built
structures are permitted.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.
Funding Sources: None required.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐49
GOAL HE-6 EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Policies
Policy HE-6.1 Housing Discrimination. The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis
all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual
orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or
other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing.
(Formerly Policy HE-6.1)
Policy HE-6.2 Housing Equity Education. The City will work to create opportunities for
public education around the issue of housing equity and education about the
history of racial segregation to build community and raise awareness. This
should include more opportunities for community dialogue and shared
experiences. Outreach about these programs will be conducted citywide, but
extra focus will be given to areas where long-term patterns income segregation
may be more prevalent, such as the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor,
areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard,
along N. Foothill Boulevard (the western edge of Creston-Pharlap
neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park.
Strategies
Strategy HE-6.1.1 Fair Housing Services. The City will continue to:
Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel,
to provide fair housing services, which include outreach, education,
counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints.
Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel,
to provide direct services for residents, landlords, and other housing
professionals. Among other things, this should address issues related to
the use of HUD-VASH vouchers, so that veterans may use such vouchers
without discrimination.
Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel,
to assist individuals with housing problems such as discrimination and
rental issues including repairs, and provide information and counseling
regarding rights and responsibilities under California tenant landlord law.
Additionally, provide annual training to landlords on fair housing rights
and responsibilities with the intent of reducing, or eliminating,
discrimination.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐50
Coordinate with efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium to affirmatively further fair housing.
Distribute fair housing materials produced by various organizations at
public counters and public events.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Continue to partner with a local fair housing service provider,
such as Project Sentinel, to provide fair housing services on an
ongoing basis, and conduct citywide outreach at least twice during
the Housing Element cycle. Provide annual fair housing trainings
for landlords.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBG
Objectives: Distribute fair housing materials at two community events per
year. Assist five households per year in obtaining fair housing
counseling services. Fair housing outreach will be conducted
citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with higher
potential for income segregation due to zoning patterns, such as
the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting
the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard,
along N. Foothill Boulevard (in the western edge of the Creston-
Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of
Creekside Park.
(Formerly HE-6.1.1)
Strategy HE-6.1.2 Affirmative Marketing. The City will work with affordable housing
developers to ensure that affordable housing is affirmatively marketed to
households with disproportionate housing needs, including Hispanic and
Black households who work in and live outside of Cupertino (e.g., materials in
Spanish and English, distributed through employers).
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐51
Objectives: Housing staff will identify at least 50 local employers, in
collaboration with Economic Development staff, to develop a
distribution list for marketing materials. Outreach will be
conducted citywide, but extra marketing efforts will be requested
of developers working in or around areas with historically higher
areas of potential income segregation, such as the areas along the
Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of
Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill
Boulevard (in the western edge of the Creston-Pharlap
neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside
Park.
Strategy HE-6.1.3 Housing Mobility. Work with a local fair housing service provider, such as
Project Sentinel, to contact rental property owners and managers of
multifamily apartment complexes to provide fair housing information and
assistance. This outreach will include promoting the Housing Choice Voucher
(Section 8) program to landlords that have not previously participated in the
program and will target use of multi-lingual materials. Target additional
outreach to higher-income neighborhoods, including, but not limited to, the
Monta Vista and Height of the City neighborhoods.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
Timeframe: At least twice during the planning period.
Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBG
Objectives: Promote housing mobility and expanded opportunity for 100
lower income households.
Strategy HE-6.1.4 Housing Project Coordinator. To support the implementation of the
multiple new and expanded housing programs and policies identified in the
Housing Element, assign a member of City staff as the housing project
coordinator. This position would assist with developing outreach programs,
writing and pursing grant applications, ongoing monitoring of affordable
housing production, preservation and rehabilitation, coordination between
affordable housing developers, the City, and partner agencies and tracking
progress on the many initiatives identified in this Housing Element.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing
Division
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐52
Timeframe: By 2025
Funding Sources: General Fund
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐53
GOAL HE-7 COORDINATION WITH REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, LOCAL
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND COLLEGES
Policies
Policy HE-7.1 Coordination with Local School Districts. The Cupertino community
places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the three
public school districts that serve residents. To ensure the long-term
sustainability of the schools, teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the
preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will
continue to coordinate with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD),
Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), and Santa Clara Unified
School District (SCUSD).
(Formerly Policy HE-7.1)
Policy HE-7.2 Coordination Regional Efforts to Address Housing-Related Issues.
Coordinate efforts with regional organizations, including Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), as well as neighboring jurisdictions, to address housing
and related quality of life issues (such as air quality and transportation).
(Formerly Policy HE-7.2)
Policy HE-7.3 Public-Private Partnerships. Promote public-private partnerships to address
housing needs in the community, especially housing for the workforce.
(Formerly Policy HE-7.3)
Strategies
Strategy HE-7.3.1 Coordinate with Outside Agencies and Organizations. The City
recognizes the importance of partnering with outside agencies and
organizations in addressing local and regional housing issues. These may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
School districts
De Anza College
Housing providers
Neighboring jurisdictions
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Air Quality Management District
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐54
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (COC)
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC)
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Specifically, the City will meet with these agencies/organizations periodically
to discuss the changing needs, development trends, alternative approaches,
and partnering opportunities.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required.
(Formerly HE-7.3.)
Strategy HE-7.3.2 Coordination with Local School Districts. To ensure the long-term
sustainability of public schools, teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the
preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will
coordinate biennially with the local school districts and colleges to identify
housing needs and concerns. The City will discuss potential partnerships for
affordable housing developments for school district employees and college
students, including on school district properties, on a biannual basis.
Depending on the outcome of these discussions with school districts and
college leadership, the City will notify districts and partner developers about
relevant funding opportunities as they become available, coordinate technical
assistance on grant applications and offer other incentives listed in Strategy
HE-1.3.11.
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning
Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Biennially meet with school districts. Provide information about
funding opportunities as they become available, coordinate
technical assistance and incentives as needed.
Funding Sources: None required.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐55
Objectives: Assist with the development of 25 teacher/school district
employee housing units to improve housing mobility opportunities
for district staff and promote place-based revitalization. Focus
will be given to areas with lower rates of renter households, such
as the Monta Vista North neighborhood.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Quantified objectives estimate the number of units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or
conserved/preserved by income level during the planning period based on optimal implementation
of each program. The quantified objectives do not set a ceiling on development; rather, they set a
target goal for the jurisdiction to achieve based on needs, resources, and constraints. Each quantified
objective is detailed by income level, as shown in Table H-2, Quantified Objectives Summary.
Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Strategy
Income Category Total
Ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
Lo
w
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
Lo
w
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Ab
o
v
e
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
New Construction
HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions 596 597 687 755 1,953 4,588
HE-1.3.2: Rezoning to Achieve RHNA 596 597 687 755 1,953 4,588
HE-1.3.3: New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations 75 75 150 200 100 600
HE-1.3.4: Development on Non-Vacant Sites 100 100 100 100 100 500
Strategy HE-1.3.5: Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in
Commercial Zones 150 150 300 600
Strategy HE-1.3.6: Encourage Missing-Middle Housing Developments
to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing 50 75 125 250 500
Strategy HE-1.3.7: Lot Consolidation 10 17 48 75
Strategy HE-1.3.8: Accessory Dwelling Units 5 10 25 10 10 60
Strategy HE-1.3.9: Review Development Standards 25 25 125 150 500 825
Strategy HE-1.3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options 50 50 100 200
Strategy HE-1.3.12: Support Affordable Housing Development 100 100 250 450
Strategy HE-2.3.1: Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program 20 20 40
Strategy HE-2.3.2: Residential Housing Mitigation Program 50 50 150 250
Strategy HE-2.3.3: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund
(AHF) 25 25 50
Strategy HE-2.3.4: Housing Resources 10 10 30 50
Strategy HE-2.3.6: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development 400 250 650
Strategy HE-2.3.7: Density Bonus Ordinance 200 300 500
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)
H‐56
Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Strategy
Income Category Total
Ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
Lo
w
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
Lo
w
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Ab
o
v
e
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Strategy HE-2.3.8: Review Impact Fees 75 100 325 300 500 1,300
Strategy HE-2.3.9: Review Parking Standards 250 250
Rehabilitation
Strategy HE-3.3.1: Residential Rehabilitation 150 50 200
Strategy HE-3.3.5: Park Land Ordinance 50 50 250 100 450
Preservation
Strategy HE-2.3.10: Assistance for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities 5 5 10
Strategy HE-2.3.11: Live/Work Units 10 10
Strategy HE-3.3.2: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units 209 209
Strategy HE-3.3.6: Rent Control Ordinance 25 25 25 25 100
Strategy HE-4.1.3: Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing 100 100 300 500 1000 2000
Strategy HE-5.1.2: Supportive Services for Lower-Income Households
and Persons with Special Needs 200 300 600 400 1500
Strategy HE-5.1.3: Rotating Safe Car Park 100
Strategy HE-6.1.1: Fair Housing Services 3 2
Strategy HE-6.1.2: Affirmative Marketing 25 25
Strategy HE-6.1.3: Housing Mobility 20 30 50
Strategy HE-7.3.2: Coordination with Local School Districts 25
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
mobility 5
1
Introduction
Cupertino’s transportation system is multi-faceted. It integrates walkways,
sidewalks, bicycle routes, bus transit facilities, local streets, major roadways
and freeways into a single, integrated system that supports the city’s
high quality of life. At the local level, this includes facilities that connect
neighborhoods with pedestrian, bicycle and automobile routes. Longer
distance connections include links to major boulevards, expressways,
commuter rail and the regional freeway system.
This Element includes goals, policies and strategies that the City will use in
making decisions regarding transportation network improvements needed to
accommodate Cupertino’s anticipated growth. The purpose for this Element
is to implement strategies that make alternative modes of transportation
attractive choices. This will help reduce strain on the automobile network and
improve health and quality of life for Cupertino residents and businesses.
CONTENTS:
M-2 Introduction
M-3 Context
Regional Transportation
Planning
Link between Land Use and
Transportation
Complete Streets
Greenhouse Gases and
Transportation
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Performance Measurement
Transportation Network
M-12 Looking Forward
M-13 Goals and Policies
Regional Coordination
Complete Streets
Walkability and Bikeability
Transit
Safe Routes to Schools
Vehicle Parking
Transportation Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Air Quality
Roadway System Efficiency
Transportation Infrastructure
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-3
CONTEXT
Cupertino’s circulation system was developed mostly in a suburban and auto-
oriented pattern during the 1950s and 1960s. Over the years, the City has
enhanced its roadway infrastructure with a system of bike lanes, trails, bridges,
better sidewalks and publicly accessible connections in new development.
Cupertino is also served by many important regional transportation facilities such
as Highway 85, Interstate 280, Lawrence Expressway, and bus transit service
provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
The community anticipates reductions in auto traffic impacts, enhancements to
the walking and biking environment, improvements to existing transit service,
and connections to key transit nodes including Caltrain. As such, the goals in this
Element respond to current conditions and present policies to adequately address
future change.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Cupertino’s local transportation infrastructure is supplemented by regional
facilities and services through agencies such as the VTA, the local congestion-
management agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the
Bay Area’s regional transportation authority, and Caltrans, the State Department
of Transportation. Each agency has a long-term plan consisting of policies and
projects which are connected to the operational success of Cupertino’s local
transportation network. Key projects for these agencies include:
• Interchange Improvements at Interstate 280/Highway 85 (MTC–Plan
Bay Area)
• Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit (MTC–Plan Bay Area)
Regional transit service primarily includes bus lines operated by VTA that run
along the city’s major corridors, including Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza
Boulevard and Wolfe Road, and portions of Homestead Road, Stelling Road
and Tantau Avenue. Regional facilities include a bus transit station at De Anza
College and within the Vallco Shopping District. As new development projects are
proposed, the City will continue to identify opportunities for improvements to bus
stop facilities, such as the new Apple Campus 2 area at Wolfe Road, Homestead
Road and Tantau Avenue and the Main Street project at Tantau Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-4
A relatively new trend in regional commute transportation is the implementation
of private bus and shuttle services to connect workers and major employers
throughout the Bay Area. While currently this activity is not regulated or
organized among these employers, it is beneficial in the regional effort to reduce
the reliance on Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs).
The One Bay Area Grant Program is a new funding approach that better
integrates the region’s federal transportation program with California’s
landmark climate change law (Assembly Bill 32, 2006) and Sustainable
Communities Strategy program (Senate Bill 375, 2008). Funding distribution to
the counties considers progress toward achieving local land use and housing
policies by:
• Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area by
promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs);
and
• Providing a higher proportion of funding to local agencies and additional
investment flexibility to invest in bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
local streets and roadway preservation and planning activities, while also
providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
and Priority Conservation Areas.
The goals and policies included in this Element and the Land Use and
Community Design Element seek to take advantage of regional planning and
funding efforts. They implement strategies that encourage the location of
future growth in Cupertino’s Priority Development Areas along Stevens Creek
Boulevard and portions of De Anza Boulevard, and by advocating for improved
service and improvements to regional infrastructure.
LINK BETWEEN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
In order to maintain and enhance the quality of life for Cupertino residents and
businesses, it is important to ensure that future growth does not overwhelm the
transportation network, identify ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and
improve the health of our community. Land use and mobility policies included
in the General Plan seek to do so by working together to focus future growth
along major mixed-use corridors and within PDAs. Mobility policies also seek to
improve the walking/biking environment and enhance transit to ensure that the
transportation network is accessible to people of all ages and abilities, including
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-5
school children, the disabled and the elderly. These policies also promote
connectivity between neighborhoods and services, and between key nodes in
order to reduce reliance on the automobile as the sole mode of transportation.
COMPLETE STREETS
The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the planning, designing
and building of “Complete Streets” into the larger planning framework of the
General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to plan for multi-modal transportation
networks. Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access
for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled, motorists, seniors,
users of public transportation and movers of commercial goods. These networks
allow people to effectively travel to key destinations within their community and
the larger region. In addition, all transportation projects should be evaluated
as to their ability to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers and
recognize pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes as integral elements of their
transportation system.
Cupertino has already begun the work of reviewing the existing street network
and looking for new opportunities to improve alternative modes of transportation
through the construction of sidewalks, walking paths, bike lanes, trails and
bridges across pedestrian barriers, such as the Don Burnett Bridge at Mary
Avenue. The goals and policies in this Element seek to continue the work of
making enhancements to the transportation network to encourage all modes of
transportation.
GREENHOUSE GASES AND TRANSPORTATION
A major challenge of today is meeting the energy needs of a growing population
while also protecting air quality and natural resources. The majority of
greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions
from the transportation sector. A 2010 inventory of Cupertino’s community-
wide emissions shows that transportation accounts for almost 41 percent of
community-wide emissions. Therefore, reducing the number of automobile trips,
particularly from single-occupancy vehicles, can provide the greatest benefit in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Cupertino.
The goals and policies in this Element work in tandem with other General Plan
policies to address issues of sustainability, health and air quality by taking
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-6
advantage of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Low-carbon
fuels, new and improved vehicle technologies, and land use strategies and
infrastructure improvements to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled can
reduce transportation-related emissions significantly.
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
Cupertino has made considerable strides improving walkability and bikeability
with new or improved bike lanes, sidewalks and pedestrian connections.
However, many older commercial areas and neighborhoods continue to lack a
pedestrian and bike-friendly environment where students can safely walk and
bike to school, and families can walk or bike to parks and nearby community
facilities and shopping. This was a consistent theme expressed by participants
during public workshops conducted as part of the General Plan Amendment.
Areas are generally considered walkable if people can safely walk to schools,
parks and services within a half mile (less than10-14 minutes) distance. A bike-
friendly city provides a network of streets and paths where people can bike
safely and conveniently to community facilities, employment and shopping. The
goals and policies of this Element, along with the City’s Bicycle Transportation
Plan and Pedestrian Plan, seek to further improve and enhance the walking
and biking environment through capital improvement projects, development
review, and retrofitting existing facilities within older commercial areas and
neighborhoods. Figure M-1 identifies existing and planned improvements to
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the city.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Senate Bill 743 (2013) created a process to change the way that transportation
impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
process helps achieve the State’s goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and traffic-related air pollution, promotes the development of a multi-modal
transportation system, and provides clean, efficient access to major destinations.
Specifically, the law requires an alternative to automobile level of service (LOS)
for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit,
alternative criteria are required to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a
diversity of land uses.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-7
Like many cities, Cupertino has used LOS as a performance measure to evaluate
traffic impacts. Historically, this has led cities to focus entirely on improvements
to auto infrastructure, often to the detriment of other modes of transportation.
Consistent with State law, this Element seeks to look at performance measures
that balance the needs of all modes of transportation, including automobile,
walking, biking and transit. Such new measures can range from looking at
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a measure of balancing land uses to reviewing
seconds of delay for all travel modes as a measure of impacts to traffic. This will
allow the City to develop and maintain a Transportation Improvement Plan that
includes pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobile network enhancements, and
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management
(TDM) measures to improve efficiency of the network.
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Cupertino’s transportation network consists of a variety of street types and
pathways. The network determines not only how various land uses are
connected but also the modes of transportation used by people to access
them. Table M-1 defines the various street types and paths in terms of their
character, adjoining current and future land uses, modes of travel that they
currently support, and improvements needed to enhance access for all modes of
transportation.
Close alignment of the City’s Capital Improvement Program with Community
Vision 2040 priorities will allow the City to strategically plan and direct resources
to develop this multi-modal transportation infrastructure. Figure M-2 shows the
geographical locations of the major roadways.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-8
FIGURE M-1
CURRENT (2014) AND PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK
RAINBOW
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Bike Lanes on Street
* Note: see Complete Streets policy for implementation Bike Paths Off Street
Bike Route
Right of Way Public Access
N
HOMESTEAD ROAD
BU
B
B
RO
A
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
RD
De
A
N
Z
A
BL
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
AV
E
WO
L
F
E
RD
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT (TSM)
TSM is an approach to congestion mitigation that identifies improvements to enhance the
capacity of existing roadways through better operations. These techniques help improve traffic
flow, air quality and movement of vehicles and goods, as well as enhance system accessibility
and safety. TSM strategies are low-cost and effective, and typically include: intersection and
signal improvements; data collection to monitor system performance; and/or special events
management strategies.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT (TDM)
TDM seeks to reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy car) by encouraging
other modes of travel through requirements and/or incentives. TDM strategies typically include:
commute trip reduction programs; parking policies; and/or incentives to take transit or other
modes of transportation.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-10
Table M-1: Street Typology
Type Mode(s) of
Transportation Guidelines
Freeway
Limited access, part of a regional and/or State network subject to State design standards.
Expressway
Limited access, regional and part of a county network subject to County design standards.
Boulevard (Arterial)
Access and safe crossing for all modes of travel along a regional transportation corridor. May include medians to separate directional travel. City or multi-jurisdictional design standards apply.
Main Street
Balances all modes of transportation, includes on-street parking and connects to highly pedestrian-oriented uses. Vehicular performance measures may be lowered to prioritize walking and biking.
Avenue
(Major and Minor Collector)
Connector that distributes trips to commercial and residential areas from boulevards, and provides balanced levels of service for auto, bikes and pedestrians.
Neighborhood Connector
Primarily serves and connects neighborhoods and neighborhood services, and facilitates safe walking and biking. May contain elements of Avenues including landscaped median or bus service.
Residential Street
Provides access to low-intensity residential uses, prioritizes walking
and biking, and are typically good candidates for traffic calming.
Regional Pedestrian/ Bike Pathway
Part of regional network providing high quality pedestrian and bike paths to connect to other regional destinations.
Local Pedestrian/Bike Pathway
Connects to regional network but part of local infrastructure, provides quality pedestrian and bike paths connecting local destinations.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-11
Los Altos Sunnyvale
280
85
LAZANZEO DR
Santa Clara
ALVES DR
STEVENS
CREEK
BLVD
VOSS AVE
McCLELLAN
ROAD
PACIFICA DR
KIRWIN LN
San Jose
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
RAINBOW
Saratoga
DRIVE
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Freeway and Expressways
Boulevards (Arterials)
Avenues (Major Collectors)
Avenues (Minor Collectors)
Neighborhood Connectors
Main Street
N 0 0.5 1 Mile
0 1000 2000 3000 Feet
0 500 1000 Meters
FIGURE M-2
CIRCULATION NETWORK
MI
R
A
VI
S
T
A
RD
LI
N
D
A
VI
S
T
A
DR
MA
N
N
DR
OR
A
N
G
E
AV
E
BU
B
B
RO
A
D
MA
R
Y
AV
E
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
RD
De
AN
Z
A
BL
V
D
VI
S
T
A
DR
BL
A
N
E
Y
AV
E
WO
L
F
E
RD
HOMESTEAD ROAD
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-12
LOOKING FORWARD
Maintaining Cupertino’s great quality of life – including convenient access, clean
air, and reduced traffic – requires careful management of growth. The City will
identify ways to locate appropriate land uses along major mixed-use corridors,
improving overall access and connectivity, enhancing the attractiveness of non-
vehicular transportation modes, and reducing demand on the roadway network.
The following are ways the City will address key challenges and opportunities
facing Cupertino:
1 BETTER LINKAGES BETWEEN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION.
How we use our land directly impacts our transportation facilities,
modes of travel and vice versa. A primary cornerstone of Community
Vision 2040 is to focus growth on major mixed-use corridors; support
alternate modes of transportation including walking, biking and transit;
and encourage a mix of compatible and complementary uses on key
sites. These strategies will allow the City to manage growth with reduced
traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.
2 IMPROVED REGIONAL COORDINATION.
The City should continue to participate in regional projects and
infrastructure planning to ensure consistency with local planning, and
pursue funding for City transportation projects.
3 ENHANCED CONNECTIVITY.
A key objective of the City is to improve connections through streetscape
and pathway improvements to ensure that the community enjoys
easy walking and biking access to services including parks, schools
and shopping. Other strategies seek to supplement existing modes of
transportation such as community shuttles through partnerships and
agreements and providing links between key transportation nodes.
4 REDUCED DEMAND.
The strategies in this Element seek to reduce demand on the City’s
roadway infrastructure through careful land use planning, encourage
alternative modes of transportation and utilize best practices in
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation Systems
Management (TSM).
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-13
GOAL M-1
Actively participate in regional planning
processes to coordinate local planning and
to advocate for decisions that meet and
complement the needs of Cupertino
REGIONAL COORDINATION
Regional transportation and land use decisions affect the operation of the
transportation network in Cupertino. A key consideration of the General Plan is for
the City to participate in regional planning initiatives in order to coordinate local
improvements with regional initiatives, advocate for Cupertino’s needs, and take
advantage of programs that can support Cupertino’s transportation infrastructure.
POLICY M-1.1: REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Participate in regional transportation
planning processes to develop
programs consistent with the goals and
policies of Cupertino’s General Plan
and to minimize adverse impacts on
the City’s circulation system. Work with
neighboring cities to address regional
transportation and land use issues of
mutual interest.
POLICY M-1.2: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
ANALYSIS
Evaluate new development and
redevelopment projects pursuant to the
City’s adopted Transportation Study
Guidelines evaluation criteria.
STRATEGIES:
M-1.2.1: VMT Thresholds
New development and redevelopment projects shall meet the VMT
thresholds and reduction strategies described in the Cupertino Municipal
Code.
M-1.2.2: Citywide VMT Reduction
Establish a framework for reducing VMT at
the citywide scale. These measures may
include, but are not limited to:
• Working with Valley Transit Authority
to increase bus frequency and speed
throughout Cupertino.
• Unbundling parking costs from
property costs.
• Developing a fair-share cost program
for Silicon Valley Hopper or car share
initiatives for development projects.
• Implementing market pricing for
parking spaces throughout the city.
• Limiting parking supply.
• Discouraging single occupancy vehicle
travel.
• Implementing a citywide bikeshare
program.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-12
M-1.2.3: Project-Level VMT Reduction
Develop a framework of project-level VMT reduction
measures for new development and redevelopment
projects in the city that exceed the City's adopted VMT
threshold. These VMT reduction measures may include,
but are not limited to:
• Requiring the preparation and implementation of a
TDM program appropriate to the project's scale.
• Requiring contributions to a fair-share cost program
for transit, shuttle, or car share programs.
• Requiring a Behavioral Intervention Program to
provide individualized transportation information
for project occupants.
• Requiring an on-site car share program.
M-1.2.4: VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program
Establish a VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program. This
program shall fund the construction of facilities
throughout Cupertino that support the reduction of
VMT per service population impacts from new
development and redevelopment projects.
Participate in the development of
new multi-modal analysis methods and impact
thresholds as required by Senate Bill 743. However,
until such impact thresholds are developed, continue
to optimize mobility for all modes of transportation
while striving
to maintain the following intersection Levels of
Service (LOS) at a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours:
• Major intersections: LOS D
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard: LOS
E+
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road: LOS E+
• De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road: LOS E+
POLICY M-1.3: REGIONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
Continue to plan and provide for a
comprehensive system of trails and pathways
consistent with regional systems, including the Bay
Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge Trail.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-15
GOAL M-2
Promote improvements to city streets that
COMPLETE STREETS
Complete Streets policies encourage the design of streets that respond to
the needs of all members of the community, balance different modes of
transportation, promote the health and well-being of the community, and support
environmental sustainability.
POLICY M-2.1: STREET DESIGN
Adopt and maintain street design
standards to optimize mobility for
all transportation modes including
automobiles, walking, bicycling and
transit.
POLICY M-2.2: ADJACENT LAND USE
Design roadway alignments, lane
widths, medians, parking and bicycle
lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks
to complement adjacent land uses
in keeping with the vision of the
Planning Area. Strive to minimize
adverse impacts and expand
alternative transportation options
for all Planning Areas (Special Areas
and Neighborhoods). Improvement
standards shall also consider
the urban, suburban and rural
environments found within the city.
STRATEGIES:
M-2.2.1: Rural Road Improvement
Standards.
Consider candidate rural roads and
develop specific street improvement
standards that preserve the rural
character of these streets. Rural
roads would typically feature natural
landscaping, no sidewalks and narrow
unpaved shoulders.
M-2.2.2: Semi-Rural Road Improvement
Standards.
Consider candidate semi-rural roads
where curb and gutter improvements,
and no sidewalks, are appropriate.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-14
M-2.2.3: Urban Road Improvement
Standards.
Develop urban improvement
standards for arterials such
as Stevens Creek and De Anza
Boulevards. In these areas, standards
may include wide sidewalks, tree
wells, seating, bike racks and
appropriate street furniture.
M-2.2.4: Suburban Road Improvement
Standards.
Develop suburban road improvement
standards for all streets not
designated as rural, semi-rural or in
the Crossroads Area.
POLICY M-2.3: CONNECTIVITY
Promote pedestrian and bicycle
improvements that improve
connectivity between planning areas,
neighborhoods and services, and
foster a sense of community.
STRATEGIES:
M-2.3.1: Inter Block Connectivity.
Require new development and
redevelopment to provide inter-
block connectivity to allow improved
access to all sites on the block from
secondary streets, access to the
street network via controlled
intersections, minimize conflicts with
pedestrian and bicycle traffic on
primary streets, and convenient
access for service vehicles.
POLICY M-2.4: COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Reduce traffic impacts and support
alternative modes of transportation
rather than constructing barriers
to mobility. Do not close streets
unless there is a demonstrated
safety or over-whelming through
traffic problem and there are no
acceptable alternatives since street
closures move the problem from
one street to another.
POLICY M-2.5: PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY
Ensure all new public and private
streets are publicly accessible to
improve walkability and reduce
impacts on existing streets.
POLICY M-2.6: TRAFFIC CALMING
Consider the implementation of best
practices on streets to reduce speeds
and make them user-friendly for
alternative modes of transportation,
including pedestrians and bicyclists.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-17
GOAL M-3
WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITY
Walkability and bikeability policies encourage a livable, healthy, sustainable
and connected city with a safe and comfortable pedestrian network among its
various neighborhoods, parks, trails, employment centers, community facilities,
neighborhood centers and commercial centers.
POLICY M-3.1: BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and
Pedestrian master plan, which outlines
policies and improvements to streets,
extension of trails, and pathways to
create a safe way for people of all ages
to bike and walk on a daily basis, and
as shown in Figure M-1.
POLICY M-3.2: DEVELOPMENT
Require new development and
redevelopment to increase
connectivity through direct and safe
pedestrian connections to public
amenities, neighborhoods, shopping
and employment destinations
throughout the city.
POLICY M-3.3: PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE CROSSINGS
Enhance pedestrian and bicycle
crossings and pathways at key
locations across physical barriers such
as creeks, highways and road barriers.
POLICY M-3.4: STREET WIDTHS
Preserve and enhance citywide
pedestrian and bike connectivity by
limiting street widening purely for
automobiles as a means of improving
traffic flow.
POLICY M-3.5: CURB CUTS
Minimize the number and the width of
driveway openings.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-16
STRATEGIES:
M-3.5.1: Shared Driveway Access.
Encourage Require property
owners to use shared driveway
access and interconnected roads
within blocks, where feasible.
Require driveway access
closures, consolidations or both
when a site is remodeled or
redeveloped.
M-3.5.2: Direct Access from Secondary
Streets.
Encourage Require propertiesy with
frontages on major and secondary
streets to provide direct pedestrian
and vehicular access to driveways from
the secondary street.
POLICY M-3.6: SAFE SPACES FOR
PEDESTRIANS
Require parking lots to include
clearly defined paths for pedestrians
to provide a safe path to building
entrances.
POLICY M-3.7: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Plan for improvements to pedestrian
and bicycle facilities and eliminate
gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle
network as part of the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.
POLICY M-3.8: BICYCLE PARKING
Require new development and
redevelopment to provide public and
private bicycle parking.
POLICY M-3.9: OUTREACH
Actively engage the community in
promoting walking and bicycling
through education, encouragement
and outreach on improvement projects
and programs.
POLICY M-3.10: PROACTIVE
ENFORCEMENT
Prioritize enforcement of traffic
speeds and regulations on all streets
with bike lanes, bike routes, and
around schools.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-19
GOAL M-4
Promote local and regional transit that
is efficient, frequent and convenient and
reduces traffic impacts
TRANSIT
Transit policies encourage planning and coordination of regional and local transit
services, both public and private, to accommodate diverse community needs and
to make transit a safe, comfortable and efficient option
POLICY M-4.1: TRANSIT AGENCIES
Coordinate with VTA to improve
transportation service, infrastructure
and access in the city, and to connect
to transportation facilities such as
Caltrain and VTA light rail stations.
POLICY M-4.2: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES
Create or partner with transit
providers, employers, educational
institutions, and major commercial
entities to minimize gaps within local
transportation services.
POLICY M-4.3: CONNECTING SPECIAL
AREAS
Identify and implement new or
enhanced transit services to connect
all Special Areas as identified in
Figure PA-1 (Chapter 2: Planning
Areas).
POLICY M-4.4: TRANSIT FACILITIES
WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT
Work with VTA and/or major
developments to ensure all new
development projects include
amenities to support public transit
including bus stop shelters, space for
transit vehicles as appropriate and
attractive amenities such as trash
receptacles, signage, seating and
lighting.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-18
POLICY M-4.5: ACCESS TO TRANSIT
SERVICES
Support right-of-way design and
amenities consistent with local transit
goals to improve transit as a viable
alternative to driving.
POLICY M-4.6: BUS AND SHUTTLE
PROGRAMS
Work with large regional employers
and private commuter bus/shuttle
programs to provide safe pick-up,
drop-off, and park and rides in order to
reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.
POLICY M-4.7: VALLCO SHOPPING
DISTRICT TRANSFER STATION
Work with VTA and/or other
transportation service organizations
to study and develop a transit transfer
station that incorporates a hub for
alternative transportation services
such as, car sharing, bike sharing and/
or other services.
POLICY M-4.8: MICRO-TRANSIT
Continue to support a local micro-transit
option, such as the Silicon Valley Hopper
or similar service.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-21
GOAL M-5
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Safe routes to schools policies protect the safety of school children and promote
health, environmental sustainability and social interaction. They leverage local,
regional and national Safe Routes to Schools Program resources to support
increased walking and bicycling to schools.
POLICY M-5.1: SAFE ROUTES TO
SCHOOLS
Promote Safe Routes to Schools
programs for all schools serving the
city.
STRATEGIES:
M-5.1.1. Coordination with School
Districts.
Coordinate with the School Districts
to develop plans and programs that
encourage car/van-pooling, stagger
hours of adjacent schools, establish
drop-off locations, and encourage
walking and bicycling to school.
M-5.1.2. Teen Commission.
Encourage the Teen Commission to
work with schools to encourage year-
round programs to incentivize walking
and biking to school.
POLICY M-5.2: PRIORITIZING PROJECTS
Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian
safety improvements include projects
to enhance safe accessibility to
schools.
POLICY M-5.3: CONNECTIONS TO TRAILS
Connect schools to the citywide trail
system.
POLICY M-5.4: EDUCATION
Support education programs that
promote safe walking and bicycling to
schools.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-20
GOAL M-6
Promote innovative strategies to provide
efficient and adequate vehicle parking
VEHICLE PARKING
Vehicle parking policies encourage efficient and adequate parking, avoid negative
effects on the pedestrian environment or surrounding neighborhoods, and
support the City’s goals for Complete Streets, walkability, bikeability and effective
transit.
POLICY M-6.1: PARKING CODES
Maintain efficient and updated parking
standards to ensure that development
provides adequate parking, both on-
street and off-street depending on the
characteristics of the development,
while also reducing reliance on the
automobile.
POLICY M-6.2: OFF-STREET PARKING
Ensure new off-street parking is
properly designed and efficiently used.
POLICY M-6.3: UNBUNDLED PARKING
Where required by State law, require
residential, commercial, and office uses
to unbundle parking. Encourage
commercial and office uses to unbundle
parking.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-23
GOAL M-7
transportation including automobiles,
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Transportation Impact Analysis policies enable effective, informed transportation
planning by using a more balanced system of indicators, data and monitoring to
evaluate the city’s multi-modal transportation system and optimize travel by all
transportation modes.
POLICY M-7.1: MULTI-MODAL
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Follow guidelines set by the VTA
related to transportation impact
analyses, while conforming to State
goals for multi-modal performance
targets.
POLICY M-7.2: PROTECTED
INTERSECTIONS
Consider adopting a Protected
Intersection policy, which would
identify intersections where
improvements would not be
considered, which would degrade
levels of service for non-vehicular
modes of transportation. Potential
locations include intersections in
Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and other areas where non-vehicular
transportation is a key consideration,
such as, near shopping districts,
schools, parks and senior citizen
developments.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-22
GOAL M-8
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY
Greenhouse gas emissions and air quality policies in this Element work in tandem
with other General Plan policies to reduce municipal and community-wide
greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout Cupertino.
POLICY M-8.1: GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONSTRANSPORTATION
Promote transportation policies
that help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
STRATEGIES:
M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies.
Employ TSM strategies to improve
efficiency of the transportation
infrastructure including strategic right-
of-way improvements, intelligent
transportation systems and optimization
of signal timing to coordinate traffic
flow.
M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers.
Require major and large employers,
including colleges and schools, to
develop and maintain TDM programs to
reduce vehicle trips generated by their
employees and students and develop a
tracking method to monitor results.
M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance.
Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance
to reduce vehicle trips with specific
implementation actions for all
development projects and a
monitoring and reporting program to
ensure implementation.
POLICY M-8.2: LAND USE
Support development and
transportation improvements that help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing per service population
capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT),
reducing impacts on the City’s
transportation network
and maintaining the desired levels of
service for all modes of transportation.
STRATEGIES:
M-8.2.1. Design of New Development.
Require new development to include
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-23
shared amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, or walking as
alternative modes of transportation.
M-8.2.2. Pedestrian Activity.
Require new development to provide
pedestrian pathways to entrances, and
orient buildings and entrances to the
street, to encourage pedestrian activity.
M-8.2.3. Commercial Development.
Require new commercial developments
to provide shared office facilities,
cafeterias, daycare facilities,
lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking,
home offices, shuttle buses to transit
facilities and other amenities that
encourage the use of transit, bicycling
or walking as commute modes to work.
M-8.2.4. Residential and Mixed-Use
Development.
Require new residential or mixed-use
developments to provide shared bicycle
parking and bike repair stations at
locations close to entrances.
POLICY M-8.36: ALTERNATIVE FUEL
CHARGING STATIONS
Develop a city-wide strategy to
encourage the construction of a
network of public and private
alternative fuel vehicle charging/
fueling stations.
POLICY M-8.3: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM)
PROGRAMS
Employ TSM strategies to improve
efficiency of the transportation infrastructure including strategic
right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and
optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
POLICY M-8.4: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
PROGRAMS
Require large employers, including
colleges and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce
vehicle trips generated by their employees and students and develop a
tracking method to monitor results.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-24
POLICY M-8.5: DESIGN OF NEW
DEVELOPMENTS
Encourage new commercial
developments to provide shared office
facilities, cafeterias, daycare facilities,
lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking,
home offices, shuttle buses to transit
facilities and other amenities that
encourage the use of transit, bicycling
or walking as commute modes to
work. Provide pedestrian pathways
and orient buildings to the street to
encourage pedestrian activity.
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-25
D USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT | cupertino community vision 2040
GOAL M-9
Promote effective and efficient use of the
city's transportation network and services
ROADWAY SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
Roadway system efficiency policies make effective use of roadway capacity
by encouraging strategic roadway improvements and complementary policies
promoting transit, walking, bicycling and complete streets.
POLICY M-9.1: EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Strive to maximize the efficiency of
existing infrastructure by locating
appropriate land uses along
roadways and retrofitting streets
to be accessible for all modes of
transportation.
POLICY M-9.2: REDUCED TRAVEL
DEMAND
Promote effective TDM programs for
existing and new development.
POLICY M-9.3: STREET WIDTH
Except as required by environmental
review for new developments, limit
widening of streets as a means of
improving traffic efficiency and focus
instead on operational improvements
to preserve community character.
STRATEGIES:
M-9.3.1. Wolfe Road Overcrossing.
Consider alternate designs for the
Wolfe Road/I-280 Interchange (e.g.,
from partial cloverleaf design to
diamond design) when evaluating
the need to widen the freeway
overcrossing.
M-9.3.2. Streetscape Design.
When reviewing the widening of an
existing street, consider aesthetically
pleasing enhancements and amenities
to improve the safe movement of
pedestrians and bicyclists in keeping
with the vision of the Planning Area.
CHAPTER 3: LAN
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
M-26
GOAL M-10
modes of transportation and that projects
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Transportation infrastructure policies promote safe, attractive and well-
maintained facilities for walking, bicycling, transit and automobiles.
POLICY M-10.1: TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Develop and implement an updated
citywide transportation improvement
plan necessary to accommodate
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
transportation improvements to meet
the City’s needs.
POLICY M-10.2: TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE
Ensure sustainable funding levels for
the Transportation Improvement Plan
by enacting a transportation impact
fee for new development.
POLICY M-10.3: MULTI-MODAL
IMPROVEMENTS
Integrate the financing, design and
construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities with street projects. Build
pedestrian and bicycle improvements
at the same time as improvements
for vehicular circulation to enable
travelers to transition from one mode
of transportation to another (e.g.,
bicycle to bus).
POLICY M-10.4: ROADWAY
MAINTENANCE FUNDING
Identify and secure new funding
sources to fund the on-going routine
maintenance of roadways.
Appendix A: Land Use Definitions
LAND USE CATEGORIES
Patterns and symbols, defined on the map legend, are used on the Land Use Map to
identify land use categories, the road system, major land features and significant public
and private facilities. The following is a description of each land use category:
RESIDENTIAL
This designation identifies Aareas suitable for residential dwellings, and is divided into
five nine sub‐categories based on dwelling unit density, which is and expressed as the
number of dwellings permitted on each acre. Maximum residential yield is calculated
by multiplying the maximum dwelling unit density by the size of the lot in acres,
excluding any public rights‐of‐way, in fee or as an easement, other access easements, and
easements for creeks and other waterways, or lot area as further defined in the Municipal
Code. Accessory dwelling units continue to be permitted as required by State and local
laws.
Community Vision 2040 does not define whether the dwellings are to be owned or rented
by their inhabitants or whether they are to be attached or detached.
Very Low Density: Intensity is based on applying one of four slope‐density formulas—
Foothill Modified, Foothill Modified l/2 Acre, Semi‐Rural 5 acre, or Foothill 5‐20 acre ‐ for
each site. This classification is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from
extensive development and to protect human life from hazards related to flood, fire and
unstable terrain.
Low Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 1‐5 and or 1‐6 units
(Rancho Rinconada) on each acre and may have a required minimum density. This
category is intended to promote a suburban lifestyle of detached single‐family homes.
Planned residential communities can be incorporated into this category if the
development form is compatible with adjoining residential development. Duplexes with
accessory dwelling units (up to a maximum of four total units) may be permitted per the
City’s Housing Element and Municipal Code regulations to support “missing middle”
housing types.
Low/Medium Density: Sites have an established density between 5.01‐10 units per acre
and may have a required minimum density. This category accommodates more intensive
forms of residential development while still being compatible with the predominant
single‐family detached residential neighborhood. This development can be successfully
incorporated into a single‐family environment.
Medium Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 10.01‐20 units per
acre and may have a required minimum density. This category is intended for smaller‐
scale provides greater opportunity for multiple‐family residential developments,
including duplexes, and townhome/rowhouse development in a planned environment.
In addition to high‐demand housing types, such as townhomes, tThis density range
provides opportunities for the development of “missing middle” housing types and
allows for a gradual transition from existing usually results in traffic volumes and
buildings that are not compatible with single‐family residential neighborhoodsuses to
higher‐density development. These developments should be located on the edges of
single‐family residential communities where utility services and street networks are
adequate to serve the increased densities of this category.
Medium/High Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 20.01‐35
units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category promotes a wide
range of housing choices including triplexes/fourplexes, or other multiple‐family
dwellingsresidential and townhome development, or a mix thereof. The zoning for the
site specifies whether townhomes are permitted to develop with townhomes, with the
TH combining district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the
category beis used in corridors with access to services and transit. The development may
result in structures with three or four levels and underground parking. This category
offers opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a more urban
environment.
High Density: Greater than Sites have an established maximum density between 35.01‐
50 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category is intended
for primarily, promotes a wide range of housing choices in multiple‐family
dwellingsresidential development, with some sites, zoning permitting, having the ability
to also develop with a small townhome component to allow varied housing choices. The
zoning for the site specifies whether townhomes are permitted, with the TH combining
district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category beis
used only at locations with adequate utility services or transit or both. The development
may result in structures with three or four levels and underground parking. This category
offers maximum wide opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a
more urban environment.
High/Very High Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 50.01‐65
units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category promotes a wide
range of housing choices in primarily multiple‐family or mixed‐use residential
developments in urban environments. In some cases, zoning may permit a small
component of townhome development to provide varied housing choices with the TH
combining district established in the Municipal Code. The category is used only at
locations with adequate utility services, transit, or both.
Very High Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 65.01‐80 units
per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category offers extensive
opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a more urban
environment. The category is used only at locations with adequate utility services, transit,
or both.
Highest Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 80.01‐95 units per
acre and may have a required minimum density. This category offers maximum
opportunity for housing choice, including workforce housing. The category is used only
at locations with adequate utility services located adjacent to an office campus
environment.
COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
This designation allows primarily commercial uses and secondarily residential uses or a
compatible combination of the two. Commercial use means retail sales or service
establishments with direct contact with customers and a sales floor/serving area,
businesses, and limited professional offices, andservice establishments with direct
contact with customers. This applies to commercial activities ranging from neighborhood
convenience stores to regionally oriented specialty stores. Retail stores that would be a
nuisance for adjoining neighborhoods or harmful to the community identity would be
regulated by the commercial zoning ordinance and use permit procedure. Retail stores
do not include businesses that function as a warehouse, provide only pick‐up and drop‐
off services, and/or do not offer direct services or sale of goods.
Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas may be needed to provide
local neighborhood serving retail; otherwise, they may be redeveloped at residential
densities compatible with the surroundingsidentified in the land use map.
The residential density for each sub‐category is identified below. 100% residential
development is allowed on sites with a General Plan land use designation of
Commercial/Residential, if at least 40% of the total units are affordable, with at least 20%
of the total units affordable to lower income households. Residential development is
subject to the numerical caps and other policies described in the development priorities
tablesFigure LU‐2 and the land use map. In the event of a conflict between Figure LU‐2
and the land use map, the residential density would be the greater of the two.
Commercial/Residential Low/Medium Density: This category allows mixed‐use
development with commercial uses and an established maximum residential density
between 5.01‐10 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum
residential density. Development in this category promotes low to medium intensity
residential development within walking distance to local/neighborhood serving
commercial uses.
Commercial/Residential Medium Density: This category allows mixed‐use
development with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density
between 10.01‐20 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required
minimum residential density. Development in this category should promote housing
choices for “missing‐middle” housing and smaller‐scale multiple‐family residential,
combined with commercial development. The intensity allows for a gradual transition
from existing single‐family residential uses to higher‐density development.
Commercial/Residential Medium/High Density: This category allows mixed‐use
development with commercial uses and an established maximum residential density
between 20.01‐35 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required
minimum residential density. Development in this category promotes commercial
development combined with a range of housing choices for people who want a more
urban environment, with either multiple‐family residential or townhome development,
or a mix thereof. In some cases, zoning may permit a small component of townhome
development to provide varied housing choices with the TH combining district
established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category generally be
used in corridors with access to services and transit.
Commercial/Residential High Density: This category allows mixed‐use development
with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density between 35.01‐
50 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum residential
density. Development in this category is intended primarily for multiple‐family
residential. In some cases, zoning may permit a component of townhome development
to provide varied housing choices with the TH combining district established in the
Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category be used only at locations with
adequate utility services or transit or both. This category offers a wide opportunity for
housing choice, especially for people who want to live in an urban environment.
Commercial/Residential High/Very High Density: This category allows mixed‐use
development with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density
between 50.01‐65 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required
minimum residential density. Development in this category promotes commercial
development with a wide range of housing choices in primarily multiple‐family
residential development. In some cases, zoning may permit a small component of
townhome development to provide varied housing choices with the TH combining
district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category be
used only at locations with adequate utility services, transit, or both.
Commercial/Residential Very High Density: This category allows mixed‐use
development with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density
between 65.01‐80 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required
minimum residential density. Development in this category offers maximum
opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a distinctly urban
environment. The intensity requires that the category be used only at locations with
adequate utility services, high‐quality, transit, or both.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Commercial is a subset of the Commercial land use designation. This
category includes retail activities, personal services, and limited commercial offices that
serve primarily the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Residential living units may
shall only be allowed as upper floor uses or behind the permitted non‐residential
component of live/work units.
MONTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE DESIGNATION
Residential: The Monta Vista neighborhood has three four density ranges, which allow
flexibility in allowing single family, duplex and/or multi‐family housing types. The four
density ranges establish the maximum residential density for sites located in each of the
designations and are identified on the General Plan Land Use map.
Housing Element Technical Report B
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... B-1
1.1 Role and Content of the Housing Element .................................................................... B-1
1.2 Housing Element Technical Report Organization .......................................................... B-2
1.3 Consistency with The General Plan .............................................................................. B-2
Appendix B1 – Public Participation
Appendix B2 –Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B3 –Fair Housing Assessment
Appendix B4 – Housing Resources and Opportunities
Appendix B5 – Housing Constraints and Energy Conservation
Appendix B6 – Review of Previous Housing Element
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐1
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino is a community with a high quality of life, a renowned school system, and a
robust high-technology economy. The long-term vitality of Cupertino and the local economy depend
on the availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs. As Cupertino
looks towards the future, increasing the range and diversity of housing options will be integral to the
city’s success. Consistent with the goal of being a balanced community, this Housing Element
continues the City’s commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential development, as well
as for preserving and enhancing our existing neighborhoods.
This 2023-2031 Housing Element represents the City of Cupertino’s intent to plan for the housing
needs of the Cupertino community while meeting the State’s housing goals, as set forth in Article 10.6
of the California Government Code. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of
a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s major housing
goal. The Cupertino Housing Element represents a sincere and creative effort to meet local and
regional housing needs within the constraints of a fully established built-out community, limited land
availability, and extraordinarily high costs of land and housing.
1.1 ROLE AND CONTENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
This Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan to address the housing needs in Cupertino.
The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population.
Per State Housing Element law, the document must be periodically updated to:
Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional
growth projections;
Describe goals, policies, and implementation strategies to achieve local housing objectives;
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special-needs populations;
Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production;
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements; and
Evaluate Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
This 6th Cycle Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period, from January 31, 2023, through
January 31, 2031, and replaces the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element that covered the January 31,
2015, through January 31, 2023, planning period.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐2
1.2 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT ORGANIZATION
The Housing Element Technical Report, Appendix B, includes the following sections:
Appendix B1 – Public Participation: This section summarizes public outreach and engagement
efforts, including stakeholder interviews; Housing Element advisory committee meetings; housing
commission, planning commission, and City Council workshops and study sessions; community
workshops; public hearings; community input received; and noticing of the draft Housing Element.
Appendix B2 – Housing Needs Assessment: This section focuses on demographic information,
including population trends, ethnicity, age, household composition, income, employment, housing
characteristics, housing needs by income, and housing needs for special segments of the population.
Appendix B3 – Fair Housing Assessment: Includes a Fair Housing Assessment that aims to
combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from
barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
Appendix B4 – Housing Resources and Opportunities: This section describes Cupertino’s
housing resources as well as the city’s existing housing stock and the potential areas for future housing
development.
Appendix B5 – Housing Constraints: This section analyzes potential governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to housing development. This includes the City’s planning, zoning, and
building standards that directly affect residential development patterns as well as influence housing
availability and affordability. Potential nongovernmental constraints include the availability and cost
of financing housing development, the price of land, and the materials for building homes. This
section also discusses opportunities for energy conservation, which can reduce costs to homeowners
and infrastructure costs to the City.
Appendix B6 – Review of Previous Housing Element: This section contains an evaluation of the
prior Housing Element and its accomplishments and analyzes differences between what was projected
and what was achieved.
1.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The City’s 2040 General Plan was adopted in 2014, and the Housing Element has been reviewed for
consistency with other General Plan elements. The policies and programs in this Housing Element
are consistent with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. The City will
continue to review and revise the Housing Element throughout the planning period, as necessary for
consistency, when amendments are made to the General Plan (Strategy HE-1.3.13).
Per Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (Government Code Section 65302.g.3), upon the next revision of the
Housing Element on or after January 1, 2014, the Safety Element shall be reviewed and updated as
necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as state responsibility areas, as defined in Section
4102 of the Public Resources Code, and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐3
defined in Section 51177. Senate Bill (SB) 379 (Government Code Section 65302.g.4) requires that the
Safety Element be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate change adaptation and
applicable resiliency strategies. SB 1035 (Government Code Section 65302.g.6) requires that the Safety
Element be reviewed and updated as needed upon each revision of the Housing Element or local
hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every eight years. SB 99 (Government Code Section
65302.g.5) requires that on or after January 1, 2020, the Safety Element includes information to
identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two evacuation routes.
As of January 2023, the City is currently working to review and update the existing Safety Element,
incorporating all State law changes, including applicable laws and any additional requirements and
General Plan guidelines from the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR).
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐4
This page intentionally left blank.
Public Participation B.1
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐i
Table of Contents
B1 Public Participation ............................................................................................ B1-1
B1.1 Bang the Table ............................................................................................................. B1-1
B1.2 Community Workshops ................................................................................................. B1-2
B1.3 City Publications, Listservs, Newsletters, and Other Social Media Outreach ................ B1-3
B1.4 Mailed Outreach ........................................................................................................... B1-4
B1.5 Dedicated AFFH Outreach ............................................................................................ B1-4
B1.6 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................ B1-5
B1.7 Additional Outreach ...................................................................................................... B1-5
B1.8 Study Sessions: Sites Inventory ................................................................................... B1-7
B1.9 Focus Group Meetings: Rezoning ................................................................................ B1-8
B1.10 Community Open House: Rezoning .............................................................................. B1-9
B1.11 Public Review and Comments for Draft and Final Housing Element .......................... B1-10
B1.12 Noticing of the Draft Housing Element ........................................................................ B1-14
Tables
Table B1-1 Social Media Outreach................................................................................................. B1-4
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐1
B1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This section describes the effort made by the City of Cupertino to engage all economic segments of
the community (including residents and/or their representatives) in the development and update of
the Housing Element. This public participation effort also includes formal consultation, pursuant to
Government Code Section 65352.3, with representatives from nine Native American tribes that are
present and active in Santa Clara County. It is also responsive to Assembly Bill (AB) 686 (Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing), which requires local jurisdictions, as they update their housing elements, to
conduct public outreach to equitably include all stakeholders in the Housing Element public
participation program.
The 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) numbers are a sea change for
all California communities, and the success of the update process hinged in part on a community
outreach and engagement program that was robust, inclusive, and meaningful. COVID-19 has
complicated community outreach efforts, but the pandemic has also catalyzed the development of
new digital tools that have brought interactive engagement to a new level. One such tool is an all-in-
one digital community engagement platform called Engagement HQ or Bang the Table
(https://www.bangthetable.com/).
B1.1 BANG THE TABLE
The City of Cupertino partnered with Bang the Table as a cornerstone of its community outreach and
engagement program. Using this platform, the update team developed an interactive engagement plan
that allowed community members to engage on their own time. Components of the interactive
engagement plan included:
Website. Engage Cupertino at https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housing-element is a
dedicated website that provides a portal to all of the Housing Element-related public
engagement activities that are available to members of the public. The page provides translation
from English into four languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Russian, and Vietnamese. This
website includes information on Housing Element basics, site surveys, a Senate Bill 9 survey,
and materials from community workshops.
Places. The update team gathered feedback from an interactive mapping program called
Balancing Act, through the Sites Inventory process.
Stories. The engagement process helped Cupertino better understand, empathize with, and
relate to all who contributed to the many Housing Element discussions through video
interaction and reflection opportunities.
Surveys. The process encouraged Cupertino community members to voice their opinions in a
convenient way that also helped City staff understand what areas need more encouragement to
participate. Aggregate data also helped the City understand generally who is participating with
the outreach tools.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐2
B1.2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The following community workshops were held to connect with stakeholders and Cupertino residents
and gather valuable insights that would contribute to the Housing Element update process.
October 13, 2021: West Valley Community Services (WVCS’s) Envisioning an Inclusive
Cupertino: Housing Element Town Hall. This event was an opportunity for the Cupertino
community to learn about the Housing Element through an informative presentation, and a
panel featuring Assemblymember Evan Low, Bianca Neumann from EAH Housing, Nadia
Aziz from the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, Matthew Reed from SV@Home, and Mair
Dundon, affordable housing resident, and community advocate.
December 9, 2021: Housing Element Update Community Workshop. The workshop was
advertised to the public through a variety of efforts. The workshop, held at the height of
COVID-19 restrictions, allowed attendees via Zoom. The workshop was live streamed to both
the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.
January 24, 2022: Senior Advisory Committee. Staff attended this Committee meeting via
Zoom to inform this senior-focused group about the Housing Element update and the
community engagement opportunities that would be coming throughout the 2022 calendar
year, and to encourage community participation in the update to the maximum extent possible.
April 23, 2022: Earth Day and Arbor Day Festival. City staff attended this day-long event
to update and inform the public about the importance of the Housing Element update and the
ways the public can participate in the process.
May 23, 2022: Community Meeting for Inclusive Housing. This workshop was hosted by
WVCS. It focused on community dialogue and included a panel of individuals with a variety of
backgrounds and life experiences, including former military veterans adjusting to civilian life,
individuals on the edge of homelessness, and residents with physical and intellectual disabilities.
Breakout rooms enabled participants to discuss their experiences and how to be engaged with
the policy-making process. The workshop was advertised to the public through various efforts,
including the City’s e-notification list of over 2,000 individuals and organizations. There were
Zoom attendees and in-person attendees, with over 100 attendees in total. The meeting was
also livestreamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.
July 20, 2022: Community Meeting to Focus on Needs for Students and Older Adults.
This workshop was also hosted by WVCS and featured a panel of younger and older adults, all
of whom deal directly with high housing costs throughout the region, and more breakout room
time than in previous meetings. It took place remotely on Zoom. The workshop was advertised
to the public through various efforts, again including the City’s e-notification list. The meeting
was also live streamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV
channel.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐3
September 26, 2022: Community Meeting to Better Understand Low-Income
Homeowners. This workshop was hosted by WVCS and focused on those who own a home
in Cupertino but are otherwise low income, and those who work in Cupertino but cannot
afford to live in the city and thus face long daily commutes to and from work. The workshop
was advertised to the public through various efforts, again including the City’s e-notification
list. The meeting was also live streamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the
Granicus TV channel.
Cupertino’s community engagement program included an initial presentation to City Council, five
community meetings, and online/virtual participation opportunities made possible through Bang the
Table (described previously).
B1.3 CITY PUBLICATIONS, LISTSERVS, NEWSLETTERS, AND OTHER SOCIAL
MEDIA OUTREACH
The City released several newsletters to ensure the public was well informed of the Housing Element
efforts. This included:
City newsletters went out initially to 685 email subscribers for the October and December 2021
community workshops. By late 2022, the list had grown to over 2,000 subscribers. E-
notifications have been sent to list subscribers for every public meeting.
Newsletters were sent to 1,856 subscribers on February 2, 2022 (Cupertino General News,
Housing, or Housing Commission Meetings lists), with a 58 percent open rate and a 5 percent
click rate.
Since early 2022, the City has provided regular, generally monthly, updates on the Housing
Element on its two electronic newsletters, Items of Interest and The Scene (also in print).
Social media outreach included Cupertino Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor, and eNotification.
This outreach is summarized in Table B1-1, Social Media Outreach.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐4
Table B1-1 Social Media Outreach
Facebook NextDoor Twitter eNotification
Post 1 – Housing Element
Community Workshop
(11/30/21)
Reach: 453
Engagement: 10
Reach: 1,013
Engagement: 1
Reach: 783
Engagement: 1
Reach: 15,010
Engagement: 594
Post 2 – Workshop Reminder
(12/6/21)
Reach: 303
Engagement: 1
Reach: 656
Engagement: 1
Reach: 1,096
Engagement: 16
Reach: 1,444
Engagement: 118
Source: EMC Planning Group 2022
B1.4 MAILED OUTREACH
January Postcard: Mailed to every residence in the city the week of January 10, 2022, to 23,351 addresses.
This was a city-wide effort to notify all residents of the Housing Element update.
The Cupertino Scene Newsletter: The Cupertino Scene, the City’s official newsletter, is one method the City
uses to communicate with residents to ensure the public has access to useful and important
information. The Scene is printed every month, except in January and August. A printed version of
the newsletter is mailed to more than 20,000 households with extra copies available at City Hall,
Cupertino Library, Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, among other spots across Cupertino.
The Scene went out to 23,351 addresses on December 1, 2021, and February 2, 2022. Additional
updates were also provided throughout 2022.
The City also sent direct mail to all property owners with sites larger than one half acre and up to 10
acres, consistent with California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
guidelines regarding potentially eligible housing sites.
B1.5 DEDICATED AFFH OUTREACH
The Cupertino public participation program was very responsive to affirmatively furthering fair
housing (AFFH), which requires local jurisdictions to conduct public outreach to equitably include all
stakeholders in the Housing Element public participation program.
Flyer and Survey Distribution at West Valley Community Services (WVCS) Events.
Flyers promoting the Engage Cupertino Housing Element website and a survey were
distributed to WVCS clients at several WVCS-sponsored events, including the December 11th
Gift of Hope event and a handful of the weekly mobile market events between January and
March of 2022. The flyers and surveys were available in English, Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese,
and Simplified Chinese. A total of 38 surveys were received.
October 13, 2021: WVCS’s Envisioning an Inclusive Cupertino: Housing Element Town Hall.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐5
May 23, 2022: Community Meeting for Inclusive Housing.
July 20, 2022: Community Meeting to Focus on Needs for Students and Older Adults.
September 26, 2022: Community Meeting to Better Understand Low-Income Homeowners.
Additional Focus Group Meetings focused on housing for people with disabilities and
opportunities for faith-based organizations to contribute to affordable housing.
B1.6 TRIBAL CONSULTATION
This public participation effort includes formal consultation, pursuant to Government Code Section
65352.3, with representatives from nine Native American tribes that are present and active in Santa
Clara County. All tribal groups have received mailed notices regarding the Housing Element update
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process associated with it.
B1.7 ADDITIONAL OUTREACH
Through the month of August 2023, the following outreach has been done for the Housing Element
update. The following list includes public meetings for which notice was provided before the City’s
Commissions and Councils, as well as community meetings:
Mid-January 2022, postcards were mailed to all Cupertino households (to over 23,000
addresses) to inform residents about the Housing Element update and to introduce them to
the engagecupertino.org website and the range of information located there.
January 19, 2022: To gauge property owner interest, letters of interest were sent by City staff
to over 400 Cupertino property owners whose properties could potentially be viable housing
sites per HCD criteria. An online owner interest form was created by the City’s consultant,
EMC Planning, and placed on the website. At present, there have been 59 property owners
who have requested inclusion of their properties on the sites inventory. Staff did a focused,
second mailing in early June to property owners who did not originally respond.
Since December 2021, regular monthly updates on the Housing Element update’s status and
next steps have been provided on the City’s Items of Interest and The Scene newsletters.
Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor have been regularly used to
inform residents about upcoming Housing Element update meetings.
At present, over 3,700 individuals receive e-notifications from the City for Housing Element-
related public meetings.
Staff attended the January 24, 2022, Senior Advisory Committee and the March 9, 2022, Block
Leaders meetings to provide an overview of the Housing Element update process and to
inform meeting attendees about sources of information regarding the update.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐6
Staff attended the April 23, 2022, Earth and Arbor Day event at Library Park to inform
residents and attendees about the Housing Element update and to let residents know that their
input is valuable and necessary.
May 23, 2022: A hybrid community meeting allowing for both virtual and in-person attendance
was held at Community Hall. The meeting was coordinated by City staff, EMC Planning and
West Valley Community Services (WVCS) and featured four panelists with lived-experience
and/or special needs, including development disabilities, prior homelessness, housing
insecurity, and adjustments to civilian life following military service. Over 100 people registered
to attend the meeting, with approximately 70 participating; three-quarters attended virtually.
This meeting was the first of three focus group community meetings, the second meeting was
held on July 25, described below.
July 25, 2022: Community Meeting focusing on housing-related issues germane to seniors and
students. Similar to the May community meeting, approximately 100 people registered for the
meeting, which was virtual-only. An upcoming community meeting is scheduled for September
26, focusing on the experiences of Cupertino workers who are priced out of the local housing
market and Cupertino homeowners who are lower income despite homeownership.
Community Engagement Plan-Strategic Advisory Committee meetings: an ad hoc committee
approved by the City Council on March 8 to focus on community engagement and AFFH
issues, met on March 30, April 7 and 25, May 16, June 6, July 25, September 16, and October
28, 2022. E-Notifications were sent out for all eight meetings of the committee.
City Council Study Sessions: Initial study sessions providing a big picture overview of the
Housing Element update were held September 28 and November 16, 2021. Council
subsequently held meetings on the formation of a Stakeholders Group on March 1 and March
8, 2022, leading to the establishment of the Strategic Advisory Committee. City Council
meetings were held on the Sites inventory: August 16, 29, and 30, 2022.
December 9, 2021: a morning Housing Commission study session and evening Community
Meeting were held.
Planning Commission: Study sessions providing an overview of the Housing Element update
and, more specifically, on the Sites Inventory, were held on January 25, February 22, April 26,
and May 24, 2022. Joint meetings with the Housing Commission were held on June 28 and July
5, 2022, at the conclusion of which both the Planning and Housing Commissions provided
recommendations to the City Council on which sites to include on the Housing Sites
Inventory.
June 8, 2022: A meeting with Project Sentinel Executive Director, Carole Conn, and Fair
Housing director, Molly Current, was held to discuss fair housing and rental housing issues in
Cupertino and countywide.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐7
July 25, 2023: Study session with City Council on the progress on the Housing Element to date.
In addition, the Council was updated on site selection and policy areas. The Council affirmed
the site selection strategy outlined by staff and identified policy areas of interest by a motion
that passed on a 4-0-1 vote.
B1.8 STUDY SESSIONS: SITES INVENTORY
City staff held numerous meetings related to the Housing Element update. During the 2022 calendar
year, the Planning Commission held four public meetings on January 25, February 22, April 26, and
May 24, 2022. Each of these meetings focused on a citywide discussion to select sites at specified
densities for a potential housing sites inventory.
At the January 2022 and February 2022 Planning Commission study sessions, staff provided overviews
of the housing sites selection process and identified nearly 400 properties citywide that could
potentially be placed on the City’s housing sites inventory. The sites inventory is the list of City
Council-approved properties that identifies where housing will be developed during the 2023-2031
planning period. The majority of these properties fell within the property size range, 0.5-10 acres,
recommended by HCD. The City’s Planning Commission had the following recommendations:
1) That the housing sites should be dispersed throughout the city and strive for a balance between
the City’s eastern and western areas;
2) New housing sites should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing
residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents;
3) The Housing Element should avoid significantly “up-zoning” sites to the extent feasible; and
4) The Housing Element should include new housing sites that could support the City’s public
schools and help counteract declining enrollment trends that are occurring city- and countywide.
Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, City staff revised the site inventory and
presented a reduced, more focused list of potential housing sites at the April 26 Planning Commission
meeting. In the revised inventory, potential sites were grouped by neighborhood and special area to
better illustrate the locations of the properties. Extensive comments were received at the April 26,
2022, Planning Commission meeting, where in the Planning Commission reiterated its previously
stated principles and goals for housing site selection and also directed staff to focus on the potential
inclusion of several “key” sites along South DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards.
On June 28 and July 5, 2022, the Planning and Housing Commissions held a special joint meeting (the
meeting was continued from June 28 to July 5) to finalize their housing sites inventory
recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s sites inventory recommendation
largely coincided with the staff’s June 28 recommendation to the Planning and Housing Commissions,
but it also includes key changes, notably increasing housing densities to areas on the city’s west side,
such as the South DeAnza Boulevard and Bubb Road special areas, as well as the North and South
Monta Vista neighborhoods. Other recommendations also included that the development standards
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐8
be established that allow for more intensive development along the street frontage portions of the
DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevard corridors but that development of the properties along these
corridors adjacent to single-family neighborhoods be limited in scale to preserve the existing
neighborhood character.
B1.9 FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS: REZONING
On August 16, 2023, the City held two focus group meetings related to rezoning for the Housing
Element update. Over 75 local and national affordable and market-rate housing developers were
invited to join the focus group meeting. Nearly 35 service providers, housing organizations, and local
agencies were invited to join the focus group meeting for housing advocates and partner agencies.
Focus Group 1: Five housing developers attended, which included representatives from Charities
Housing and Bay Area Housing Corporation/local affordable housing developers, Sand Hill Property
Company, and Toll Brothers/local and national for-profit developers. The discussion with housing
developers focused on housing densities and common obstacles, and potential solutions to building
medium- to very high-density residential developments in Cupertino. Participants shared that there
are two primary forms of development and densities that are feasible in today’s market – townhome
development with a density of approximately 18 to 25 dwelling units per acre and podium
development with a density of at least 80 dwelling units per acre. Market-rate developer participants
noted that unless a jurisdiction has a large enough site of at least three to four acres that would allow
for a mix of densities, it can be difficult to finance and build at the densities found between townhome
and podium development. Additional participant suggestions to reduce barriers to development
included expediting the permitting process, creating certainty and consistency for review, and allowing
more flexibility in project design.
Focus Group 2: Four participants attended, which included representatives from Cupertino Union
School District and Fremont Union High School District/local school districts, Silicon Valley
Leadership Group/a local housing advocate, and West Valley Community Services/a local social
services provider. Participants were asked to provide input on what type of housing or amenities they
believe are currently lacking in Cupertino. School district representatives noted that they have been
struggling to attract and retain employees and highlighted the need for workforce housing in the area.
They also discussed student generation as it affects current enrollment, pointing out that higher-
density development typically generates fewer students per household than single-family residential or
townhome development. The service provider and housing advocate representatives emphasized the
need for more affordable units and higher-density development, particularly along transit corridors.
Participants were also asked to identify which amenities, services, or infrastructure they would like to
see in new development projects. Participants encouraged the provision of community gathering areas,
open space, and on-site social, childcare, youth, and senior services, as well as more mixed-use
development and a mix of housing types in each project.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐9
B1.10 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE: REZONING
In September 2023 the City hosted two community open house events on rezoning. An in-person
open house was held on Saturday September 9, from 1:00pm to 3:00pm at the Quinlan Community
Center. The second open house was held virtually through Zoom on Thursday, September 14 from
6:00pm to 8:00pm. Both open houses consisted of the same agenda, material, and approach.
Approximately 40 in-person participants and 25 virtual participants attended the open house meetings.
The objectives of the open houses were to educate community members about Housing Element sites
and densities; collect feedback about amenities, placemaking features, and development form; and
address community questions. Each open house consisted of a presentation on the Housing Element
Update, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and rezoning, followed by a question-and-
answer session. Participants had the remainder of the meeting time to share their input and ideas at
each of the three open house stations on: (1) Context and amenities, (2) Development types and forms
for 25 dwelling units per acre, 50 dwelling units per acre, and 75 dwelling units per acre, and (3)
Development standards for proposed density ranges of 25-50 dwelling units per acre and 50-75
dwelling units per acre. Participant feedback from the open house stations is summarized below.
Participants were asked to provide input through a visual preference survey regarding building
amenities and placemaking features for new development.
Building Amenities
In-Person and virtual open house participants expressed support for community open spaces and
courtyards in new developments. The in-person participants also showed support for retail uses and
bicycle storage, and virtual participants supported community space, daycare, and bicycle storage.
Additional ideas from both groups included: aging in place amenities such as community gathering
space and medical services; social services; barbecue and picnic areas; recreational space for sports,
such as basketball, skateboarding, yoga, martial arts, and roller hockey; space for gardening, dog parks;
laundry and storage facilities for residents; and air conditioning.
Placemaking
Participants from the in-person workshop showed strong support for landscape and green
infrastructure, followed by active street frontages. In the virtual open house, participants showed the
most support for active street frontages and public plazas, followed by equal support of public art,
landscaping and green infrastructure, and lighting. Additional ideas from both groups included:
amenities like entertainment, grocery stores, and other social gathering places nearby; bike paths; and
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through less parking and sidewalk enhancements, including
outdoor dining.
25 Dwelling Units per Acre
Participants favored mixed-use development, followed by townhomes and multi-family projects.
Some participants suggested that mixed-use development should incorporate inviting ground floor
design with shops and bistros. Regarding townhome development, participants pointed out that
developers are building very similar projects, which can lead to bland designs. They would prefer to
see variation in roof lines, building step-backs, vertical articulation on the façade, and vegetation.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐10
Others pointed out concerns about adequate residential parking and townhome design not being
senior-friendly or incorporating aging-in-place design techniques.
50 Dwelling Units per Acre
Participants noted preferences for mixed-use and multi-family development for developments, citing
mixed-use as tending to be both cost-effective and pleasant. However, one participant noted a
preference for a combination of mixed-use and 100% residential projects when in close proximity to
one another. Participants also preferred multi-family development design that incorporated variation
in colors, materials, and roof lines, plus private and community open space such as balconies and
landscaped areas. General comments about development at this density included: concerns that higher
density development look “cookie cutter” and should incorporate “personality,”; and that density at
this level is too high for Cupertino.
75 Dwelling Units per Acre
The in-person group showed a strong preference for mixed-use development over multi-family. The
virtual group had a slight preference for multifamily. Comments from both groups related to mixed-
use development included: direct lighting downward and toward building walls to minimize light
pollution; require variation in height, rooflines, and color; and provide larger square footage for
ground floor tenant spaces; and vegetation. Comments related to multi-family development included:
trees along street frontages; balconies; and variation in height, rooflines, and color. General comments
received for development at this density included: concerns that mixed-use can be noisy, so some
developments should be designed as residential only; concerns that all higher density developments
would look “cookie cutter” and should incorporate “personality”; preference for the highest density
possible, even if it means taller buildings, for developments to have lower impact on greenhouse gas
emissions and lower vehicle miles traveled through bike and walking amenities as well as less parking;
and a note that density at this level is too high for Cupertino.
B1.11 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS FOR DRAFT AND FINAL HOUSING
ELEMENT
The City received comments from the public, Cupertino residents, Silicon Valley Young Democrats,
Cupertino for All, and Silicon Valley at Home, South Bay YIMBY, and comments received at
Cupertino City Council Meetings. Public comments included, but were not limited to, the following
topics:
Include housing strategies to develop more missing-middle housing for the area’s workforce.
Develop incentives including transitional housing on properties owned by public entities.
Consider development of work/live units when replacing strip malls along major
transportation corridors.
Hire a housing program manager to assist with implementing housing programs.
Address fair housing needs to affirmatively further fair housing.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐11
Ensure sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA that is distributed throughout the city.
Explore increasing housing for the developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers
to accessing below-market rate units.
Reduce constraints to housing development, including parking reductions, reduced building
setbacks, reducing park dedication fees, expanding single-family home floor-area ratio (FAR)
requirements, and restructuring impact fees.
Initiate policies and programs focusing on the development of extremely low-income,
emergency interim, permanent supportive and transitional housing, housing for De Anza
students, and focus on teacher housing for teachers of all academic levels.
Add Tier 2 sites and Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 sites.
Remove AB 2011 Retail Centers or any additional retail centers.
Partner with local school districts and use underutilized land on school sites.
Include reasonable renter protections, community land trusts, and rental tenant relocation and
assistance.
Approve housing projects that are transit oriented.
Ensure multifamily housing is encouraged in high opportunity areas.
All comments received were considered and used to inform the revised sites analysis and the
assessment of fair housing. Goals, policies, and strategies were included and/or revised to incorporate
the feedback received.
Revisions included new and revised strategies to strengthen the city’s commitment to meeting the
RHNA, through assistance with the development of non-vacant sites, mixed-use sites, lot
consolidation, modifying development standards to ensure maximum densities can be achieved, and
creating a new R-4 zoning district and new General Plan Land Use Designation to allow for higher
densities than what currently exist in both the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Several
revisions were made to the Fair Housing Assessment, including looking at RHNA distribution
throughout the city, as well as modifying programs to assist residents with mobility constraints,
displacement risk, offering a range of housing types, focusing efforts in high opportunity areas and
areas of higher incomes, and to complete a study to determine if a rent control ordinance should be
adopted by the City. Specific strategies were also modified to ensure compliance with State law. The
City revised the sites inventory to remove sites that were not viable based on their existing uses, and
included additional information regarding their redevelopment potential, based on City knowledge
and conversations with property owners.
The Draft Element, as revised, remained available on the City’s website during the second submittal
to HCD (for 60 days). At this point, comments were received from two members of the public in
December 2023 related to revisions made to the initial public draft. One expressed disagreement with
the ACS data that was used in the housing needs assessment and felt that it did not match their lived
experience as a resident, particularly around the availability of employment opportunities in the city
and the number of households earning at or above 100 percent of the AMI, and expressed a desire
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐12
for more housing resources to be made available, particularly to combat housing discrimination. The
other community member expressed concerns about the availability of power infrastructure and
potential traffic conditions and graffiti that the community member feels may result from increased
housing development. These comments were considered during subsequent revisions.
In February 2024, prior to submitting the draft to HCD for a third round of review, the City received
comments from Cupertino residents, and a member of the City Council. All comments received were
considered and responses to the themes are summarized below. The City continues to make a diligent
effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments through direct emails, and posting of
the draft on the City’s website.
Release of the draft Housing Element was not consistent with State Law.
o Similar to all other draft releases, consistent with AB 215, the City posted the draft revision
on the website and emailed a link to all individuals and organizations that previously
requested notices relating to the Housing Element or requested general City news.
Request for additional public outreach.
o There will be at least one meeting with the Housing and Planning Commissions in April
2024 followed by meetings with the City Council in May/June 2024. There will be several
community meetings in the spring and summer to discuss rezoning, General Plan and
objective design standards in relation to the Housing Element.
Partner with school districts and other organizations to provide downpayment assistance or
equity share program to help public agency employees, including the employees of the City of
Cupertino, to become homeowners in our community.
o Strategy HE-7.3.2 states that the City will coordinate with local school districts and colleges
to identify housing needs and concerns. The City will discuss potential partnerships for
affordable housing developments for school district employees and college students,
including on school district properties. This ongoing implementation of this program will
help to strategize on how to expand housing opportunities for teachers and public
employees.
Remove housing opportunities on school sites.
o Allowing for housing on school sites provides additional housing options for employees.
The City would determine the need based on the implementation of Strategy HE-7.3.2.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐13
Address the job-housing imbalance and discourage worsening the imbalance by not allowing
incentives or waiver of standards or waiver of fees for projects that worsen the job-housing
balance.
o The Housing Element identifies over 60 priority housing sites, many at minimum densities
of 50 units/acre, to provide much needed housing, particularly affordable units, to address
the jobs-housing imbalance that exists in Cupertino and the job-rich northwestern portion
of Santa Clara County.
Prioritize smaller starter for-sale homes to incentivize housing for the Missing Middle.
o The missing middle strategies would provide a higher proportion of rental units and
townhome densities would allow for starter homes both allowing a product that is more
affordable relative to the singe family detached housing that makes up the majority of the
City’s current housing stock.
Strategy HE-1.3.6 should be changed from R3 to R2 (duplexes) to create a better transition for
neighborhoods. Allowing R3 zoning allows for the use of density bonus law to eliminate the
height, setbacks and parking requirements.
o The R3 zoning standards discussed in the missing middle housing strategy (HE-1.3.6)
would not allow more that 4 units on any R1 zoned lot, thus State density bonus law would
not be applicable. At present, R1 and R2 lots throughout the City are able to have up to
four units, the missing middle strategy would provide an opportunity for housing types,
such as triplexes or fourplexes to be developed at neighborhood scale.
Remove the option to waive park dedication fees and construction taxes.
o This is a long standing policy and offers a way to remove constraints to the development
of affordable housing.
In March 2024 the City revised the third draft of the Housing Element and released it for a 7-day
review period prior to submitting revisions to HCD. During the 7-day review period, comments were
received from Cupertino Voice and a Cupertino resident. Comments are summarized on the following
page.
1- Survey results from 140 residents was provided where most respondents identified the
following:
a. The City should hold more public meetings to obtain public input regarding rezoning,
specifically considering height, setbacks, parking, and other standards.
i. As mentioned previously in B1.10, Community Open House: Rezoning, in
September 2023 the City hosted two community open house events on
rezoning. The objectives of the open houses were to educate community
members about Housing Element sites and densities; collect feedback about
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐14
amenities, placemaking features, and development form; and address
community questions.
b. The City should not allow corner lots to become multifamily housing.
i. In an effort to address the needs of all segments of the community, and to
affirmatively further fair housing, City staff created Strategy HE-1.3.6 to
address the needs of the missing middle. Additionally, at present, R1 and R2
lots throughout the City are able to have up to four units, the missing middle
strategy would provide an opportunity for housing types, such as triplexes or
fourplexes to be developed at neighborhood scale.
c. The City should not allow developers to pay a fee or reduce traditional types of
parkland requirements.
i. It has been long standing policy in the City to offer a fee waiver for affordable
units and developments in a bid to remove constraints to such development.
This updated strategy would allow the City to study the parkland needs for
new, denser development types and create requirements and appropriate fees
for this kind of development.
d. The City should not allow high density housing on school sites.
i. Allowing for housing on school sites provides additional housing options for
employees. The City would determine the need based on the implementation
of Strategy HE-7.3.2.
2- It was also expressed that outreach should be done prior to adopting the housing element, the
City should not allow parkland credit for pedestrian connections and trails, and that Strategy
HE-1.3.6, Encourage Missing Middle, is excessive and should be revised.
a. See responses under item number 1.
As additional revisions are made to respond to HCD comments, this information will be posted on
the City’s website to ensure all members of the public and any interested parties have current
information. This process will continue through adoption of the Housing Element.
B1.12 NOTICING OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Per California Government Code Section 65585, the draft Housing Element was made available for
public comment for 30 days, from November 18, 2022, to December 23, 2022. Public comment was
received, and an additional 10 business days was allowed to consider and incorporate public comments
into the draft revision before submitting to HCD on February 3, 2023. The draft was made available
on the City’s website.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐15
The City received a findings letter from HCD on May 4, 2023, and revised the draft Housing Element
to address the identified findings. The revised draft Housing Element was posted on the City’s website
on October 6, 2023 and interested participants were notified of the availability, consistent with State
law. The City resubmitted the revised Housing Element to HCD on October 16, 2023.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐16
This page intentionally left blank.
Housing Needs Assessment B.2
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐i
Table of Contents
B2 Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................................... B2-1
B2.1 Overview of Bay Area Housing ................................................................................... B2-1
B2.2 Population, Employment, and Household Characteristics ........................................... B2-1
Population Growth .................................................................................................... B2-1
Age ........................................................................................................................... B2-3
Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................................... B2-5
Employment Trends ................................................................................................. B2-6
Extremely Low-Income Households ....................................................................... B2-10
Tenure .................................................................................................................... B2-13
Displacement .......................................................................................................... B2-16
B2.3 Housing Stock Characteristics Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits .... B2-17
Housing in need of Rehabilitation ........................................................................... B2-21
Home and Rent Values .......................................................................................... B2-21
Overpayment and Overcrowding ............................................................................ B2-24
Assisted Housing Developments “At Risk” of Conversion ...................................... B2-31
B2.4 Special Housing Needs ............................................................................................. B2-43
Large Households .................................................................................................. B2-43
Female-Headed Households .................................................................................. B2-45
Seniors ................................................................................................................... B2-46
People with Disabilities ........................................................................................... B2-49
Homelessness ........................................................................................................ B2-52
Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing ....................................................... B2-55
Farmworkers ........................................................................................................... B2-56
Non-English Speakers ............................................................................................ B2-58
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐ii
Tables
Table B2-1 Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................ B2-2
Table B2-2 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County ......................... B2-15
Table B2-3 Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 2022 .................................................. B2-20
Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units .................................................................... B2-32
Table B2-5 Financial Resources ............................................................................................... B2-37
Table B2-6 Housing Resources for Seniors .................................................................................. B2-48
Table B2-7 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................ B2-51
Table B2-8 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ...................................... B2-51
Table B2-9 Community Care Facilities in Cupertino, 2023 ........................................................ B2-51
Table B2-10 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness .............................. B2-55
Table B2-11 Homeless Facilities Near Cupertino ....................................................................... B2-56
Table B2-12 Migrant Worker Student Population ........................................................................ B2-57
Figures
Figure B2-1 Population Growth Trends Chart .............................................................................. B2-3
Figure B2-2 Population by Age, 2000-2019 ................................................................................. B2-4
Figure B2-3 Population Age by Race ........................................................................................... B2-4
Figure B2-4 Population by Race, 2000-2019 ............................................................................... B2-5
Figure B2-5 Jobs in a Jurisdiction ................................................................................................ B2-6
Figure B2-6 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence .... B2-7
Figure B2-7 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ....................................................................... B2-8
Figure B2-8 Jobs-Household Ratio .............................................................................................. B2-9
Figure B2-9 Resident Employment by Industry ............................................................................ B2-9
Figure B2-10 Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................... B2-10
Figure B2-11 Households by Household Income Level................................................................ B2-11
Figure B2-12 Household Income Level by Tenure ....................................................................... B2-12
Figure B2-13 Poverty Status by Race .......................................................................................... B2-13
Figure B2-14 Housing Tenure ...................................................................................................... B2-14
Figure B2-15 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ............................................................... B2-15
Figure B2-16 Housing Tenure by Age .......................................................................................... B2-16
Figure B2-17 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ...................................................... B2-17
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐iii
Figure B2-18 Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................. B2-18
Figure B2-19 Housing Units by Year Structure Built .................................................................... B2-19
Figure B2-20 Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................. B2-20
Figure B2-21 Substandard Housing Issues .................................................................................. B2-21
Figure B2-22 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ................................................................. B2-22
Figure B2-23 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ............................................................................ B2-23
Figure B2-24 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ............................................................. B2-24
Figure B2-25 Median Contract Rent ............................................................................................. B2-25
Figure B2-26 Cost Burden by Tenure .......................................................................................... B2-26
Figure B2-27 Cost Burden by Income Level ................................................................................. B2-26
Figure B2-28 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................ B2-27
Figure B2-29 Cost Burden by Household Size ............................................................................. B2-28
Figure B2-30 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ............................................. B2-29
Figure B2-31 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ................................................................... B2-30
Figure B2-32 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity .......................................................... B2-30
Figure B2-33 Overcrowding by Race ........................................................................................... B2-31
Figure B2-34 Household Size by Tenure ..................................................................................... B2-43
Figure B2-35 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms.................................................................. B2-44
Figure B2-36 Household Type ..................................................................................................... B2-45
Figure B2-37 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ..................................................... B2-46
Figure B2-38 Senior Households by Income and Tenure ............................................................. B2-47
Figure B2-39 Disability by Type ................................................................................................... B2-49
Figure B2-40 City of Cupertino Homeless Population .................................................................. B2-53
Figure B2-41 Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County ............................................. B2-53
Figure B2-42 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa
Clara County, 2022 ................................................................................................. B2-54
Figure B2-43 Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Santa Clara County ......................................... B2-57
Figure B2-44 Population with Limited English Proficiency ............................................................ B2-58
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐iv
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐1
B2 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Housing Element Technical Report describes existing housing needs and
conditions in the City of Cupertino. The analysis in this section primarily uses data compiled by
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the “Housing Needs Data Report: Cupertino”
(ABAG/MTC, Baird + Driskell Community Planning, April 2, 2021). This data packet was approved
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
B2.1 OVERVIEW OF BAY AREA HOUSING
The Bay Area is beginning to see a decrease in population and jobs. In the past, population was
increasing and housing production was stalled. With the decrease in population drawn to the Bay Area,
there may be a decrease in the need for housing units, although the need for affordable housing is
higher than ever. For example, in many cities increasing housing costs coupled with the lack of
affordable housing options has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion
caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet
surging rents.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and
housing challenges. Required by the State of California (State), the Housing Element identifies what
the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan to ensure
there are housing options for all segments of the community. The Housing Element is an integral part
of the General Plan, which guides the policies of Cupertino.
B2.2 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
POPULATION GROWTH
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in
population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have
experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding
increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not
kept pace with job and population growth.
According to the data, the population of Cupertino was estimated to be 59,549 in 2020. The
population of Cupertino makes up about 3.0 percent of Santa Clara County.1 Cupertino has seen a
decrease in population of 1 percent over the past five years, from 2015 to 2020, and an additional 1
percent over the past three years, from 2020 to 2023. While Santa Clara County and the Bay Area saw
an increase from 2015 to 2020, there was a significant decrease from 2020 to 2023, at 4 percent and 3
1 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure B2-1 shows population for the jurisdiction,
county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population
growth (i.e., percentage change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐2
percent, respectively. Table B2-1, Population Growth Trends, shows population growth trends for
Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.
Table B2-1 Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2023
Cupertino 39,967 43,142 50,602 53,012 58,3021 60,260 59,549 59,154
Percentage
Change -- 8% 17% 5% 10% 3% -1% -1%
Santa Clara
County 1,497,577 1,594,818 1,682,585 1,752,696 1,781,642 1,912,180 1,961,969 1,886,079
Percentage
Change -- 6% 6% 4% 2% 7% 3% -4%
Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 7,548,792
Percentage
Change -- 6% 6% 4% 1% 6% 3% -3%
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
NOTE: For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.
1Removing the population increase from the Cupertino annexation, total population is 56,702.
The city’s population increased by 15 percent between 2000 and 2010, exceeding the growth rate of
Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay Area. During this period, Cupertino grew from 50,602
to 58,302 residents. A portion of this population growth can be attributed to the annexation of 168
acres of land between 2000 and 2008. The annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered
county “islands” added 1,600 new residents. After removing the population increases from these
annexations, Cupertino experienced a 12 percent increase in its population during the previous decade.
In the most recent decade, the population increased by 2 percent; however, predictions show a
decrease in population growth throughout the state. Figure B2-1, Population Growth Trends Chart,
shows population growth trends in percentages.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐3
Figure B2-1 Population Growth Trends Chart
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
AGE
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the
near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior
housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more
family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or
downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are
also needed.
In Cupertino, the median age in 2000 was approximately 38 years. By 2019, the median age increased
to approximately 40 years. The population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-
and-over population has increased. Figure B2-2, Population by Age, 2000-2019, shows population by
age for the years 2000, 2010, and 2019.
Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as
families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.
People of color2 make up 43.5 percent of seniors and 84.1 percent of youth under age 18. Figure B2-
3, Population Age by Race, shows population age by race.
2 Here, all non-white racial groups are counted.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐4
Figure B2-2 Population by Age, 2000-2019
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001. For the data table behind this figure, please refer
to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.
Figure B2-3 Population Age by Race
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G). For the data table
behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐5
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing
effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and
government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement
that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today.3
Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Cupertino identifying as White, Non-Hispanic, has decreased
by 24.0 percentage points, with this 2019 population standing at 15,168. By the same token, the
percentage of residents of all Other Race of Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic, has increased. In absolute terms,
the Asian/API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population
decreased the most. Figure B2-4, Population by Race, 2000-2019, shows population by race for 2000,
2010, and 2019.
Figure B2-4 Population by Race, 2000-2019
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-
2019), Table B03002. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-
02.
3 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York,
NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
3.3% 3.0%
0.8%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐6
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
BALANCE OF JOBS AND WORKERS
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work
elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city
but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more
employed residents than jobs and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and
import workers. To some extent, the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers
to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated,
local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-
regional scale.
One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers
“exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely
“import” them. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of jobs in Cupertino increased by 59.1 percent.
Figure B2-5, Jobs in a Jurisdiction, shows jobs in Cupertino between 2002 and 2018.
Figure B2-5 Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 200B2-
2018. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐7
Figure B2-6, Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence, shows
the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering
additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-income
workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers. Conversely, it may house residents
who are low-wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may
cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative
surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers,
while conversely, surpluses of workers mean the community will export those workers to other
jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may
appear.
Figure B2-6 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and
Place of Residence
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519. For the data table behind
this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.
Cupertino has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying
less than $25,000). At the medium to high end of the wage spectrum on Figure B2-6, Workers by
Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence (i.e., wages over $75,000 per year),
the City has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents.
Figure B2-7, Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group, shows the ratio of jobs to workers by wage group.
A value of 1.00 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident
workers, in principle, a balance. Values above 1.00 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers
for jobs in a given wage group. Cupertino’s ratio of low-wage jobs to workers is 1.44, while the ratio
of high-wage jobs to workers is 1.94.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐8
Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.
New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply,
many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has
been in relatively lower-wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare
for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion
and time lost for all road users.
Figure B2-7 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs);
Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018. For the data table behind this figure,
please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.
If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with
a high jobs-to-household ratio. Thus, bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in
Cupertino has increased from 1.53 in 2002 to 2.60 jobs per household in 2018, with the steepest
growth in jobs occurring in the period between 2015 and 2018. In short, Cupertino is a net importer
of workers. Figure B2-8, Jobs-Household Ratio, shows Cupertino’s jobs-household ratio.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐9
Figure B2-8 Jobs-Household Ratio
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs),
200B2-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to
the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.
SECTOR COMPOSITION
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Cupertino residents work is Financial
& Professional Services, and the largest sector in which Santa Clara residents work is Health & Educational
Services. For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most
workers. Figure B2-9, Resident Employment by Industry, shows resident employment by industry.
Figure B2-9 Resident Employment by Industry
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030. For the data table behind
this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐10
UNEMPLOYMENT
In Cupertino, there was a 5.0 percentage point decrease (9.4 percent to 4.4 percent) in the
unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Santa Clara County and the Bay Area
also experienced a similar decrease between January 2010 and January 2021 (11.6 percent to 5.7
percent) and (11.1 percent to 6.6 percent). Jurisdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp
rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a
general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. Figure B2-10, Unemployment Rate,
shows the unemployment rates over the last decade for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay
Area as a whole.
Figure B2-10 Unemployment Rate
Sources: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas
monthly updates, 2010-2021. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table
POPEMP-15.
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap
has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and
the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the
state.4
4 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐11
In Cupertino, 69.2 percent of households make more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income
(AMI),5 compared to 9.0 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely
low-income. Countywide, more than half (55 percent) of all households make more than 100 percent
AMI, while 14.2 percent make less than 30 percent AMI and when looking at the Bay Area as a whole,
52 percent of households made more than 100 of the AMI, which 14.8 percent making less than 30
percent of the AMI. In Santa Clara County, 30 percent AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of
$39,900 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners, including food service
workers, students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals, can fall into lower AMI
categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries. Seniors relying on social security also
tend to fall into the extremely low-income category. Figure B2-11, Households by Household Income
Level, shows households by income level.
Figure B2-11 Households by Household Income Level
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table ELI-01.
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.
Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is
affordable for these households.
5 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different
metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa
County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San
Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa
Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based
on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI
are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-
income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐12
In Cupertino, the largest proportion of both renters and homeowners fall in the Greater than 100 percent
of AMI group (72 percent homeowners and 65 percent renters). Comparatively, 14 percent of
extremely low-income households are renter-occupied, while 6 percent are owner-occupied. Very low-
income households have a more similar tenure, with just a 1 percent difference between very low-
income renters and owners (7 percent versus 6 percent). Similarly, there are slightly more low-income
renters (9 percent) in Cupertino compared to owners (8 percent). Figure B2-12, Household Income
Level by Tenure, shows household income by tenure.
Figure B2-12 Household Income Level by Tenure
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table POPEMP-21.
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of
federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities
extended to White residents.6 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher
risk for housing insecurity, displacement, or homelessness.
In Cupertino, Black or African American residents (16.9 percent) experience the highest rates of
poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races residents (6.8 percent). The Hispanic population
also experienced a high rate of poverty, at 16.7 percent. In Santa Clara County, residents of Other
Race or Multiple Races experienced the highest rate of poverty (21.1 percent), followed by Asian/API
(15.1 percent), and Black or African American (11.7 percent). However, it is worth noting that there
6 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San
Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
6%6%8%8%
72%
14%
7%9%6%
65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
h
o
l
d
s
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐13
is a smaller number of Black/African American households in Cupertino. Figure B2-13, Poverty
Status by Race, shows poverty status by race.
Figure B2-13 Poverty Status by Race
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I). For the data table
behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.
TENURE
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help
identify the level of housing insecurity (i.e., ability for individuals to stay in their homes) in a city and
region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase.
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), there were a total of 20,981 housing
units in Cupertino. Looking at tenure, fewer Cupertino residents rent than own their homes: 39.8
percent versus 60.2 percent. By comparison, 43.6 percent of households in Santa Clara County and
43.9 percent of households throughout the Bay Area are renters, which is slightly higher than
Cupertino’s rate. Figure B2-14, Housing Tenure, shows housing tenure for Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, and the Bay Area as a whole.
16.9%16.7%
6.8%6.3%4.7%4.5%
0.0%
11.7%11.0%
21.1%
15.1%
5.3%6.5%
11.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Black or African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or
Latinx
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and Non-
Hispanic)
White, Non-
Hispanic
American Indian
or Alaska Native
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐14
Figure B2-14 Housing Tenure
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout
the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from
federal, State, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while
facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been
formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.7
The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from other racial categories. For the
purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as
having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial
categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with
Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
In Cupertino, Asian households, followed by White households, had the highest rate of
homeownership and Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native households
had the lowest rate of homeownership. When looking at specific race categories, 43.6 percent of Black
or African American households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 60.2 percent
for Asian households, 33.4 percent for Hispanic or Latinx households, and 62.1 percent for White
households. Similarly, when looking at Santa Clara County, White households followed by Asian
households had the highest rate of homeownership and American Indian and Alaska Native and Black
households had the lowest rate of homeownership. (see Table B2-2, Housing Tenure by Race of
Householder). Notably, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to examine these
dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
7 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York,
NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐15
Figure B2-15, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder, shows housing tenure by the race of the
householder. Table B2-2, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County, shows
the same data in tabular format and shows the city and county for comparison purposes.
Figure B2-15 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I). For the data table
behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.
Table B2-2 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County
Racial / Ethic Group
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Owner-
Occupied
Percentage
Renter-
Occupied
Percentage
Owner-
Occupied
Percentage
Renter-
Occupied
Percentage
White alone (Non-Hispanic) 30.9% 30.4% 42.8% 37.3%
Black or African American
(Non-Hispanic) 0.7% 0.9% 2.1% 3.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native
(Non-Hispanic) 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5%
Asian/API (Non-Hispanic) 62.1% 59.2% 30.0% 26.3%
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Non-Hispanic) 3.1% 4.0% 8.9% 12.0%
Hispanic or Latinx 2.9% 4.8% 15.8% 20.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) and Table S2502 . For the
data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐16
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community
is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area
due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited
options in an expensive housing market.
In Cupertino, 95.3 percent of householders between the ages of 15 and 24 are renters, 82.0 percent of
householders ages 25 through 34 are renters, and 42.7 percent of householders over age 85 are renters.
Homeownership increases between the ages of 34 and 85 and then reduces beyond that, presumably
since homeownership may be a burden for senior households. Figure B2-16, Housing Tenure by Age,
shows housing tenure by age categories.
Figure B2-16 Housing Tenure by Age
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.
DISPLACEMENT
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement
has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are
forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.
The University of California (UC), Berkeley, has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay Area,
identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Cupertino, there are no households that live
in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and none live in neighborhoods
at risk of or undergoing gentrification. Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do
not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 91.8
percent of households in Cupertino live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐17
be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.8 Figure B2-17, Households by Displacement Risk and
Tenure, shows household displacement risk and tenure.
Figure B2-17 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure
Sources: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for
tenure. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.
B2.3 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS HOUSING TYPES, YEAR BUILT,
VACANCY, AND PERMITS
In recent years, most housing produced across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger
multi-unit buildings. However, households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing,”
including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory dwelling units. These
housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking
homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.
8 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s
webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different
gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps
that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-
francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐18
According to estimates from the California Department of Finance, the City of Cupertino had 21,701
housing units in April 2020, up 3.2 percent (674 units) from the 21,027 units that existed in 20109. The
2020 housing stock was made up of 69.6 percent single-family homes. Of those, 57.1 percent were
detached single-family homes and 12.6 percent were single-family attached homes. Multifamily
housing made up 30.4 percent of the housing stock, with 21.0 percent having 5 or more units. Overall,
the housing stock in Cupertino has shifted from 2010 to 2020 to include a slightly greater percentage
of attached single-family homes as a percentage of the while also increasing the number of housing
units in each type. Figure B2-18, Housing Type Trends, shows housing type trends in Cupertino for
2010 and 2020.
Figure B2-18 Housing Type Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series, April 2010 and April 2020.
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total
number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth
experienced throughout the region. In Cupertino, the largest proportion of the housing stock was
built 1960 to 1979, with an increase of 10,462 units during this period. The majority of this growth
can be attributed to annexations, where already developed neighborhoods were added to the
Cupertino housing stock. Figure B2-19, Housing Units by Year Structure Built, shows housing units
by the year built.
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed
for rent; units used for Recreational or Occasional Use, and units not otherwise classified (Other
Vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one
9 Some past housing estimates by the Department of Finance have included a reporting error that has caused the city’s
total housing stock to be underreported. The City’s records indicate that 534 units of housing were built between 2010
and the end of 2019, and that an additional 20 were built in 2020.
12.2%
57.4%
9.5%
21.0%
0.0%
12.6%
57.1%
9.3%
21.0%
0.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Single-Family Home: Attached
Single-Family Home: Detached
Multifamily Housing: Two to Four Units
Multifamily Housing: Five-plus Units
Mobile Homes
2010 2020
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐19
is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or
Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as For Recreational or Occasional Use are those that are
held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term
rentals, like AirBnB, are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as Other
Vacant if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings,
repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended
period for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.10 In a region with a
thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared
for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the Other Vacant category. Additionally, the
need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of Other
Vacant units in some jurisdictions.11
Figure B2-19 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.
Vacant units make up 5.8 percent of the overall housing stock in Cupertino. The rental vacancy stands
at 6.7 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 2.0 percent. Of the vacant units in Cupertino, the
most common type of vacancy is For Rent, which represents a little more than a third of all vacant
rental units.12 Figure B2-20, Vacant Units by Type, shows vacant units by type.
10 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
11 See Dow, P. 2018. Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning
Department. University of California, Berkeley.
12 The vacancy-rates-by-tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle
includes the full stock (7.5 percent). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and
vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the
numerically significant other vacant.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐20
Figure B2-20 Vacant Units by Type
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.
NOTE: Universe: Vacant housing units
Between 2015 and 2022, 546 housing units were issued permits in Cupertino. Of those, 58.8 percent
were for above moderate-income housing, 28.9 percent were for moderate-income housing, and 12.3
percent were for low- or very low-income housing. Table B2-3, Housing Permits by Income Group,
2015 to 2022, shows housing permits issued by the City of Cupertino by income group.
Table B2-3 Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 2022
Income Group Number Percentage
Very Low-Income Permits 48 8.8%
Low-Income Permits 19 3.5%
Moderate-Income Permits 158 28.9%
Above Moderate-Income Permits 321 58.8%
Total 546 100.0%
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit
Summary (2022).
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐21
HOUSING IN NEED OF REHABILITATION
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households,
particularly renters, having to live in substandard conditions to afford housing. Generally, there is
limited data on the extent of housing rehabilitation needs in the community. However, the Census
Bureau data included in the graph in Figure B2-21 gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions
that may be present in Cupertino. For example, 2.8 percent of renters in Cupertino reported lacking a
kitchen and 0.7 percent of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.1 percent of owners who lack a
kitchen and 0.05 percent who lack plumbing. In Santa Clara County, 0.7 percent of renter-occupied
households reported lacking a kitchen and 0.2 percent of owners lacked a kitchen Approximately 0.2
percent of renters and 0.1 percent of owners reported lacking plumbing in Santa Clara County. Figure
B2-21, Substandard Housing Issues, shows substandard housing issues in Cupertino. According to
the 2015-2019 ACS, 77.0 percent of the homes in Cupertino were built in 1989 or earlier, which
suggests that they are at the age where they may need minor repairs up to major rehabilitation such as
new roofs, siding repair, paint, replacing cracked or inoperable windows, or plumbing systems.
However, based on a visual assessment of Cupertino housing, the City estimates that fewer than five
percent of units in the city may be in need of rehabilitation, and that only one to two homes in the
city may have such severe need for rehabilitation as to be unsafe for habitation.
Figure B2-21 Substandard Housing Issues
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.
HOME AND RENT VALUES
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic
profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In
the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation.
0.1%
2.8%
0.2%
0.7%
0.05%
0.7%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%
Owner
Renter
Owner
Renter
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Plumbing Kitchen
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐22
The typical home value in Cupertino was estimated at $2,275,730 by December 2020, per data from
Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued at $2M+. By comparison, the typical home value
is $1,290,970 in Santa Clara County and $1,077,230 in the Bay Area, with the largest share of units
valued at $1M to $1.5M (county) and $500K to $750K (region). The high home values are most likely
exacerbated by the high proportion of single-family homes. Figure B2-22, Home Values of Owner-
Occupied Units, shows home values of owner-occupied housing units in Cupertino.
Figure B2-22 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.
The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great
Recession. In Cupertino, the rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2010, with the typical
home value increasing 116.8 percent from $1,049,544 to $2,275,739. This change is considerably
greater than the change in Santa Clara County and for the region as a whole. Figure B2-23, Zillow
Home Value Index (ZHVI), shows the Zillow home value index for Cupertino.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐23
Figure B2-23 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table HSG-08.
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.
Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents
finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long
distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.
In Cupertino, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $3,000 or more category, totaling
52.0 percent, followed by 21.7 percent of units renting in the Rent $2,500-$3,000 category. Looking
beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $2,000-$2,500 category (county) compared to the
$1,500-$2,000 category for the region as a whole. Figure B2-24, Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied
Units, shows contract rents for renter-occupied units in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay
Area as a whole.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐24
Figure B2-24 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.
Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 52.0 percent in Cupertino, from $2,000 to $3,040 per
month. In Santa Clara County, the median rent has increased 39.6 percent, from $1,540 to $2,150.
The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a
54.2 percent increase.13 Figure B2-25, Median Contract Rent, shows median contract rent in
Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.
OVERPAYMENT AND OVERCROWDING
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income
on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are
considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing
costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income
on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.
While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have
mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases.
13 While the data on home values shown in Figure B2-24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices
available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent
data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect
current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources
for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐25
Figure B2-25 Median Contract Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019,
B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median
using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data
Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.
When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Cupertino, 17.9 percent of renters spend 30 to 50
percent of their income on housing compared to 15.0 percent of those that own. Additionally, 16.2
percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 8.6 percent of owners
are severely cost-burdened. Figure B2-26, Cost Burden by Tenure, shows cost burden by tenure.
When one looks at both renters and owners together in Cupertino, 13.1 percent of households spend
50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 15.3 percent spend 30 to 50 percent. However,
these rates vary greatly across income categories. For example, 75.1 percent of Cupertino households
making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Cupertino
residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, just 1.4 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 86.5
percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income
on housing. Figure B2-27, Cost Burden by Income Level, shows cost burden by income level.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐26
Figure B2-26 Cost Burden by Tenure
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091. For the data table
behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.
.
Figure B2-27 Cost Burden by Income Level
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table OVER-05.
1.4%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐27
Currently, people of color14 are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result
of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities
extended to White residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on
housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.
Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened, with 14.6 percent spending more
than 50 percent of their income on housing. Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) residents are
least cost burdened in Cupertino. Figure B2-28, Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity, shows cost
burden by race and ethnicity.
Figure B2-28 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table OVER-08.
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable
housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger
families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase
the risk of housing insecurity.
In Cupertino, 20 percent of large family households experience a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent,
while 17.3 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 15.0 percent
of all other households have a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, with 12.8 percent of households
spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Figure B2-29, Cost Burden by Household
Size, shows cost burden by household size.
14 This category as it is used here includes all non-White persons.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐28
Figure B2-29 Cost Burden by Household Size
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table OVER-09.
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement
from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out
of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular
importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors.
In Cupertino, 61.1 percent of seniors making less than 30 percent of AMI are spending the majority
of their income (more than 50 percent) on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of
AMI, only 0.8 percent are spending the majority of their income on housing. Figure B2-30, Cost-
Burdened Senior Households by Income Level, shows cost-burdened households by income level.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐29
Figure B2-30 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table SEN-03.
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was
designed to hold.15 The Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be
severely overcrowded. Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when
demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are
renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities.
In Cupertino, 3.8 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded (i.e., more than 1.5
occupants per room), compared to 0.5 percent of households that own. Figure B2-31, Overcrowding
by Tenure and Severity, shows overcrowding by tenure and severity.
15 There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition,
which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens).
0.8%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐30
Figure B2-31 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table OVER-01.
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. In Cupertino, 3.2 percent of
extremely low-income households (below 30 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while
only 0.7 percent of households above 100 percent AMI experience this level of overcrowding. Figure
B2-32, Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity, shows overcrowding by income level and
severity.
Figure B2-32 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table OVER-04.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐31
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding just as they are more likely to
experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience
overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Cupertino, the racial group with the largest
overcrowding rate is Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic). Figure B2-33,
Overcrowding by Race, graphically represents overcrowding data by race in Cupertino.
Figure B2-33 Overcrowding by Race
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.
ASSISTED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS “AT RISK” OF CONVERSION
As required by California Government Code Section 65583, the Housing Element must analyze the
extent to which below-market rate units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. If there are
at-risk units, the element should include programs to encourage preservation of these units or to
replace any that are converted to market rate. The units to be considered are any units that were
constructed using federal assistance programs, State or local mortgage revenue bonds, redevelopment
tax increments, in-lieu fees or an inclusionary housing ordinance, or density bonuses. Housing is
considered to be “at risk” if it is eligible to be converted to non-low-income housing due to: (1) the
termination of a rental subsidy contract, (2) mortgage prepayment, or (3) the expiration of affordability
restrictions. The time period applicable in making this determination is the 10-year period following
the last mandated update of the Housing Element, which, in the case of all Santa Clara County
jurisdictions, is January 31, 2033.
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing
affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and
less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market rate than
it is to build new affordable housing.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐32
The data in the following table comes from the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC)
and from the City’s inventory of affordable units. As of July 2023, according to CHPC, there were
184 assisted units affordable to lower-income households in Cupertino, of which, 112 units are at risk
of converting to market rate in the next 10 years (by 2033), denoted in bold. When considering the
inventory of BMR units, there was an additional 259 units affordable to moderate- and lower-income
households; however, 97 units are at risk of converting to market rate within the next 10 years. Table
B2-4, Inventory of Affordable Units, summarizes assisted units at risk in Cupertino.
Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
Development
Number of
Affordable
Units
Household Income Funding
Source
Earliest
Termination
Date Lower Moderate
Affordable Developments
Sunny View 100 100 0 HUD 202/811 3/31/2031 West 22449 Cupertino Rd.
Stevens Creek Village 40 8 0 CHFA, HUD &
HOME 5/1/2037 19140 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Le Beaulieu Apartments 27 27 0 CalFHA/CDBG 9/30/2038 10092 Bianchi Way
WVCS Transitional Housing 4 4 0 CDBG 7/14/2026 10311-10321 Greenwood Ct.
Beardon Drive 8 8 0 CDBG 12/21/2024 1019B2-10194 Beardon Dr.
Senior Housing Solutions 1 1 0 CDBG 6/24/2066 19935 Price Avenue
Maitri Transitional Housing 4 4 0 CDBG 3/16/2064 Undisclosed Location
The Veranda 19 18 0 LIHTC 2071 19160 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard 48 47 0 LIHTC 2075
Total Units 184 184 0
Total Units At-Risk 112 112 0
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐33
Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
Development
Number of
Affordable
Units
Household Income Funding
Source
Earliest
Termination
Date Lower Moderate
BMR Rental Units
Biltmore Apartments 2 2 0 BMR 6/30/2029 10159 South Blaney Ave.
Park Center Apartments 4 4 0 BMR 7/8/2026 20380 Stevens Creek Blvd.
The Hamptons 34 34 0 BMR 10/20/2027 19500 Pruneridge Ave.
Arioso Apartments 20 20 0 BMR 1/29/2028 19608 Pruneridge Ave.
Forge-Homestead Apartments 15 15 0 BMR 1/16/2027 20691 Forge Way
Aviare Apartments 20
2
20
2
0
0
BMR
BMR
7/8/2026
2038 20415 Via Paviso
The Markham Apartments 17 17 0 BMR 2039 20800 Homestead Road
Lake Biltmore 2 2 0 BMR 2029 19500 Pruneridge Ave.
Vista Village 24 24 0 BMR 11/29/2056 101144 Vista Drive
Greenwood Court 4 4 0 BMR 2116 10311-10321 Greenwood Court
Total BMR Rental Units 144 144
BMR For-Sale Units
Total BMR For-Sale Units* 119 0 119 BMR Varies
Total BMR Units At-Risk 97 97 0
Sources: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2023); City of Cupertino, 2023.
Note:
* Property addresses of for-sale BMR units are not listed to protect the privacy of homeowners. ** Projects denoted in bold are at-risk of converting in 10 years.
PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS
The following analysis examines the cost of preserving the at-risk units and the cost of producing
replacement rental housing comparable in size and rent levels to the units that might convert to
market-rate prices. In addition, this analysis will compare the costs of preservation and replacement.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐34
Acquisition and Rehabilitation
The factors used to determine the cost of preserving low-income housing include property acquisition,
rehabilitation, and financing. Actual acquisition costs depend on several variables, such as condition,
size, location, existing financing, and availability of financing (governmental and market). Looking at
multifamily buildings throughout Santa Clara County in July 2023, acquisition prices ranged from
$187,500 to $324,545 per unit for an 11-unit complex in San Jose and 12-unit complex in Mountain
View. To acquire the 100-unit Sunny View West at a comparable per-unit cost, the total cost would
likely be between $21,000,000 and $36,349,091. Additionally, if the property needs significant
rehabilitation or if financing is difficult to obtain, the overall cost to preserve the affordable units may
increase.
Replacement
Another alternative to preserve the overall number of affordable housing units in the county is to
construct new units to replace other affordable housing stock that has been converted to market-rate
housing. Multifamily replacements would be constructed with the same number of units, with the
same number of bedrooms and amenities as the development removed from the affordable housing
stock.
The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors, such as density, size of units,
location and related land costs, and type of construction. Land costs in the Bay Area are among the
highest in the nation. The cost to replace 112 at-risk units in Sunny View West has been estimated
using 21 Elements and Baird+ Driskell’s San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Counties
Development Costs. The per-unit replacement cost is estimated to be $732,500 based on a 10-unit
project and $786,500 per unit for a 100-unit project. Consequently, the replacement cost for the 112-
unit Sunny View West Apartments would range from $82 million to $88 million.
Rent Subsidy
Housing affordability can also be preserved by seeking alternative means of subsidizing rents, such as
Tenant Protection Vouchers, which are a subset of the Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) program.
Under HCVs, HUD pays the difference between what tenants can pay (defined as 30 percent of
household income) and what HUD estimates as the fair-market rent on the unit. Based on HUD’s
2023 fair-market rents and income limits, the subsidy needed to preserve a unit at an affordable rent
for a four-person, very low-income household would be an estimated $1,682 per month for a three-
bedroom unit, or $20,184 per year. For 30 years, the subsidy would be approximately $605,520 and
subsidizing all 112 units at risk of converting to market rate at very low-income rents would cost
approximately $67,818,240 for 30 years, assuming no changes in the rent.
The subsidy needed to preserve a unit at an affordable rent for a low-income household would be an
estimated $485 per month, or $5,814 per year. For 30 years, the subsidy would be about $174,420 for
a four-person household. Subsidizing 112 units at a low-income rent for 30 years would cost an
estimated $19.5 million, assuming no changes in rent.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐35
Preservation Resources
Once the City becomes aware of an impending conversion, staff will begin exploring the availability
of funding from various sources. In many cases, the City will find it advantageous to collaborate with
private affordable housing developers or managers to develop and implement a viable plan to preserve
affordable housing units. Private developers can often bring additional expertise and access to funding,
such as tax credits. HCD maintains a list of qualified entities to assist with the preservation of
affordable units.
These organizations include:
Cambrian Center, Inc.
Charities Housing Development Corp.
Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc.
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
Affordable Housing Foundation
Palo Alto Housing Corp.
South County Housing, Inc.
Satellite Housing, Inc.
ROEM Development Corporation
Silicon Valley at Home
L + M Fund Management LLC
Programs for Preservation and Construction of Affordable Housing
The following is a summary of the current programs that the City is aware of and, if applicable, will
seek to use to meet the City’s goal of preserving and expanding affordable housing stock. Further, a
list of funding sources the City will attempt to use to meet its affordable housing goals is provided in
Table B2-5, Financial Resources.
Project Development: The City’s Community Development Department will continue to
provide technical assistance and administrative support for housing developments that expand
affordable housing options for city residents.
Nonprofit Support: The City will continue its cooperative relationships with qualified
nonprofit groups, which may play a role in assisting in the preservation and expansion of
affordable housing in the community.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐36
Policy and Ordinance Review: Current policies and ordinances will be continually reviewed
to ascertain the realistic impact on retaining or expanding affordable housing in the city. When
necessary, changes or additions to the City’s guiding policies and ordinances should be
adopted.
Housing Referral Service: The City will continue to refine a listing of programs and a
methodology for disseminating pertinent information about the types of subsidized housing
and the various providers of housing-related services.
Housing Rehabilitation: The City of Cupertino will continue to use its Below Market-Rate
Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include acquisition
and rehabilitation of rental housing and rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing.
City Programs: The City understands the importance of preserving affordable housing units
and has included Strategies HE 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 3.3.2 to assist with preserving units that are
at risk of converting to market rate.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐37
Financial Resources
The programs in Table B2-5 are available to assist the City in meetings its affordable housing goals.
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities
Federal Programs
Community Block Grant
Program (CDBG)
Funding for this program has increased over the last couple of
years. This program provides annual grants on a formula basis to
entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities. .
Single-family housing rehabilitation,
homebuyer assistance,
infrastructure in support of housing,
multifamily housing rehabilitation.
Home Investment
Partnership Program
(HOME)
Funding for this program has increased over the last couple of
years. HCD administers an annual NOFA to competitively award
these federal funds across the state in alignment with its HUD
Consolidated Plan.
New rental affordable housing,
rehabilitation of existing rental affordable housing,
programs to promote home ownership,
owner-occupied housing rehabilitation,
tenant-based rental assistance to prevent homelessness.
Home Investment
Partnership Program–
American Rescue Plan
(HOME-ARP)
This one-time funding with HOME-ARP funds is available for
expenditure until September 2030.
vulnerable populations, including homeless,
at risk of homelessness, and
fleeing or attempting to flee domestic and related forms
of violence (including human trafficking).
production of affordable housing,
tenant-based rental assistance,
homeless prevention services, and
purchase or development of non-congregate shelter for
individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐38
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities
Housing Choice Voucher
Program
Local and County housing authorities receive funding for HCV
(Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937) from the
federal government. Funding for the program has increased over
the last couple of years.
Rental assistance for low-income households.
Project-Based Section 8
Vouchers
Local and County Housing authorities may dedicate a portion of
their Housing Choice Vouchers as project-based vouchers.
Funding for the program has increased over the last couple of
years.
Rental assistance for low-income households tied to units
that can be underwritten by loans that finance housing
projects.
HUD Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing
(VASH) Vouchers
This federally funded program is managed through a partnership
between housing authorities and the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
(VA). Homeless veterans receive a rental subsidy from the housing
authority and case management from the VA. Funding for this
program has been increasing in recent years with strong bipartisan
support in Washington D.C.
Rental assistance and supportive services for homeless
veterans.
Continuum of Care
(CoC) Programs
The NorCal CoC is currently accessing State resources
(Emergency Solutions Grant, Homeless Housing Assistance and
Prevention, Homeless Emergency Aid Program, etc.) and federal
CoC funding through HUD. Funds are passed through to service
providers at the county level.
Rental subsidies,
rapid rehousing,
emergency shelter,
homeless prevention.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐39
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities
State Programs
Permanent Local
Housing Allocation
(PLHA Formula Funds)
Ongoing funding provided through Senate Bill 2 Building Homes
and Jobs Act. Funding will fluctuate based on revenues taken in by
the State and are administered through regional planning agencies
and local housing authorities.
A wide range, which includes but is not limited to:
affordable rental housing for households below 80%
AMI; affordable rental and ownership housing, including
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), for households
earning up to 120% of AMI; or
capital costs for navigation centers and emergency
shelters,
permanent and transitional housing for people
experiencing homelessness.
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable
Communities Program
(AHSC)
State program funded by greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.
Recent revisions to regulations encourage greater participation
from rural communities.
Grants for infill low-income affordable housing and
infrastructure that encourages reductions in vehicle trips and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Infill Infrastructure Grant
Program (IIG)
This is funding from Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable
Housing Bond Act. Therefore, this funding will sunset when all
bond proceeds are disbursed. The State generally issues one
NOFA each year
Gap funding for infrastructure improvements necessary for
specific residential or mixed-use infill projects.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐40
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities
California Housing
Finance Agency (Cal
HFA) Residential
Development Loan
Program
Low-interest, short-term loans to local governments for affordable
infill, owner-occupied housing developments. Links with CalHFA’s
Down Payment Assistance Program to provide subordinate loans
to first-time buyers. Two funding rounds per year.
New construction,
rehabilitation,
acquisition.
California Housing
Finance Agency (Cal
HFA) Homebuyer’s
Down Payment
Assistance Program
CalHFA makes below-market loans to first-time homebuyers of up
to 3% of sales price. Program operates through participating
lenders who originate loans for CalHFA. Funds available on
request to qualified borrowers.
Homebuyer assistance.
California Housing
Finance Agency (Cal
HFA) Forgivable Equity
Builder Loan
The Forgivable Equity Builder Loan gives first-time homebuyers a
head start with immediate equity in their homes via a loan of up to
10% of the purchase price of the home. The loan is forgivable if the
borrower continuously occupies the home as their primary
residence for five years.
Homeowner assistance
HOME Investment
Partnership Program
The State provides grants to local governments and nonprofit
agencies for many homeowner and renter needs.
Homebuyer assistance rehabilitation;
new construction rental assistance
Building Equity and
Growth in
Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
A State-funded program administered by HCD that provides low-
and moderate-income households up to $30,000 for a down
payment.
Homebuyer assistance.
CalHome
Grants awarded to jurisdictions for owner-occupied housing
rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer assistance by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Homebuyer assistance;
rehabilitation.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐41
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities
Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits (LIHTC)
A 4% annual tax credit that helps owners of rental units develop
affordable housing.
New construction.
The LIHTC can be used to construct new or renovate existing
rental buildings. The LIHTC is designed to subsidize either 30 or
70 percent of the low-income unit costs in a project. The 70%
subsidy, or 9 percent tax credit, supports new construction without
any additional federal subsidies.
HUD Emergency Shelter
Grants (administered
through the State)
Competitive grants to help local governments and nonprofits
finance emergency shelters, transitional housing, and other
supportive services.
New construction,
rehabilitation,
homeless assistance,
public services.
Tax-Exempt Housing
Revenue Bond
Supports low-income housing development by issuing housing tax-
exempt bonds requiring the developer to lease a fixed percentage
of the units to low-income families at specified rental rates.
New construction,
rehabilitation,
acquisition.
Private Resources/Financing Programs
California Community
Reinvestment
Corporation (CCRC)
Nonprofit mortgage banking consortium designed to provide long-
term debt financing for affordable multifamily rental housing.
Nonprofit and for-profit developers contact member banks.
New construction,
rehabilitation,
acquisition.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐42
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities
Federal National
Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae)
Fixed-rate mortgages issued by private mortgage insurers. Homebuyer assistance.
Mortgages that fund the purchase or rehabilitation of a home. Homebuyer assistance;
rehabilitation.
Low down payment mortgages for single-family homes in
underserved low-income and minority cities. Homebuyer assistance.
Freddie Mac Home
Works
Provides first and second mortgages that include rehabilitation
loans. Jurisdiction provides gap financing for rehabilitation
components. Households earning up to 80% AMI qualify.
Homebuyer assistance.
Affordable Housing
Program (Federal Home
Loan Bank [FHLB])
Loans (and some grants) to public agencies and private entities for
a wide variety of housing projects and programs. Participation is by
FHLB-participating lenders.
New construction,
homebuyer assistance,
rehabilitation,
housing supportive services.
Northern California
Community Loan Fund
(NCCLF)
Offers low-interest loans for the revitalization of low-income
communities and affordable housing development.
Acquisition,
rehabilitation,
new construction.
Low-Income Investment
Fund (LIHF)
Provides below-market loan financing for all phases of affordable
housing development and/or rehabilitation.
Acquisition,
rehabilitation,
new construction.
Source: Local Housing Solutions, July 2023.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐43
B2.4 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental
housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in
overcrowded conditions.
In Cupertino, 6.7 percent of all households are considered large households with five or more people.
Larger households typically need larger housing units with three or more bedrooms. When looking at
tenure, 63.3 percent of large households were owner-occupied households and 36.7 percent were
renter-occupied households. Figure B2-34, Household Size by Tenure, shows household size by
tenure.
Figure B2-34 Household Size by Tenure
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.
The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.
Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms. Cupertino has
12,979 units (61.9 percent) with three or more bedrooms. Among these large units, 81.8 percent are
owner-occupied units and 18.2 percent are renter-occupied units; therefore, there is a lack of large
rental units. The City does have resources available to large households such as general housing
programs and services offered like the BMR Program and housing rehabilitation programs. Other
programs include Mortgage Credit Certificates and HCVs administered by the County, and
homebuyer assistance offered by the Housing Trust Silicon Valley.
Figure B2-35 summarizes housing units by the number of bedrooms.
51.5%
75.9%
52.6%56.4%
63.3%
48.5%
24.1%
47.4%43.6%
36.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person
Household
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐44
Figure B2-35 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐45
FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-
headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income.
In Cupertino, the largest proportion of households is Married-Couple Family Households at 68.6
percent of the total, while Female-Headed Family Households make up 6.1 percent of all households.
Figure B2-36, Household Type, provides information on household type in Cupertino.
Figure B2-36 Household Type
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.
Female-headed households with or without children may face particular housing challenges. This
could be due to pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women or could be due to a
single income.
In Cupertino, 121 female-headed households with children (18.8 percent) were in the Below Poverty
Level category, while 55 female-headed households without children (8.8 percent) were in the Below
Poverty Level category. Figure B2-37 shows female-headed households by poverty status.
Persons living with incomes below the poverty level can benefit from City programs and services that
assist lower-income households in general, such as BMR, CDBG, and HSG programs. Households
with incomes below the poverty level can also benefit from supportive services available to county
residents through various organizations, including Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, Choices
for Children, InnVision Shelter Network, Second Harvest Food Bank, and West Valley Community
Services, among others.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐46
Figure B2-37 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.
Single-parent households in Cupertino can benefit from City programs and services that assist lower-
income households in general, such as the BMR, CDBG, and HSG Programs. Single-parent
households can also benefit from supportive and childcare services available to county residents
through various organizations, including Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, Choices for
Children, Grail Family Services, InnVision Shelter Network, Second Harvest Food Bank, and West
Valley Community Services.
SENIORS
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping
affordable housing a challenge. For example, seniors have unique housing needs due to fixed incomes,
a high chance of having some type of disability, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility.
Therefore, seniors can require greater levels of affordability along with the need for supportive or
assisted living services and/or accessible housing. Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for
housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups.
In Cupertino, seniors made up 14.7 percent of the population (8,847 individuals). The largest
proportion of senior households who rent, make 0 to 30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion
of senior households who are homeowners falls into the income group Greater than 100 percent of
AMI. This shows a potential need for affordable housing options for seniors. Figure B2-38 shows
senior households by income and tenure.
524
573
121
55
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
with Children with No Children
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Above Poverty Level
Below Poverty Level
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐47
Figure B2-38 Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook,
Table SEN-01.
Cupertino offers a number of resources for seniors. As shown in Table B2-6, there are five residential
care facilities for the elderly and three skilled nursing facilities in the city. Residential care facilities for
the elderly (RCFEs), also known as “assisted living” or “board and care” facilities, provide assistance
with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more independent than in most
nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities—also known as nursing homes—offer a higher level of care,
with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day.
In addition to assisted living facilities, there are two subsidized independent senior housing
developments in the city providing 100 units. Demand for these subsidized units is high. Staff at Sunny
View estimate that over 700 people are on the waiting list, and the turnover rate for available units is
about 10 to 15 per year.
The Cupertino Senior Center also serves as an excellent resource for seniors. The many different
services at the center help seniors to obtain resources in the community that will assist them to
continue to remain independent and safe in their own homes. Available programs include various
social and recreation activities, special events, travel programs, transportation discounts, drop-in
consultation, case management, medical, and social services.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐48
Table B2-6 Housing Resources for Seniors
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Location Capacity
The Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23500 Cristo Rey Drive 741
Paradise Manor 4 19161 Muriel Lane 6
Pleasant Manor of Cupertino 10718 Nathanson Avenue 6
Purglen of Cupertino 10366 Miller Avenue 12
Sunny View Manor (a) 22445 Cupertino Road 190
Total 955
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Health Care Center at Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23600 Via Esplendor 48
Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness Center 22590 Voss Avenue 170
Sunny View Manor 22445 Cupertino Road 48
Total 266
Subsidized Independent Senior Rental Housing
Sunny View West 22449 Cupertino Road 99
Senior Housing Solutions 19935 Price Avenue 1
Total 100
Adult Day Care
Live Oak Adult Day Services 20920 McClellan Road 30
Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek N/A
Sources: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2023; California
Department of Public Health, Health Facilities Search, 2023.
Note: (a) Sunny View Manor has 115 units for independent and assisted (RCFE) living. All 115 units are licensed as RCFE
units, but residents may choose between independent and assisted living options. The distribution of
independent and assisted living units varies over time.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐49
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals
living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live
on fixed incomes and need specialized care. Due to the high cost of such specialized care, individuals
with disabilities often must rely on family members for assistance. When it comes to housing, people
with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which
offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs
what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are
at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose
aging caregivers.
Overall, 5.7 percent of people in Cupertino have a disability of some kind.16 Figure B2-39, Disability
by Type, shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Cupertino.
Figure B2-39 Disability by Type
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104,
Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet
Workbook, Table DISAB-01.
16 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one
disability. These counts should not be summed.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐50
PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means a
disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to
continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. It includes intellectual
disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to
be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals
with intellectual disabilities but does not include other conditions that are solely physical in nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional
housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where
supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional
environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental
disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally
disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of
independence as an adult.
The California Department of Developmental Services provides community-based services to
approximately 360,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide
system of regional centers, developmental centers, and community-based facilities. The San Andreas
Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers in California that provides point-of-entry services for
people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, nonprofit community agency that
contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental
disabilities and their families.
The San Andreas Regional Center, located in north San Jose, provides services to developmentally
disabled persons throughout Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties and acts as
a coordinating agency for multiple service providers in the region. They provide a resource to those
needing counseling, day care, equipment and supplies, behavior intervention, independent living
services, mobility training, nursing, residential care facilities, supportive living services, transportation,
vocational training, and other services.
Several housing types are appropriate for people living with a developmental disability: rent-subsidized
homes, residential care facilities, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD
housing, and Senate Bill (SB) 962 homes (these are adult residential homes for persons with specialized
health care needs). Supportive housing and group living opportunities for persons with developmental
disabilities can be an important resource for those individuals who can transition from the home of a
parent or guardian to independent living.
The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the
availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are
important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multifamily housing
(as required by California and federal fair housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest
range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability
of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐51
In Cupertino, there are 154 children under the age of 18 with a developmental disability (51.2 percent),
while there are 147 adults with a developmental disability (48.8 percent). Table B2-7 shows the
number of persons in Cupertino with developmental disabilities by age.
Table B2-7 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age
Age Group Number
Age Under 18 154
Age 18+ 147
Total 301
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020). This
table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.
The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Cupertino is the home of a
parent, family, or guardian. Table B2-8 shows the Cupertino population with developmental
disabilities by residence.
Table B2-8 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence
Residence Type Number
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 257
Foster/Family Home 11
Independent/Supported Living 5
Other 5
Community Care Facility 23
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020).
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.
Table B2-9 lists the community care facilities in Cupertino available to those with developmental
disabilities.
Table B2-9 Community Care Facilities in Cupertino, 2023
Adult Residential Facilities Location Capacity
Paradise Manor 2 19133 Muriel Lane 6
Paradise Manor 4 19161 Muriel Lane 6
Total 12
Source: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐52
HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range
of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of
community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves
housing-insecure have ended up homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.
Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the
region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people
with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.
The very nature of homelessness makes it difficult to count persons with no permanent shelter. The
Santa Clara County Continuum of Care oversees the County’s assessment of homeless persons and
conducts point-in-time homeless counts as required by HUD. The 2022 point-in-time count,
conducted in February 2022, identified 102 homeless persons in Cupertino. All of the persons
experiencing homelessness were unsheltered. For Santa Clara County, there were 9,684 homeless
persons identified, of which, 77 percent were unsheltered and 23 percent were sheltered. When
comparing the 2022 point-in-time numbers to 2019 data, Cupertino had a decrease in persons
experiencing homelessness, going from 159 individuals in 2019 to 102 in 2022. Santa Clara County on
the other hand had a slight increase, from 9,706 to 9,864 individuals. Figure B2-40 provides sheltered
and unsheltered percentages for the homeless population in Cupertino and Santa Clara County as of
2022. Data by race or disability status is not collected at the individual jurisdiction level through the
Point in Time Count. However, the countywide Point in Time Count results indicated an over-
representation of Hispanic/Latinx, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander,
Multi-Racial, and American Indian or Alaska Native community members within the county’s
homeless community as compared to these populations in the county as a whole. Additionally, it is
estimated that community members with disabilities may be over-represented in the city’s homeless
population due to the existing challenges Bay Area residents with physical or mental disabilities face
in accessing affordable housing.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐53
Figure B2-40 City of Cupertino Homeless Population
Source: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey
When looking at race and homelessness, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and
financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them
from the same opportunities extended to White residents. Consequently, people of color are often
disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area.
In Santa Clara County, White residents represented the largest proportion of residents experiencing
homelessness and account for 44 percent of the homeless population, while making up 44.5 percent
of the overall population. Figure B2-41 shows the racial group share of the county’s homeless
population.
Figure B2-41 Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County
Source: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
1.1%
77.0%
0.0
23.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Cupertino Santa Clara County
Unsheltered Sheltered
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐54
In 2022 in Santa Clara County, Hispanic and Latinx residents represented 47 percent of the population
experiencing homelessness, while Hispanic and Latinx residents comprise 25.8 percent of the general
population. Figure B2-42 shows the Hispanic and Latinx share of the homeless population in Santa
Clara County. Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County, 2022
Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues, including mental illness,
substance abuse, and domestic violence, which are potentially life threatening and require additional
assistance. As a result, to ensure that they are stably housed, individuals experiencing homelessness
require not only affordable housing, but also housing accompanied by an array of transitional and
supportive services, including counseling, mental health services, job training, and employment
assistance. Therefore, emergency shelters with a full range of supportive services and transitional
housing and supportive housing are best equipped to meet the needs of this special-needs population.
In Santa Clara County, similar to other jurisdictions, homeless individuals are commonly challenged
by severe mental illness, along with other health concerns. Figure B2-43 shows selected characteristics
of the homeless population in Santa Clara County in 2022.
Figure B2-42 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness,
Santa Clara County, 2022
Source: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐55
In Cupertino, there were no reported students experiencing homelessness in the 2019-2020 school
year. In fact, the reported number of students experiencing homelessness dropped after the 2016-
2017 school year to zero in the City of Cupertino. By comparison, Santa Clara County has seen a 3.5
percent increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-2017 school
year, while the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5 percent.
Despite the recent regional decrease, during the 2019-2020 school year, there were still 13,718 students
experiencing homelessness throughout the Bay Area, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving,
with the potential for longer-term negative effects. Table B2-10 summarizes students in public
schools experiencing homelessness.
Table B2-10 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness
Academic Year Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area
2016-17 17 2,219 14,990
2017-18 0 2,189 15,142
2018-19 0 2,405 15,427
2019-20 0 2,297 13,718
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic
Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.
EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Santa Clara County has approximately 23 emergency shelters, providing close to 800 beds year-round,
with an additional 300 beds available during the winter months (November through March). There
are also over 1,100 transitional housing beds throughout the county that offer a combination of stable
housing and intensive, targeted support services for the mentally ill, those with chronic substance
abuse, developmental disabilities, and other factors that prevent the homeless from returning to
permanent housing situations. Transitional housing includes both single-site and “scattered-site”
programs. Table B2-11 provides a summary of emergency shelters and transitional housing that are
near the City of Cupertino and available to residents.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐56
Table B2-11 Homeless Facilities Near Cupertino
Facility Beds Target Population Location
Emergency Shelters
Asian Americans for Community
Involvement 12 Women with Children San Jose
City Team Rescue Mission 52 Single men San Jose
Hospitality House, Salvation Army 24 Single men San Jose
Our House Youth Services HomeFirst 10 Homeless and run-away youth San Jose
San Jose Family Shelter 143 Families San Jose
Support Network for Battered Women 18 Domestic violence shelter for women and children San Jose
Maitri 8 Transitional housing to victims of domestic
violence Cupertino
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing
InnVision 178 Working men, women & children, mentally ill men
& women San Jose
James Boccardo Reception Center 370 Families and single adults San Jose
Transitional Housing
Next Door- Women with Children 19 Domestic Violence Shelter for women and
children San Jose
St. Josephs Cathedral 45 Worker housing for men, women, and children San Jose
YWCA- Villa Nueva 126 Women and children San Jose
Source: Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan, 2010-2015
FARMWORKERS
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.
Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have
temporary housing needs. Accordingly, finding decent affordable housing can be challenging,
particularly in the current housing market.
In Cupertino, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year and the
city and surrounding area lack viable agricultural land to employ migrant workers. The trend for the
region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker
students since the 2016-17 school year. at the county level, there has been a 49.7 percent decrease in
the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. Table B2-12 summarizes the
migrant worker student population in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and Bay Area as a whole.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐57
Table B2-12 Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area
2016-17 0 978 4,630
2017-18 0 732 4,607
2018-19 0 645 4,075
2019-20 0 492 3,976
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative
Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). This table is included in the Data
Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent
farmworkers in Santa Clara County has increased since 2002, totaling 2,418 in 2017, while the number
of seasonal farmworkers has decreased, totaling 1,757 in 2017. This can be attributed to the types of
crops grown in south Santa Clara County that require regular maintenance, or simply the nature of
the farms/ranches. Figure B2-44 shows farm operations and labor in Santa Clara County.
Figure B2-43 Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Santa Clara County
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor. For the data
table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐58
NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many
languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally
challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have
limited English proficiency. This limitation can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in
housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their civil and housing rights, or
they might be wary to engage or ask questions due to their immigration status concerns. The unique
housing needs for non-English speakers include having access to Fair Housing resources in in multiple
languages as needed.
In Cupertino, 5.3 percent of residents five years and older identified as speaking English not well or
not at all, which was below the proportion for Santa Clara County (8.8 percent). Throughout the Bay
Area, the proportion of residents five years and older with limited English proficiency was 7.8 percent.
Figure B2-45 shows the population with limited English proficiency in Cupertino, Santa Clara County,
and the Bay Area as a whole.
Figure B2-44 Population with Limited English Proficiency
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005. For the data table behind this
figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.
NOTE: Universe: Population 5 years and over.
To the extent that farmworkers may want to live in Cupertino, their need for affordable housing
would be similar to that of other lower-income persons, and their housing needs can be addressed
through general affordable housing programs for lower-income households, such as BMR, CDBG,
and HSG programs.
B3-i
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing B.3
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-i
Table of Contents
B3 Cupertino Fair Housing Assessment ................................................................ B3-1
B3.1 History of Segregation In The Region ......................................................................... B3-2
B3.2 Report Content and Organization ................................................................................ B3-5
B3.3 Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Actions ............................. B3-7
B3.4 Fair Housing Enforcement Capacity .......................................................................... B3-10
B3.5 Ongoing Outreach on Fair Housing ISsues ............................................................... B3-13
B3.6 Compliance with State Law ....................................................................................... B3-15
B3.7 Integration and Segregation ...................................................................................... B3-16
B3.8 Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................... B3-26
B3.9 Disproportionate Housing Needs .............................................................................. B3-33
B3.10 Sites Analysis ............................................................................................................ B3-46
B3.11 Fair Housing Resources and Maps ........................................................................... B3-56
Tables
Table B3-1 Housing Element Strategies to Address Fair Housing Issues .................................. B3-10
Table B3-2 Demographic Composition of the Homeless Population, 2022 ................................ B3-40
Table B3-3 Fair Housing Factors and Percentage of RHNA Units .............................................. B3-48
Figures
Figure B3-1 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing ...................... B3-6
Figure B3-2 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries ..................................................................... B3-13
Figure B3-3 Segregation and Integration ..................................................................................... B3-22
Figure B3-4 Access to Opportunity .............................................................................................. B3-34
Figure B3-5 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................. B3-37
Figure B3-6 RHNA Sites by Affordability with Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries ......... B3-47
Figure B3-7 Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, Santa Clara County .................................. B3-57
Figure B3-8 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries, 2013-2021 ................................................................... B3-58
Figure B3-9 FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, Santa Clara County, 2013-2022 ............................ B3-59
Figure B3-10 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 ............................. B3-60
Figure B3-11 Public Housing Buildings, Santa Clara County ......................................................... B3-61
Figure B3-12 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract ............................................................. B3-62
Figure B3-13 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ................................................. B3-63
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-ii
Figure B3-14 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ........................................ B3-64
Figure B3-15 Senior and Youth Population by Race, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ................................. B3-64
Figure B3-16 Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ................................. B3-65
Figure B3-17 Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino 2019............................................... B3-65
Figure B3-18 Percentage Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018 ......................... B3-66
Figure B3-19 White Majority Census Tracts .................................................................................. B3-67
Figure B3-20 Asian Majority Census Tracts ................................................................................... B3-68
Figure B3-21 Hispanic Majority Census Tracts .............................................................................. B3-69
Figure B3-22 Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019 ................................................. B3-70
Figure B3-23 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010 ...................................................................... B3-71
Figure B3-24 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018 ...................................................................... B3-72
Figure B3-25 Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019 ......................................................... B3-73
Figure B3-26 Percentage of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019........................... B3-74
Figure B3-27 Age Distribution, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ................................................................... B3-75
Figure B3-28 Share of Households by Size, 2019 ......................................................................... B3-75
Figure B3-29 Share of Households by Type, 2019 ........................................................................ B3-76
Figure B3-30 Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 ....... B3-76
Figure B3-31 Housing Type by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 ............................................................... B3-77
Figure B3-32 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 ..................... B3-77
Figure B3-33 Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019....... B3-78
Figure B3-34 Percent Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 ....... B3-79
Figure B3-35 Percentage of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 ......................... B3-80
Figure B3-36 Percentage of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019 ....................................... B3-81
Figure B3-37 Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019 ..................................... B3-82
Figure B3-38 Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019 ................................................... B3-83
Figure B3-39 Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group............................................... B3-84
Figure B3-40 Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019 ..................................................................... B3-85
Figure B3-41 R/ECAPs, 2013 ........................................................................................................ B3-86
Figure B3-42 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 .......................... B3-88
Figure B3-43 Jobs by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ................................................................... B3-89
Figure B3-44 Job Holders by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ....................................................... B3-90
Figure B3-45 Jobs to Household Ratio, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ...................................................... B3-90
Figure B3-46 Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ............................................ B3-91
Figure B3-47 Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021 ............................................................................. B3-91
Figure B3-48 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 .......................... B3-92
Figure B3-49 Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017 ............................................................. B3-93
Figure B3-50 TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 ................... B3-95
Figure B3-51 CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021 ................................................................. B3-96
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-iii
Figure B3-52 Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021 ........................................................... B3-97
Figure B3-53 Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity,
Cupertino, 2019 ........................................................................................................ B3-98
Figure B3-54 Population with Limited English Proficiency, Cupertino, 2019 .................................. B3-98
Figure B3-55 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 ........................ B3-99
Figure B3-56 Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018 .................................................. B3-100
Figure B3-57 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities ..................................................................... B3-101
Figure B3-58 Population by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019 .................................................... B3-102
Figure B3-59 Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over,
Cupertino, 2019 ...................................................................................................... B3-102
Figure B3-60 Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Cupertino, 2019 ...................... B3-103
Figure B3-61 Employment by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019 ................................................. B3-103
Figure B3-62 Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 ................................. B3-104
Figure B3-63 Population Indexed from 1990 ............................................................................... B3-105
Figure B3-64 Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Cupertino, 2015-2019......................... B3-105
Figure B3-65 Housing Units by Year Built, Cupertino .................................................................. B3-106
Figure B3-66 Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 ................................. B3-106
Figure B3-67 Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020..................................................................... B3-107
Figure B3-68 Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 ............................ B3-107
Figure B3-69 Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019 ......................................................................... B3-108
Figure B3-70 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019 ................................................. B3-108
Figure B3-71 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 ...................................... B3-109
Figure B3-72 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), Cupertino, 2019 ....... B3-109
Figure B3-73 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 .................... B3-110
Figure B3-74 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Cupertino, 2019 ............................... B3-110
Figure B3-75 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 ......... B3-111
Figure B3-76 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 ........ B3-112
Figure B3-77 Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019 ............................................................ B3-113
Figure B3-78 Occupants per Room by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 ................................................. B3-113
Figure B3-79 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 .......................................... B3-114
Figure B3-80 Occupants per Room by AMI, Cupertino, 2019 ...................................................... B3-114
Figure B3-81 Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019 ................................................. B3-115
Figure B3-82 Percentage of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities,
Cupertino, 2019 ...................................................................................................... B3-116
Figure B3-83 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County,
2019 B3- ...................................................................................................................... 116
Figure B3-84 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County,
2019 B3-117
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-iv
Figure B3-85 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, Santa Clara
County, 2019 .......................................................................................................... B3-117
Figure B3-86 Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa
Clara County, 2019 ................................................................................................ B3-118
Figure B3-87 Location of Population One Year Ago, Cupertino, 2019 ......................................... B3-118
Figure B3-88 Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Cupertino, 2019 ............................. B3-119
Figure B3-89 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, Cupertino, 2019 .......................................... B3-119
Figure B3-90 Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement ........................................................... B3-120
Figure B3-91 Location Affordability Index by Census Tract ......................................................... B3-121
Figure B3-92 Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 ............................. B3-122
Figure B3-93 Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2020 ......................................................................... B3-123
Figure B3-94 Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019 .................... B3-124
Figure B3-95 Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino,
2018-2019 .............................................................................................................. B3-124
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-1
B3 CUPERTINO FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
In 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requiring all public agencies in the state to
affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019.1 The new requirements went
into effect on January 1, 2019, and required all public agencies to “administer programs and activities
relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing,
and take no action inconsistent with this obligation.”2 AB 686 also made changes to Housing Element
law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include
an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity,
disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.
The following report was prepared by Root Policy Research (Denver, Colorado) and is based on and
expands previous work commissioned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The ABAG/MTC report was prepared in
collaboration with the University of California (UC) Merced Urban Policy Lab and was entitled,
AFFH Segregation Report: Cupertino.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating
discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from
barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically,
affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address
significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living
patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance
with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all
of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development.
(Government Code, Section 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14.
1 Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate
their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal
fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-2
B3.1 HISTORY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating
segregated living patterns—and Northern California cities
are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity
Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining
and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation”
(i.e., preferences to live near similar people).
Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book, The Color of
Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated
America, chronicles how the public sector contributed to the
segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several
significant developments in the Bay Area that played a large
role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.
In 1955, builders began developing workforce housing for
the Ford Corporation’s plant in the Santa Clara County
region. Initially, the units were segregated as no one would sell to the local black workers. The
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) worked to find builders who would build integrated
subdivisions. Unfortunately, after four purchased plots were subsequently rezoned to prevent
integrated housing, the original builder quit. After multiple additional iterations, African American
workers had “become so discouraged about finding housing opportunities” that they began carpooling
from outside cities such as Richmond.3
A 2018 Berkeley publication titled, Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, attempted to illustrate
segregation in the Bay Area communities. In their study, they found that Santa Clara County contains
“no truly integrated city.”4 The study also delved into the history of segregation, highlighting 1960s-
era laws and practices connected to urban renewal projects that were displacing communities of color.
The building of transportation infrastructure created a reduction of affordable housing due to a lack
of one-for-one replacement in the area.
In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns
throughout the Bay Area, it is also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and
genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today.
The original inhabitants of present-day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have
3 Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, p 121. New York, NY: Liveright
Publishing Corporation.
4 Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay area, Part 1 | Othering & Belonging Institute (berkeley.edu)
This history of segregation in
the region is important not only
to understand how residential
settlement patterns came
about—but, more importantly,
to explain differences in
housing opportunity among
residents today. In sum, not all
residents had the ability to
build housing wealth or achieve
economic opportunity. This
historically unequal playing
field in part determines why
residents have different
housing needs today.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-3
“…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful
stewards of the land.”5 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and practices of a succession of
explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European
expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population as well as their land.”6
The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing
and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native American populations today.7
The timeline of major federal acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and
land use appears in Figure B3-1.
As shown in the timeline in Figure B3-1, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s.
Courts struck down only the most discriminatory and allowed those that would be considered today
to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926
case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential,
business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere
parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At
that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for immigrants and people of color.
The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning
ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low-
income housing toward locally tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section
8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.
Figure B3-1, Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing, shows a timeline
for major public and legal actions related to fair housing access.
INFLUENCE OF LAND USE AND ZONING PRACTICES
While exclusive and discriminatory zoning is no longer legal, current land use and zoning patterns
continue to influence neighborhood demographics, access to housing opportunities, and other
housing outcomes.
The Othering & Belonging Institute, a UC Berkeley research center, published a report in 2020
analyzing the characteristics of communities in the Bay Area in relation to the degree of single-family
zoning. The research findings identified that in Santa Clara County, and across the Bay Area regionally,
cities with high levels of single-family zoning see greater access to resources resulting in positive life
outcomes. Predominance of single-family zoning aligned with higher median incomes, home values,
proficient schools, and other factors that are similarly associated with the highest-resource designation
in the TCAC/HCD opportunity maps. The increased home values and scarcity of housing in these
5 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html
6 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html
7 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-4
areas due to their lower density can make housing and other resources in the area unaffordable to
lower-income households. Single-family zoning predominates residential areas in the Bay Area; the
average proportion of residential land zoned exclusively for single-family housing in Bay Area
jurisdictions was found to be 85 percent. Only in two jurisdictions of the 101 surveyed (Benicia and
Suisun City) did single-family zoning make up less than 40.0 percent of the jurisdiction’s land area.
However, access to higher-quality resources was greatest in jurisdictions with at least 90.0 percent of
the land area designated to single-family zoning.
During the study, it was determined that 91 percent of residentially zoned land in Cupertino was zoned
exclusively for single-family housing 8, putting the City in the 75th percentile when compared to other
jurisdictions in the Bay Area based on percentage of exclusively single-family land. All jurisdictions
that had 90 to 100 percent of their land designated for single-family housing were considered to be
“highly” exclusive. However, the City’s estimate of land designated for single-family uses indicates a
lower percentage of land with this designation (approximately 42 percent). In 2020, approximately
69.6 percent of Cupertino’s housing stock was made up of single-family homes, with the remaining
30.4 percent being multifamily units. While single-family zoning can create highly desirable places to
live, higher entry costs associated with this housing type can pose a barrier to access for low- and
moderate-income households, restricting access to economic, educational, and other opportunities
that are available in higher-resource communities.
In Cupertino, the R-2, R-3, and Planned Development zoning districts with residential uses allowed,
permit multifamily housing, are primarily along the Interstate 280 corridor, at the intersection of
Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard, sprinkled along Miller
Avenue, along sections of Bollinger Road, along major corridors in the city such as Stevens Creek
Boulevard in the City’s Heart of the City Special Area, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead Road, and N.
Wolfe Road. As discussed in this assessment, neighborhoods that have multifamily land are also
typically those with lower median incomes, higher rates of overcrowding and overpayment, and other
indicators of fair housing issues. While multifamily offers valuable housing opportunities for lower-
and moderate-income households, the limited, and concentrated, supply of suitably zoned land may
result in patterns of income segregation. To combat this potential fair housing issue, the City has
identified Strategies HE-1.3.2, HE-2.3.2, HE-2.3.5, and HE-3.3.3 to promote accessory dwelling
units (ADUs), require affordable units in all rental residential developments, facilitate infill
development with affordable housing, and prevent condominium conversion when there is a shortage
of rental units.
Feedback provided by community members in response to the Public Review draft of the Housing
Element included input from local organizations such as Cupertino for All. Representatives from
Cupertino for All expressed support for policies that permitted increased density, such as the
introduction of R-4 zoning and the “corner lot” policy which permits multifamily development at R-
8 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/report-single-family-zoning-dominates-bay-area-housing-presenting-barrier-integration
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-5
3-style densities on corners within R-1 zones. The group also encouraged increased height limits and
future removal of parking requirements. Cupertino for All also indicated that they believe that recent
historical trends have been to develop large single-family homes, which tend not to be affordable for
lower-income households.
B3.2 REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California Guidance for AFFH and is
organized into the following sections.
• Fair Housing Enforcement Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints
against the jurisdiction, and compliance with State fair housing laws and regulations.
• Ongoing Outreach Capacity describes jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach
and education.
• Compliance with State Law summarizes key State laws and regulations related to mitigating
housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.
• Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of
segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.
• Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic
development, and healthy environments.
• Disproportionate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing
needs, including displacement risk.
• Sites Analysis of the distribution of the City’s sites inventory by income category compared to
citywide patterns, in the context of the fair housing issues.
• Fair Housing Resources and Maps, including fair housing organizations in Santa Clara County,
states the mission, services, and contact information for these organizations.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-6
Figure B3-1 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-7
B3.3 PRIMARY FINDINGS, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND FAIR HOUSING
ACTIONS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Cupertino,
including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and
segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the City’s
fair housing action plan.
• Cupertino’s population has a moderate level of diversity for the region and a higher Asian
population compared to the county (68 percent of residents identify as Asian), with the Asian
population increasing by 22 percentage points since 2000;
• Population growth in Cupertino began leveling off in 2014, with the county and regional
growth index rates increasing, albeit slowly, while Cupertino’s growth has stagnated;
• Most households in Cupertino earn more than 100 percent of the regional Area Median
Income (AMI), and this is true across most racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic and non-
Hispanic White households have the most income diversity;
• Poverty rates highlight the disparity in income and opportunities by race, with the Hispanic
(16.7 percent) and Black/African American (16.9 percent) populations experiencing
disproportionately higher poverty rates. No other group is above 7 percent;
• There were 546 residential permits issued between 2015 and 2022;
• Cupertino’s jobs to household ratio is 2.60—higher than Santa Clara County overall (1.71) or
the Bay Area (1.47), based on data from the California Department of Finance and the US
Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics survey, but lower than those
of Palo Alto, Mountain View, or the City of Santa Clara;
• Access to Cupertino is limited by housing pricing and supply. Eighty-three percent of houses
in the area are valued over $1 million. In 2020, Zillow reported the average market value at
$2.25 million, significantly above the county’s and Bay Area’s market values. Fifty-seven
percent of Cupertino’s housing units are detached single-family units. The next-closest share
is multifamily at 21 percent of units, followed by 12 percent apartment units and 10 percent
du-/tri-/fourplexes. While owners mostly occupy three- and four-bedroom homes (72
percent), 68 percent of renters occupy one- or two-bedroom units;
o Renters, who make up 40 percent of all households, are facing the same cost pressures as
owners with 87 percent of units renting for more than $2,000, and 52 percent renting for
$3,000 and more. Of the city’s rental units, 14 percent rent for $2,000 and less. The
county has almost three times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the
city.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-8
• There are disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity—and
minimally by tenure (renters/owners). Hispanic households experience by far the highest rates
of cost burden in the city (45 percent). Asian (28 percent), non-Hispanic White (27 percent),
and Black/African American (11 percent) households experience the lowest rates of cost
burden; however, it is worth noting that there are a small number of Black/African American
households in the city.
• Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the city’s very high costs of housing and lack
of affordable production. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate
growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households (321 units or 59
percent of all units), followed by moderate-income households (158 or 29 percent). There
were 19 permits issued for low-income units and 48 permits were issued for very low-income
units.
• Cupertino has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities than the county.
Unemployment among residents with disabilities is relatively high, with 16 percent of
Cupertino residents with a disability unemployed, compared to 3 percent without a disability.
• Mortgage denial rates in the Census Tracts that include Cupertino are modest (14 to 17 percent
of loans denied) and vary little across races and ethnicities except for Black/African American
applicants.
• According to educational opportunity indices, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher
than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes. The City is home to very
high performing schools.
FAIR HOUSING ISSUES AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Cupertino’s low production of affordable housing limits housing choices of all low-income
households and has a disproportionate impact on Asian and Hispanic households who face
disproportionate levels of cost burden.
Contributing factors:
• Of the 546 residential permits issued in Cupertino since 2015, approximately 12 percent were
for very low- and low-income households.
• Nearly 44 percent of Hispanic households and 28 percent of Asian households in Cupertino
are cost burdened compared to 26 percent of non-Hispanic White households, and almost 25
percent of households of other or multiple races.
Cupertino’s low production of housing limits the choices of lower- and moderate-income households.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-9
Contributing factors:
• While Cupertino has approved more units than required in its 5th cycle RHNA, it has not
received building permits to begin construction. In the long term, Cupertino has failed to
permit enough housing to accommodate job growth and respond to supply shortages.
The housing that has been built in the city recently has largely been priced for above moderate-income
households and moderate-income households. The community is sharply divided on issues
surrounding development of new housing, with a vocal minority that consistently opposes higher-
density development in the city. Lower-income households in the county and region are
disproportionately likely to be Black or African American and Hispanic residents. As a result, it is
possible that Black or African American and Hispanic residents with lower incomes are priced out
from living in Cupertino.
Contributing factors:
• Historical employment discrimination and lack of access to quality educational environments
for Black/African and Hispanic residents have resulted in their working lower-wage jobs,
which do not support the city’s housing costs.
Concentration of lower- and moderate-income households in the northern Homestead Special Area
neighborhood result in a potential concentration of poverty.
Contributing factors:
• Concentration of rental units that are typically more affordable;
• Shortage of workforce housing units
• Lack of affordable housing
• Older housing stock; and
• High rates of overcrowding;
In response to these high priority factors, the City has included the strategies identified in Table B3-
1 to promote housing mobility and place-based revitalization, and to prevent displacement:
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-10
Table B3-1 Housing Element Strategies to Address Fair Housing Issues
Housing Element Strategy Housing
Mobility
Place-Based
Revitalization
Displacement
Prevention
HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions X
HE-1.3.3: New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use
Designations X
HE-1.3.4: Development on Nonvacant Sites X
HE-1.3.5: Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in
Commercial Zones X
HE-1.3.7: Lot Consolidation X
HE-1.3.8: Accessory Dwelling Units X X
HE-1.3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options X
HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development X
HE-2.3.4: Below- Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund X
HE-2.3.7: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development X
HE-2.3.8: Density Bonus Ordinance X
HE-2.3.10: Extremely Low-Income Housing X X X
HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities X X
HE-2.3.12: Live/Work Units X
HE-3.3.2: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units X
HE-3.3.4: Housing Preservation Program X
HE-3.3.6: Rent-Control Ordinance X
HE-6.1.3: Housing Mobility X
HE-7.3.2: Coordination with Local School Districts X X
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
The City has also included a range of programs to address other, lower-priority, contributing factors
and patterns noted throughout this analysis.
B3.4 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement,
and outreach capacity.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-11
FAIR HOUSING LEGAL CASES AND INQUIRIES
California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In
addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex,
and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income
(including federal housing assistance vouchers).
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD, formerly the Department of Fair Employment in
Housing or DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United
States. According to their website, the CRD’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from
unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from
hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act.”9
CRD receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. CRD plays a particularly significant
role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal
legislation and therefore not investigated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). CRD’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the
complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.10 Fair housing
complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.
Additionally, Santa Clara County has a number of local resource and enforcement organizations:
• Project Sentinel: Assists with housing discrimination, mortgage foreclosures, rental issues, and
more;
• Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA): Legal and advocacy organization for
vulnerable Californians facing discrimination and economic abuses related to households;
• Bay Area Legal Aid: Broad advocacy focused on helping low-income Bay Area residents lead
stable lives, including housing stability; and
• Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: Legal advocacy for social change with a focus on finding
stable homes for low-income residents.
From 2013 to 2021, 391 fair housing complaints in Santa Clara County were filed with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California (FHANC). Most of the county’s valid complaints cited disability status as the bias. Of these
complaints, 69 percent were considered valid and proceeded to actionable responses. HUD also
reported that five cases were filed by residents of the City of Cupertino between January 2013 and
9 https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/
10 https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-12
April 2021. However, one of these cases was closed when it was withdrawn by the complainant, and
the other four were closed for no-cause determinations. Three of the cases alleged discriminatory
retaliation, two alleged discrimination on the basis of religion, two on the basis of disability, and one
on the basis of national origin; some cases were made on more than one basis. There was no
determined validity of the four cases where a determination was made. In addition to formal
complaints, seven inquiries were made during the same time. Four were determined to have no valid
issues or basis, two claimants failed to respond to follow-up by HUD staff, and one claimant decided
not to pursue a case. There have been no fair housing lawsuits or inquiries against the City.
While the cases filed during this period did not have cause, that does not necessarily mean there is no
discrimination occurring. Therefore, the City has identified Strategy HE-6.1.1 (Fair Housing
Services) to continue to ensure residents and housing providers are aware of fair housing laws, rights,
and requirements, as well as resources available to residents should they experience discrimination.
Further, the City will work with local and regional fair housing providers to facilitate a training for
housing providers to prevent discriminatory actions and behaviors on an annual basis. Strategy HE-
6.1.1 (Fair Housing Services) also commits the City to partner with a fair housing service provider,
such as Project Sentinel, to provide direct services, including investigating complaints, obtaining
remedies, and conducting fair housing testing when funding is available, and the need is present.
Figure B3-2, Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries, illustrates fair housing complaints and inquiries.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-13
Figure B3-2 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
B3.5 ONGOING OUTREACH ON FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
The City of Cupertino’s website contains many resources for learning more about or acquiring
affordable purchase and rental units. For example:
• Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley helps locals update their homes;
• Housing Trust Silicon Valley programs;
o Homebuyer Empowerment Loan Program (HELP) assists middle-income first-time
homebuyers with down payment assistance.
Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
HUD Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, Santa Clara County, 2017-2021
Number Percent
Disability 243 77%
Race 25 8%
Familial Status 14 4%
National Origin 42 13%
Religion 28 9%
Sex 21 7%
Total cases 315
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021)
29
26
15
12
11
11
8
7
6
1
0
0
0
San Jose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Campbell
Mountain View
Los Gatos
Cupertino
Milpitas
Saratoga
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Monte Sereno
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries
224
40
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-14
o Empower Homebuyers Santa Clary County assists low- to moderate-income people with
down payment assistance.
o Small Homes, Big Impact Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program helps residents add
ADUs to their property.
o The HOME Program provides grants for families moving to permanent sustainable
housing.
• Santa Clara Mortgage Credit Certificate Program provides tax credits for federal income taxes
to first-time homebuyers;
• Habitat for Humanity Silicon Valley works with those earning between 30 and 80 percent of
AMI to attain homeownership;
• City of Cupertino Housing Program for De Anza Students supports college housing
assistance; and
• The City’s website also lists resources available for renters through Project Sentinel and the
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara; however, there is no specific mention of fair
housing.
In the event that a resident needs fair housing services, the following resources are available locally
and regionally:
• Project Sentinel: Provides assistance and counseling regarding housing discrimination,
tenant-landlord dispute resolution, and other housing counseling programs. Project Sentinel
has received Public Service Grants from the City of Cupertino to continue to serve the
community in the 2020/2021, 2021/2022, and 2022/2023 Fiscal Years.
• ECHO Housing: Provides education and assistance in obtaining and maintaining housing,
as well as fair housing counseling, investigation, mediation, and enforcement.
Should a resident come to the City seeking counsel, staff connects them with these organizations, as
well as state and federal resources.
The City provides translation for public meetings and materials by request, as there typically is little to
no demand for translation services. However, to engage residents in the Housing Element update
process, the City’s Housing Element website offers information in English, Chinese, Spanish,
Vietnamese, and Russian, though usage data indicates that there has been very little usage other than
in English.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-15
B3.6 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
The following State laws were reviewed for Cupertino’s compliance:
• Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The City has included Strategy
HE-2.3.7 to amend the density bonus ordinance as necessary to respond to any changes in
State law.
• No-Net-Loss (Government Code Section 65863). The City has identified a surplus of sites
available to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA). In total, the
City’s surplus unit capacity is1,683, which is made up of 316 lower-income units, 154
moderate-income units, and 1,213 above moderate-income units. While the City has included
ADU capacity in Appendix B4, the City does not need to rely on ADUs to accommodate the
RHNA.
• Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City does
not condition the approval of housing development projects for very low-, low-, or moderate-
income households or emergency shelters unless specific written findings are made. Further,
the City currently allows emergency shelters by-right, without limitations, in the BQ zoning
district. Strategy HE-5.1.1 has been included to allow emergency shelters in the R4 zoning
district and review and revise managerial standards to ensure compliance with State law.
• Senate Bill 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4). The City of Cupertino enacted this
authority in the Vallco Fashion Mall redevelopment to approve the development via
ministerial approval and has adopted an established written policy/procedure to streamline
the approval process and standards for other eligible projects.
• Senate Bill 330 (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City complies with SB 330,
relying on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary applications for housing
development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply
with objective general plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential
project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) or 60 days
after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or an environmental report for an
affordable housing project. The City has an established written procedure that is available on
the City’s website and at public counters.
• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Federal Fair Housing Act
(FHA). The City provides protections to residents through referrals to legal assistance
organizations, such as Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) and has
included Strategy HE-6.1.1 to meet with local fair housing and legal aid organizations to
develop materials or annual training for landlords on fair housing rights and responsibilities
with the intent of reducing or eliminating discrimination.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-16
• Review Processes (Government Code Section 65008). The City reviews affordable
development projects in the same manner as market-rate developments, except in cases where
affordable housing projects are eligible for preferential treatment, including, but not limited
to, on residential sites subject to AB 1397.
• Assembly Bill 686 (Government Code Section 8899.50). The City has completed this AFH
and identified programs to address identified fair housing issues in Section B3.3 of this
assessment.
• Equal Access (Government Code Section 11135 et seq.). The City offers translation
services for all public meetings and offers accessibility accommodations to ensure equal access
to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from
the State, regardless of membership or perceived membership in a protected class.
• Below-Market Rate (BMR) program. Cupertino’s current Residential Housing Mitigation
Program sets BMR requirements, which currently require a 15 percent affordable set aside for
rental housing and a 20 percent affordable set aside for for-sale housing in projects that
propose seven or more units. A proposed change to this program would lower the threshold
for for-sale projects to five units. The program requires units restricted by income – 9 percent
of the units to very low-income levels (up to 50 percent of AMI), 6 percent of the units to
low-income levels (50 to 80 percent of AMI) for rental developments, 10 percent of the units
for median-income levels (80 to 100 percent of AMI), and 10 percent of the units at moderate-
income levels (100 to 120 percent of AMI) for for-sale developments. Fee-in-lieu mitigation
payments are required for developments with six or fewer units. The fees are modest and
range from $19.28 per square foot for detached single-family homes to $21.21 per square foot
for small lot homes, $25.71 per square foot for attached homes, and $32.14 per square foot
for higher-density multifamily developments.
• Housing Conversions. Cupertino regulates conversion of apartments and other forms of
rental units to condominiums by requiring that comparable replacement housing exists within
the housing market area to accommodate displaced residents.
B3.7 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes, including
race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an
analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-17
Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons
of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a
particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.
Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a
particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type
of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Cupertino differs from the county and Bay Area overall for its majority proportion of residents
identifying as Asian (68 percent in Cupertino compared to 37 percent in Santa Clara County). On the
other hand, the city has a disproportionately low Hispanic population (3 percent in Cupertino and 25
percent in the county). Cupertino’s proportion of Black/African American and Other and mixed-race
residents is similar to the county, in that it reports less than 4 percent for both groups.
The City’s Asian population has grown by 22 percentage points since 2000, resulting in a smaller share
of non-Hispanic White residents (49 percent in 2000 compared to 25 percent in 2020). The proportion
of residents that identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, and Black or African American has
remained relatively stable across this time period, with these residents accounting for 0.8 percent of
the population in 2000 compared to 0.9 percent in 2020. The Hispanic population decreased slightly
from 4.1 to 3.3 percent of the population. Almost all areas in Cupertino are now predominantly Asian,
the only exception being the Oak Valley neighborhood, much of which is also occupied by the
Fremont Older Open Space and the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. While this neighborhood is in a tract
that is predominantly White, the portion within Cupertino is relatively sparsely populated with some
single family homes and a large continuum of care facility (The Forum – with a skilled nursing facility,
a memory care unit, assisted living units and a few independent living units), with the bulk of the
population in the City of Los Altos’ city limits.
Younger residents are less racially diverse than other age groups, with 75 percent of the population
under 18 years identifying as Asian compared to 41 percent of those aged 65 or older. There is a slight
increase in the number of residents identifying as Other or Multiple Races in the younger age group,
but the main shift is the declining share of White (both Hispanic and non-Hispanic) residents. There
are 57 percent of residents 65 and over that identify as White but only 16 percent of residents under
18 were White.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-18
The racial and ethnic composition of Cupertino is similar to that found in communities to the north,
such as Sunnyvale, San Jose, Milpitas, and Fremont, where the population is predominantly Asian.
Cupertino differs from most of the communities close to it (i.e., Los Gatos, Los Altos, etc.), where
White residents are in the majority. However, the diversity index in Cupertino is reflective of
neighboring cities. It may also be the case that immigrant populations in the city may choose to live
in higher-cost areas to be close to other community members with similar cultural backgrounds or
higher-performing schools, despite the cost burden that may come with this choice.
Poverty rates are below the county rate, except for residents identifying as Hispanic or Black. The
highest poverty rate by race and ethnicity in Cupertino is for Black/African American residents at 16.9
percent and Hispanic residents at 16.7 percent. This compares to a poverty rate of 6.3 percent for
Asian residents and 4.5 percent for non-Hispanic, White residents. However, there is a large margin
of error on this data which could over or underrepresent the percentages.
DISSIMILARITY AND ISOLATION INDICES
ABAG created a 2021 report on segregation in Cupertino measuring racial and income segregation
within the community. This report analyzes two common indices that measure segregation: the
isolation index and the dissimilarity index.
The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI
is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a
geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move
for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.
DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. DI
values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate
moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.
The Isolation Index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares
an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation
tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.
Overall, Cupertino has moderate diversity, and is more diverse than the nearby cities of Saratoga,
Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos. The most segregated population is Asian residents, and this segregation
has increased since 2000. Asian residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into
contact with other racial groups. Segregation can also be seen when looking at the population through
the lens of income. Due to the homogeneity of incomes within neighborhoods, above moderate-
income residents in Cupertino are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-19
As measured by the DI, segregation in Cupertino is similar to the Bay Area overall. Geospatially, in
Cupertino, all but one census tract has a predominant Asian population; however, as noted, this tract
includes the unpopulated Fremont Older Open Space area and much of that tract is also located within
the adjacent City of Los Altos. Each tract also has a high segregation of the Asian population.
ABAG’s assessed measures of segregation above highlighted Asian residents as the most segregated
compared to other groups, and Asian residents in the city are becoming more isolated over time.
Overall, since 2010, Cupertino’s racial segregation scores have remained steady or declined, as has
income segregation between moderate-income residents and other groups.
DISABILITY STATUS
Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs due to physical or developmental
capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs. Seniors typically experience disabilities
at higher rates. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 6 percent in Cupertino,
compared to 8 percent in Santa Clara County. According to the 2015-2019 American Communities
Survey (ACS), Cupertino has two census tracts where the population of persons with disabilities is
between 10 and 15 percent with the remainder less than 10 percent. In the Oak Valley neighborhood
in northwest Cupertino, approximately 11.6 percent of the population has a disability, and in the
Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, approximately 12.1 percent of the population has a disability. In
these neighborhoods, the percentage of seniors is 34.8 percent and 12.9 percent, respectively. It should
be noted that within the portion of the tract in Cupertino, a Continuum of Care facility, The Forum
operates with a skilled nursing facility, assisted living units, memory care units and some independent
living units. The area with the highest disability rate (12.1 percent) has among the lowest proportions
of seniors in the city, suggesting that the rate of disability is not necessarily linked to age in that
Tract/neighborhood. Further, senior retirement and assisted living facilities are located in the Creston-
Pharlap neighborhood, where the disability rate is 8.2 percent. While the incidence of disability has
increased from 7.7 percent in 2014 in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood and from 7.5 percent in
the Oak Valley neighborhood, this could be due to the Verandas senior housing project opening in
2019. This could have influenced the slightly higher rates of disability. Therefore, these patterns have
not been identified as fair housing concerns.
Compared to neighboring cities, Cupertino residents experience disabilities at a similar rate, with less
than 10 percent of residents experiencing a disability in most tracts. On the other hand, Cupertino
residents experience disabilities at a lower rate than residents in higher-density areas, such as South
San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. In public comments to City Council, community
members expressed a need for the City to explore ways to increase housing opportunities for the
developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers to accessing below-market rate units. As
part of Strategy HE-5.1.2, the City will continue to use its Below-Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Fund (BMR AHF), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human
Service Grants (HSG) funds to provide for a range of supportive services for lower-income
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-20
households and persons with special needs. Through Strategy HE-2.3.1, the City will also work with
housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income housing for special-needs
groups, including persons with physical and developmental disabilities by directly pursuing federal,
state, and private funding for low- and moderate-income housing, partnering with nonprofit and for-
profit developers to support their financing applications for affordable housing funding programs,
and promoting the use of the density bonus ordinance. To meet the needs of residents with disabilities
throughout the city, group homes are permitted per State law, there is one licensed adult residential
care facility (Paradise Manor 3) with capacity for six residents, and four elderly assisted living facilities
(Blended Family Care Home, Lotus of Cupertino Care Home, Paradise Manor 4, and Paradise Manor
II), with a combined capacity for 36 residents. An additional assisted living facility is currently under
construction in San Jose, but because of its close proximity to Cupertino, the facility will likely serve
the needs of seniors from Cupertino. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) ACCESS
Paratransit service is also available to residents and visitors in Cupertino and throughout its South Bay
Area service area. VTA ACCESS is available to riders who cannot use conventional accessible bus and
light rail transit services due to physical, visual, or cognitive disabilities. However, all VTA buses and
light rail services are also accessible for persons using wheelchairs and include announcements of key
destinations for persons with visual disabilities. Via-Cupertino, a local app-based ride-share program
with fares subsidized by grant funds, also offers wheelchair-accessible vans for riders throughout the
city.
FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or
single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or
with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily households indicate an
increased need for one- and two-bedroom units.
Cupertino’s households are mostly made up of three- and four-person households (49 percent) and
two-person households (26 percent). Married-couple households make up a majority of Cupertino
households (69 percent), while less than half of all households have at least one child under the age of
18 (47 percent).
Compared to the county, Cupertino has slightly fewer one-person households (18 percent compared
to 20 percent in the county) and five-person households (7 percent compared to 12 percent in the
county). The city has about as many adults living alone (18 percent) as in the county (20 percent). The
city also has a lower percentage of single male-headed households compared to the county (2.4 percent
in the city compared to 5.0 percent in the county) and single-person households (2.0 percent in the
city compared to 2.3 percent in the county).
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-21
Geographically, there are no concentrations of single-parent, female-headed households or adults
living alone. This may indicate an even distribution of housing opportunities for these household
types, though more likely is reflective of the dominance of married-couple families in Cupertino. The
City has included Strategy HE-2.2 to encourage development of housing in a range of sizes and
affordability to facilitate housing mobility for all household types.
Cupertino’s married couples overwhelmingly own housing: married couples make up 75 percent of
the homeowners in Cupertino (Figure B3-35). Homeowners, unsurprisingly, reside in three- and four-
bedroom homes more than any other housing type (Figure B3-32).
Almost as many renters and owners live alone in Cupertino (1,881 and 2,000 respectively). This
represents 22.5 percent of renter households and 15.8 percent of owner households.
Cupertino’s age distribution has shifted older, all categories of age above 45 have increased since 2000.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Cupertino’s households are higher-income than the county and Bay Area overall: 69 percent of the
city’s households earn more than 100 percent of the AMI, compared to 55 percent for the county and
52 percent for the Bay Area (refer to Figure B3-3, Segregation and Integration). As shown in Figure
B3-36, almost all census tracts in the city have a median income exceeding $125,000. The census block
groups abutting the east side of N. Foothill Boulevard north of Stevens Creek and surrounding the
Homestead Square Shopping Center have slightly lower median incomes, at $107,059 and $107,538,
respectively. The Markham Apartments, Aviare Aparments, the NorthPoint town home community,
and other small lot, medium- to high-density residential units are around Homestead Square Shopping
Center. While rents and home prices in Cupertino are high throughout the city, these slightly dated,
in some cases deed-restricted, higher-density products may be marginally more affordable and
attractive to households earning slightly lower incomes, thus resulting in a slightly lower median
income. Similarly, as noted, the Foothill Heights Apartments, Sunny View Retirement Community,
which includes 100 deed-restricted affordable units, and an assortment of smaller tri-plex and four-
plexes, may contribute to the slightly lower income near Alpine Drive east of N. Foothill Boulevard.
In both cases, the slightly lower income does not appear to reflect disparities in access by income, as
apartment complexes are in other neighborhoods throughout the city. This may also be reflective of
the investment apartment owners are making in their property to command higher rents.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-22
Figure B3-3 Segregation and Integration
In 2014, the lowest median income in the city ($98,422) was in the census tract covering the Rancho
Rinconada neighborhood in eastern Cupertino. In 2019, the median income in the two block groups
in this neighborhood has increased to $128,576 and $200,227. The area near Homestead Square
Shopping Center’s median income decreased slightly from $122,905 and the area near Alpine Drive,
east of N. Foothill’s median income decreased from $135,581. However, it is important to note that
the available data in 2014 was at the tract level, while data in 2019 was at the block group level. The
block group level provides a more granular level of detail and reflects a smaller area, while tract-level
data includes areas that extend beyond the neighborhood boundaries identified for these areas.
Considering these changes in data, the relatively small changes in median income in each of these
notable neighborhoods do not appear to reflect exclusionary income patterns over time.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-23
The poverty rate in the city is approximately 7.7 percent, compared to 6.1 percent in Santa Clara
County. As shown in Figure B3-38, the highest rate of poverty (13.7 percent) is in the tract
encompassing the interchange of Interstate 280 and Highway 85 north of Stevens Creek Boulevard
between Mary Avenue and the railroad, along with the area near Homestead Square Shopping Center.
In 2014, this area had a poverty rate of 6.6 percent. In contrast to the rising rates of poverty in the
area, the median income in this area increased from $122,905 in 2014 to approximately $136,759 in
2019. This may suggest growing income discrepancies in this area of the city as the median income
increases. It is also important to note that ACS data in this census tract in the city has a high (50%)
margin of error.
RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY AND
AFFLUENCE
Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation
spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly
White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of
policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey
School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies
that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.11
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic
concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing
choice, if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas
where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited
economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and
exclusion.
R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for
non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR a census tract that
has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is
three times the average tract poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.
11 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. 2019. “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.” Cityscape: A
Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-24
For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as a R/ECAP was three times the average
census tract poverty rate countywide—or 21.6 percent.
According to HCD, there were 11 census tracts in the county that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4 percent
poverty rate). All were located in San Jose. None of the R/ECAPs were in Cupertino.
However, there is a concentration of poverty (13.7 percent) in the northern Homestead neighborhood
and along Highway 85. While this area does not also have a comparatively high proportion of non-
White residents, it does have a lower median income and higher rates of overcrowding, renter
overpayment, and homeowner overpayment when compared to most other neighborhoods in the city.
Therefore, while this area does not meet the definition of a R/ECAP, or potential R/ECAP, it is a
notable area of disproportionate need.
RCAAs
HCD’s definition of a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
A census tract that has a percentage of total White population that is 1.25 times higher than the
average percentage of total White population in the given Council of Government (COG) region,
and a median income that was two times higher than the COG AMI.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community, 2022.
RCAAs are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of
non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Similar to the importance of
identifying R/ECAP areas, which helps to identify areas that are segregated by race/ethnicity and
poverty, it is also necessary to identify racially concentrated areas of wealth to further compare these
patterns.
Using ACS 2015-2019 data, HCD developed a mapping tool that demonstrates the “location quotient”
(LQ) for each California census tract; this quotient represents the percentage of total White population
for each census tract compared to that of the average percentage of the Council of Government
(COG) region. To determine the RCAAs, HCD takes the census tracts with an LQ of more than 1.25
and a median income that is 1.5 times higher than the COG region (or 1.5 times the State AMI,
whichever is lower). Those tracts that meet these criteria are then assigned a numeric score of 1, which
indicates that those tracts have an accumulation of high incomes and a White population, i.e., an
RCAA. RCAAs are the inverse of R/ECAPs in that they illustrate where self-segregated and/or
exclusive wealthy White neighborhoods are potentially located.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-25
The tract northwest and west of Cupertino, which spans portions of Cupertino and Los Altos, is
considered an RCAA (LQ of 1.63). The portion of the city within this tract includes part of the Oak
Valley neighborhood. This area identified as an RCAA in the HCD mapping tool encompasses a lot
of open spaces, such as Fremont Older, Rancho San Antonio, all the way to Foothills Park (in Palo
Alto). The area also includes large areas of property in Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto, which
are majority White, unlike Cupertino. In this area, 66.9 percent of the population identifies as White,
the median income is $169,896, and 27.3 percent of renters and 37.7 percent of owners are overpaying
for housing. These overpayment rates are notably lower than those found in tracts to the east.
However, as described in the analysis of household income, the median income throughout Cupertino
is relatively high, ranging from $107,059 in the western part of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood to
$236,719 in the Garden Gate neighborhood. While there is only one potential RCAA by definition,
the very high median income in the city indicates a concentration of affluence that likely reflects the
availability of higher-income tech jobs and high home costs.
These conditions in Cupertino are reflective of most jurisdictions in the southern portion of the Bay
Area, particularly in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Neighboring RCAAs are present in Los
Altos, Woodside, Stanford, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San
Mateo, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Millbrae, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Saratoga, Campbell, and Los
Gatos, among others in the region. Typically, in the Bay Area, the median income is highest in lower-
and medium-density, primarily single-family areas that are removed from the bay but are within a short
commute distance of concentrations of jobs along the bay. While Cupertino has characteristics that
suggest a concentration of affluence, the concentration is not isolated to the city, and instead exists in
most similarly situated communities in the Bay Area.
The concentration of affluence in Cupertino appears to be primarily driven by housing demand and
proximity to high-paying jobs, as is found in most neighboring communities. While sites that are zoned
R-3, P(Res) and P(Res/CG), which allow high-density residential development, are dispersed
throughout the city and located in most neighborhoods, the largest concentration of R-3 land is in the
northern portion of the city, where the median income is comparatively low, when compared to the
rest of the city, though still exceeding $100,000 annually. This slightly lower-income area is likely a
result of a higher concentration of older stock, multifamily units, which are typically more affordable
than single-family units. However, all deed-restricted affordable units are in other areas of the city,
thus providing housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households throughout more
neighborhoods and areas (see Table B2-3, Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, in Appendix B2).
By ensuring that land for multifamily development at higher densities is available in most
neighborhoods, and deed-restricted units are dispersed throughout the city, the City ensures that
lower- and moderate-income households have housing options citywide, combating patterns of
affluence. In comments received during City Council meetings, community members expressed a
desire to see multifamily housing developed in areas of high opportunity. It is estimated that many of
the Housing Element’s programs, including HE-1.3.4, HE-1.3.5, and HE-2.3.1, will encourage that
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-26
development, and that on a regional scale multifamily housing developed in Cupertino will put this
development in a higher-opportunity area. Therefore, the concentration of affluence in Cupertino is
driven by regional economic conditions rather than local practices. However, to provide additional
opportunities and combat displacement risk that increases as local and regional housing prices rise,
the City has included Strategies HE-1.3.1, HE-1.3.4, HE-1.3.7, HE-1.3.8, HE-1.3.10, HE-1.3.11,
HE-2.3.1, HE-2.3.3, HE-2.3.9, HE-2.3.11, HE-2.3.12, HE-3.3.2, HE-3.3.4, and HE-3.3.6.
B3.8 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes, including access
to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. The California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (TCAC), in collaboration with HCD, developed a series of opportunity maps
that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents.
These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low-
income residents, particularly children.
Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical
life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for
residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’
neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and
decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including
recreation, food, and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from
environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.
The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate
resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides
opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and
environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the
number, the more positive the outcomes.
TRANSIT
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the city and region on a daily basis to access
services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent
of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-27
Residents of Cupertino are served by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) buses
and Via-Cupertino (Silicon Valley Hopper), an app-based ride-share transportation services, both of
which provide connections to a variety of local resources and services, as well as to regional
connections.
Fares for VTA range from $2.50 for a single ride to $990 for an annual pass, with options for day and
monthly passes as well. Discounted rates are available for seniors, disabled riders, Medicare riders, and
youth up to age 18. Children under age five ride free. Frequent VTA buses run along Stevens Creek
Boulevard while local bus routes operate along major thoroughfares (Wolfe, Miller, Bollinger, De
Anza and Homestead). Together, these routes offer intra- and inter-city connections to Downtown
San Jose, the Mineta San Jose International Airport, job centers and services throughout the South
Bay area, and regional transit centers to connect to additional transportation options. The frequent
bus (Route 23) runs from De Anza College to Alum Rock Station 7 days per week with 15- to 30-
minute headways. Local bus Route 51 operates on weekdays with 50- to 60-minute headways, running
from West Valley College to the Ames Research Center, with stops in Cupertino. Local buses Routes
55 and 56 operate 7 days per week with approximately 30-minute headways, running from the Santa
Clara Convention Center to De Anza College (Route 55) and Lockheed Martin Transit Center to
Tamien Station in San Jose (Route 56) with stops in Cupertino.
Via-Cupertino, recently rebranded as Silicon Valley Hopper, is an on-demand ride-share program in
the city. The program is supported in large part through a grant from the State and is currently
anticipated to run for four years before funding for the program must be considered again. Riders can
request transportation via the app, or by calling a number on the city’s website. Vans offer bike racks,
and two vans are also wheelchair accessible. Fares are $3.50 per ride or $25 for a weekly pass, and $1
for each additional rider. Discounted fares (50 percent and no additional rider fees) are available for
seniors, students, low-income residents, and persons with disabilities. The service provides door-to-
door transportation within city limits, to the Sunnyvale and Mountain View Caltrain Stations, and to
El Camino Hospital in Mountain View. Service is anticipated to expand into the City of Santa Clara
sometime during 2023.
AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood
Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes
the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at the city, county, and
regional levels. AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical
Areas) on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being complete transit connectivity. Transit in the City of
Cupertino has a score of 5.4, reflecting moderate accessibility to jobs and services via transit.
However, this score is slightly lower than surrounding cities. For example, Santa Clara scores 7.0,
Sunnyvale scores 7.2, Campbell scores 7.3, and Mountain View scores 7.7. Jurisdictions with lower
scores than Cupertino include Los Altos (4.8) and Saratoga (3.6). Not surprisingly, transit scores
typically go up in higher-intensity urban areas, in areas with proximity to fixed-rail transit (e.g.,
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-28
Caltrans/BART/VTA Light Rail) and closer to San Jose. Overall, Santa Clara County scores 6.5,
demonstrating that Cupertino has more limited access than the county on average.
EDUCATION
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation
rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, every census
tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes.
Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more
positive the outcomes.
Cupertino is served by Cupertino Union School District for K-8 (25 different schools), which is the
largest elementary school district in Northern California. Children living in a northeast section of the
city are served by the Santa Clara Unified School District.
The Cupertino Union School District had a 2019 enrollment of 17,363 students, with a declining
enrollment, as evidenced in data for much of the county and state. Student demographics included
73.1 percent Asian, 5.1 percent Hispanic, and 14.5 percent White. As of this point in time, the district
had in its student body 4 homeless students, 1,050 socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and
1,192 students with disabilities. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students are defined as students who
are eligible for free or reduced-priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high
school diploma. The highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students at schools
within the Cupertino Union School District attend Manuel De Vargas Elementary (18.7 percent) and
Warren E. Hyde Middle (12.5 percent). Hyde Middle serves the S. Blaney, Fairgrove, and Rancho
Rinconada neighborhoods, both of which have lower median incomes, higher rates of overpayment
and overcrowding, and other indicators of potential fair housing issues, likely stemming from a
concentration of relatively affordable housing options. However, students at Manuel De Vargas
Elementary generally do not live within Cupertino, as the district serves several surrounding
jurisdictions, and the school itself is not within Cupertino. To ensure all students have access to equal
educational opportunities, the City has included Strategy HE-1.3.2 to promote construction of
ADUs and other infill strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing options in areas with
higher access to resources, including areas with higher incomes and jobs proximity index scores.
Graduation rates were not available through the California Department of Education dashboard for
2019, 2020, or 2021. Fremont Union (the high school district that students in the City attend) had
11,022 students enrolled in 2019, with 60 percent Asian, 14 percent Hispanic, and 17 percent White
populations. The district serves all residents of the City of Cupertino, a large part of the City of
Sunnyvale, some portions of the cities of Los Altos, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Saratoga. At this time,
the district had in its student body 15 homeless students, 1,634 socioeconomically disadvantaged
students, and 1,053 students with disabilities. Unfortunately, students with a disability and homeless
students each graduated at much lower rates, with homeless students graduating at 28 percentage
points lower rate than the state. It is, however, hard to determine whether these students were
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-29
residents of Cupertino or not. The overall graduation rate (95.5 percent) was almost 10 percentage
points higher than the state average.
All schools in Cupertino are highly rated according to the California School Dashboard, with little
variance in proficiency among schools. Monta Vista High has a slightly better record in English
Language Learner progress than Cupertino High and ranks higher in above-standard mathematics and
English Language Arts proficiency, although Homestead High (in Fremont Union) also performs well
on these measures. Regionally, students in Cupertino are expected to have similar or better educational
opportunities when compared to other communities in the county and greater Bay Area.
In a focus group of school district leaders and other community services organizations, district staff
indicated that a lack of affordable housing has caused challenges in teacher hiring and retention, and
that higher-density development tends to generate fewer students per household than lower-density
or single-family development. As part of Strategy HE-2.3.6, the City will evaluate the feasibility of
developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on City-owned surplus properties
and will research other jurisdictions’ housing programs for teachers for their potential applicability in
Cupertino. Additionally, rezoning efforts in Strategy HE-1.3.2 will encourage higher-density housing
development, which will not only encourage more affordable housing but will do so in a way that has
the potential to put less pressure on school enrollment.
EMPLOYMENT
Cupertino’s job market is heavily influenced by Apple, whose headquarters are in the city. The city’s
job proximity index shows the city to have better employment opportunities than any immediately
surrounding area. Six block groups score above an 80, indicating very close proximity to jobs, due in
large part to their proximity to Apple campuses. However, it is unclear how many of the residents of
the block groups work at Apple. Regionally, communities in the southern portion of the Bay Area
typically have the highest scores for proximity to jobs, likely due to the concentration of large campus
employment opportunities. However, many of these communities are more densely developed than
Cupertino. Cupertino has among the highest jobs proximity index scores among similarly situated,
predominantly single-family communities in the South Bay.
In 2014, the jobs-to-household ratio for Cupertino began to diverge significantly from the county and
Bay Area. As of 2018, Cupertino’s jobs-to-household ratio exceeded 2.5, indicating the City has strong
job opportunities for residents within Cupertino and from surrounding communities. The high ratio
is also an indicator of the lack of workforce housing opportunities within the city and the need for
Apple and other employers to draw heavily on workers living in other cities.
The job opportunities, especially with the proximity of Apple, likely contribute to the fact that most
block groups in Cupertino have a median household income of $125,000 or more. The City has only
four small sections with higher than the minimum poverty concentration of low-income households
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-30
and minor areas of concentrated poverty in a Census Tract which straddles both Cupertino and
Sunnyvale.
Between 2015 and 2018, Manufacturing & Wholesale jobs have grown in the city. In this time period,
jobs in this industry have increased by 43 percent, or 9,331 jobs. However, because the specific
businesses included in the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Workplace
Area Characteristics (WAC) are not available, it is difficult to determine which businesses or positions
may have been included in this category. However, it should be noted that there are no mid-size or
large manufacturing or wholesale operations located in Cupertino. The population of Cupertino,
comparatively, decreased by 551 during the same period, while546 residential units were developed
between 2015 and 2022. Given the City’s slow pace of development relative to job growth, it is safe
to assume that many of these employees reside outside city limits.
Unemployment in Cupertino spiked in 2020 but is less than the county and region overall. This is an
expected, COVID-19 pandemic-related trend; however, the unemployment rate has not yet reached
pre-pandemic levels. Overall, the unemployment rate in Cupertino (4.4 percent) is lower than the
county as a whole (5.7 percent) and the larger Bay Area (6.6 percent), indicating a return to regular
employment opportunities more quickly than other areas of the region.
TCAC’s economic opportunity score consists of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment,
job proximity, and median home value. All but two census tracts in Cupertino have high economic
opportunity (> 0.75). The remaining two, in the Rancho Rinconada and Fairgrove neighborhoods, are
still moderate opportunity areas, with scores between 0.50 and 0.75.
ENVIRONMENT
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators,
which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources, such as ozone, fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), diesel particulate matter (PM), pesticides, toxic releases, traffic, cleanup sites,
groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.
Most census tracts in Cupertino have scores associated with positive environmental outcomes based
on CalEnviroScreen indicators, with no census tracts in the city scoring over 0.5 out of 1 (Figures B3-
51). Cupertino scores even better on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the
Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure B3-52). It is not clear which is more
reflective of the area’s environmental health. The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight
categories, including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean
environment, and healthcare.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-31
A disadvantaged community or environmental justice community (EJ Community) is identified by the
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) as “areas [sic] that is disproportionately
affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects,
exposure, or environmental degradation,” and may or may not have a concentration of low-income
households, high unemployment rates, low homeownership rates, overpayment for housing, or other
indicators of disproportionate housing need.12 In February 2021, the California Office for
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of
CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and
compare a community’s environmental scores. In the CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a
cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above (25 percent highest score census tracts) are those that
have been designated as disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill (SB) 535.13 The cumulative
score for each census tract includes an exposure score, with a low score being a positive outcome, for
each of the following:
• Ozone concentrations
• PM2.5 concentrations
• Diesel particulate matter emissions
• Drinking water contaminants
• Children’s lead risk from housing for children
• Use of certain high-hazard, high-volatility pesticides
• Toxic releases from facilities
• Traffic impacts 14
Communities that are identified as disadvantaged communities based on their cumulative pollution
exposure score are targeted for investment through the State cap-and-trade program. However, the
condition of these communities poses fair housing concerns due to disproportionate exposure to
unhealthy living conditions. In the City of Cupertino, the cumulative scores of all census tracts are
below the 30th percentile, with most below the 20th percentile, indicating that there are no areas that
meet the criteria of a disadvantaged community and are not disproportionately exposed to high levels
of pollutants compared to other census tracts in the state. These scores reflect extremely positive
environmental conditions for residents of Cupertino.
12 California Health and Safety Code, Section 39711
13 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. June 2017. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities.
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
14 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments. February 202. Update to the
California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Public Review Draft.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/document/calenviroscreen40reportd12021.pdf.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-32
However, Interstate 280 runs east to west along the northern portion of the city and Highway 85 runs
north to south through the western portion of the city. The confluence of these freeways is adjacent
to the Monta Vista Village and Garden Gate neighborhoods, where poverty rates are highest (13.7
percent of the population), though the median income is still $142,969. The locations of these
freeways, however, may pose a potential environmental concern for adjacent residential areas, who
may face increased exposure to traffic emissions and particulate matter. CalEnviroScreen reports that
the pollution burden for diesel particulate matter and traffic in this area are in the 88th and 83rd
percentiles, respectively. However, Highway 85 has limited truck traffic because semi-trucks are
prohibited south of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
In Santa Clara County, cumulative pollution exposure scores are relatively consistent among similarly
situated, suburban and urban communities. Scores increase in higher-intensity areas, such as in San
Jose.
In a community workshop, participants expressed a desire for developments to have lower impact on
greenhouse gas emissions and lower vehicle miles traveled, and for buildings to have private and
community open space such as balconies and landscaped areas, while avoiding privacy impacts to
adjacent lower density residential developments. Through Strategy HE-7.3.1, the City will coordinate
with the Valley Transportation Authority to ensure adequate transit access for new developments,
which can encourage residents to reduce their vehicle miles traveled and may reduce traffic emissions.
The City will also continue to implement its General Plan policies in the Mobility Element by
developing programs to help improve the transportation network and impacts to the environment.
The City implements environmental requirements including those related to Air Quality, Biological
and Cultural Resources through its Municipal Code. Additionally, through Strategies HE-4.1.2 and
4.1.3, the City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance, which will require water-efficient
landscaping in new residential projects throughout the city, and provide incentives for energy
conservation improvements at small affordable housing projects to exceed the requirements of the
California Green Building Code.
DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Because Cupertino offers high opportunity neighborhoods throughout, all residents live in highly
resourced areas, regardless of race or ethnicity.
The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks
census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic
status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Cupertino scores
well on the SVI; no neighborhoods are ill equipped to respond to disasters.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-33
Cupertino does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as “the top 25
percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution
and low populations.”15
DISPARITIES SPECIFIC TO THE POPULATION LIVING WITH A DISABILITY
Of the population in Cupertino, 7 percent is living with at least one disability, compared to
8 percent in the county. The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (3.9 percent), self-
care (3.6 percent), and independent living difficulty (3.0 percent). For the population 65 and over, the
share of the population with ambulatory difficulties increases to 11.4 percent while hearing difficulty
becomes a top-three issue at 9.4 percent. As is shown in Figure B3-4, Access to Opportunity, 16
percent of Cupertino residents with a disability are not employed, compared to 3 percent of residents
without a disability. Unemployment rates for Cupertino residents with disabilities are higher than the
rate countywide (10 percent).
Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory
difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.
B3.9 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes, including cost burden and severe
cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other
considerations.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant
disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing
need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total
population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For
purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden
and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
15 CalEPA. 2022. SB 525 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update). https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-34
Figure B3-4 Access to Opportunity
Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Jobs to Household Ratio 2.60 1.71
Unemployment Rate 4%6%
LEP Population 5%9%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of Cupertino
Employment by Disability Status
0%0%
68%
0%
1%
0%
25%
0%
3%3%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
97%
84%
3%
16%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of Cupertino
96%
90%
4%
10%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
Santa Clara County
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-35
HOUSING NEEDS
Population growth in Cupertino accelerated in 1994, outpacing the county trends; however, the rate
of growth has leveled off since 2018. A portion of this population growth can be attributed to the
City’s annexation of 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino’s annexation of Garden
Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered county “islands” added 1,600 new residents.
As discussed earlier, residential development in Cupertino has lagged behind job growth significantly.
Almost three quarters of the city’s homes were built between 1960 and 1999. After this period, housing
production slowed dramatically, with only 502 houses built since 2010. However, as with the
population growth discussed previously, housing units were also added to the city through the
annexation of 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008.
Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been for higher-
income builds, with 321 units for above moderate-income households, 19 for low-income households,
48 for very low-income households and 158 for moderate-income units have been permitted, for a
total of 546 units.
According to 2020 estimates by the California Department of Finance, 57 percent of Cupertino’s
housing units are single-family detached units. The next closest share is multifamily at 21 percent of
units, followed by 12 percent single-family attached units and 10 percent du-/tri-/fourplexes. As of
the 2015-2019 ACS, owners in Cupertino mostly occupied four or more-bedroom homes (50.7
percent), while 60.8 percent of renters occupy two or three-bedroom units. Countywide during the
same time period, 55.7 percent each of owners and renters occupied two or three-bedroom units.
Ownership in Cupertino comes at a steep price. Of owner-occupied homes in the city, 83 percent are
valued over $1 million, with 37 percent valued above $2 million. This compares to 48 percent for the
county and 35 percent for the Bay Area overall of homes over $1 million. According to the Zillow
Home Value Index, between 2001 and 2020, Cupertino’s home values have been consistently higher
than those of the county and Bay Area overall, and are now roughly double the home values in the
county and Bay Area overall.
Rentals are very expensive in Cupertino, with 52.0 percent of units renting for $3,000 per month and
86.5 percent renting above $2,000 per month. Both categories are considerably higher than in the
county (56.9 percent above $2,000 and 18.5 percent above $3,000) and Bay Area overall (42.0 percent
above $2,000 and 13.0 percent above $3,000). Only 4 percent of all renters pay less than $1,000 per
month in Cupertino, compared to 10.2 percent in the county and 16.3 percent in the Bay Area. While
the rates in Cupertino are higher than the county’s rates, the trends are similar.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-36
According to HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), Cupertino does not have any public
housing buildings. Additionally, none of the census tracts in the city show data for Housing Choice
Voucher usage. However, HUD and California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA) have funded a
total of 127 units of subsidized housing in Cupertino. Additionally, during the 5th cycle planning
period, the City’s Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) funded the conversion
of three units into BMR rental housing, and as part of the City’s BMR ownership program, 99
households were assisted in buying affordable units.
COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN
Despite Cupertino’s high housing costs, cost burden, which occurs when households spend more than
30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, is slightly better than the county and Bay Area.
This outcome is likely due to the lack of low-income households living in the city, as lower-income
households are much more likely to face cost burden. Cost burden is much higher for the city’s lowest-
income households, 75 percent of whom pay more than 50 percent of their gross household incomes
in housing costs.
Cost burden does vary by tenure (rentership or ownership) in Cupertino with renters (37 percent
burdened) more likely to experience burden than owners (24 percent). As seen in Figure B3-74,
Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019, renter overpayment is
highest in the area around Homestead Square Shopping Center, Jollyman/Faria, S. Blaney, S. Vallco
Park, and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods. In these areas, the rate of renter overpayment ranges
narrowly from 40.2 percent of renters in the S. Vallco Park neighborhood to 43.5 percent of renters
in each of the Rancho Rinconada and the census tracts that include parts of the Creston-Pharlap,
Monte Vista Village, Bubb Road, Heart of the City, and Jollyman neighborhoods. Many of these
neighborhoods tend to have a higher proportion of renters in general, likely due to the placement of
multifamily housing near major thoroughfares, commercial centers, and the college. The greatest
concentrations of owner overpayment, in contrast, range from 43.1 percent in the Rancho Rinconada
area to 43.5 percent in the area including parts of the Garden Gate Neighborhood and areas west of
the Homestead Square Shopping Center. In parts of each of the neighborhoods with rates of
homeowner overpayment exceeding 40 percent, nearly 30 percent of households are lower-to-
moderate income, which likely contributes to the higher rates of overpayment.
There are also disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity. Hispanic
households experience by far the highest rates of cost burden in the city (45 percent). Asian (28
percent), non-Hispanic White (27 percent), and Black/African American (11 percent) households are
least likely to be cost burdened, with Black/African American residents reporting zero cost burden.
Figure B3-5 summarizes disproportionate housing needs in Cupertino.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-37
Figure B3-5 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of Cupertino, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of Cupertino, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, City of Cupertino, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 8%1%
Asian / API 5%37%
Black or African American 19%2%
White 44%44%
Other Race or Multiple Races 24%16%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0%1%
19%
37%
43%
48%
86%
6%
19%
30%
35%
12%
75%
44%
27%
17%
1%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used for Housing
0.1%
0.0%
2.8%
0.7%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter
8.9%
3.8%
1.9%
0.5%
1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room
More than 1.5 Occupants per Room
Owner Renter Series3
1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-38
OVERCROWDING
The vast majority of households (94 percent) in Cupertino do not live in overcrowded conditions,
indicated by more than one occupant per bedroom. However, renter households are more likely to be
overcrowded, with 12.7 percent of renter households overcrowded, compared to 2.4 percent of owner
households. One factor in this difference may be the practice of landlords renting shared units on a
“by the bed” basis rather than as full units, increasing the density of residents in each apartment.
Furthermore, Black/African American households are significantly more likely to be living in
overcrowded conditions (17.9 percent) than the rest of the City’s residents, though the sample size of
Black/African American households is smaller than that of other populations.
As shown in Figure B3-74, overcrowding is highest in the Garden Gate neighborhood (10.2 percent),
Jollyman/Faria (11.1 percent), the tract including parts of the Creston-Pharlap, Garden Gate,
Homestead Villa and Homestead Road areas (12.3 percent), and the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood
(14.0 percent).
In the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, there is likely a higher concentration of families with children
due in part to housing turnover and redevelopment within the past 10 to 15 years, as well as the
proximity to early childhood, elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as other resources for
children such as parks and soccer fields. At other points in the city’s history, overcrowding has
concentrated in other areas in close proximity to different schools as housing turnover occurred in
those areas (e.g. around Lincoln, Kennedy and Monta Vista High). Children up to age 18 comprise
approximately 28.8 percent of the population, and the average household size is 3.1, compared to a
citywide average household size of 2.8. Though a marginal difference, the slightly larger household
sizes in this neighborhood paired with higher overcrowding rates may reflect children sharing rooms
and/or smaller home sizes. The Rancho Rinconada neighborhood was developed in the
unincorporated part of western Santa Clara County as workforce housing in the 1950s. The typical
home size was 800 square feet on 4,700 to 5,100-square-foot lots. While the neighborhood has been
going through a rapid transition in the last 20 years, many of the homes continue to be smaller with
fewer rooms. These smaller homes may be more affordable due to their size and age but may not suit
growing families or one- or two-person households.
As mentioned previously, the areas near the Homestead Square Shopping Center have a higher
proportion of townhomes and other multifamily housing units that are typically more affordable. In
these instances, households may be living in units that are smaller than is needed for their family or
may be sharing with roommates or other households to afford housing costs. Overcrowding in this
neighborhood, as well as the Garden Gate and Jollyman/Faria neighborhoods, may reflect a need for
more affordable, larger housing options or more units affordable to single-person or small households.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-39
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions
found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as
self-reported in census surveys. Only 0.1 percent of owner households in Cupertino report living in
substandard housing, all of which arose out of a lack of complete kitchens. About 2.8 percent of renter
households lack complete kitchens and 0.7 percent lack complete plumbing. In the City of Cupertino,
the median home value in December 2020 was $2,275,730, and the median income was estimated at
approximately $182,857 in 2020. The median income is too low for existing residents to afford a new
home at the median sales price, but it is assumed that current property owners are most likely
completing ongoing maintenance and repairs to maintain the values of their homes. Therefore, while
the 2015-2019 ACS reported that 77.0 percent of the homes in Cupertino are at the age where they
may need minor repairs up to major rehabilitation (built in 1989 or earlier) such as new roofs, siding
repair, paint, replacing cracked or inoperable windows, or plumbing systems, based on visual
reconnaissance of Cupertino neighborhoods, the City estimates that fewer than five percent of units
in the city may be in need of rehabilitation, and that only one to two homes in the city may have such
severe need for rehabilitation as to be unsafe for habitation.
The City estimates that, based in part on housing stock age, the greatest need for rehabilitation is likely
in the Monta Vista Village area and parts of the S. Blaney neighborhood. Until recently, Rancho
Rinconada had the greatest rehabilitation need. However, over the last 20 years, there has been a
significant amount of rehabilitation as homes have been replaced, thereby reducing rehabilitation need
in this area. Older neighborhoods that still have smaller, older homes likely need greater rehabilitation
investment due to the age of the housing stock, as was the case in Rancho Rinconada. Rehabilitation
might be most necessary for housing occupied by seniors on fixed incomes, where such turnover has
not occurred.
HOMELESSNESS
In May 2022, Santa Clara County published its 2022 Point-in-Time Report on Homelessness (PIT),
which estimated 10,028 persons experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County. Of that number,
2,320 persons were sheltered homeless and 7,922 were unsheltered homeless. Of this population, 102
individuals were counted in the City of Cupertino, all of whom were unsheltered. This was a decrease
of approximately 36 percent, from 159 homeless persons in Cupertino in 2019.
The PIT provides the demographic composition of the homeless population at the county level, but
not at the local level. Therefore, Table B3-2, Demographic Composition of the Homeless Population,
2022, identifies the proportion of each of these protected characteristics from the 2022 PIT compared
to the proportion of total population in Cupertino to identify whether any protected classes are
disproportionately represented as part of the homeless population. It is worth noting that, given the
small proportion of the homeless population that was counted in Cupertino, it is unlikely that all
protected characteristics are represented in the homeless populations of these jurisdictions. However,
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-40
without data available at the local level, it is assumed that the percentages of each protected class apply
to the local homeless population.
Table B3-2 Demographic Composition of the Homeless Population, 2022
Characteristic Percentage of Santa Clara
County Homeless Population
Percentage of City of
Cupertino Population
Female 37.1% 50.2%
Male 60.8% 49.8%
Transgender <0.1% No data
Gender Nonconforming <0.1% No data
Hispanic/Latinx 47.0% 3.3%
White 60.0% 25.2%
Black or African American 14.0% 0.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 7.0% 0.1%
Asian 6.0% 67.7%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 3.0% <0.1%
Multi-race or Other 10.0% 3.0%
Under 18 Years <1.0% 20.7%
Senior 16.0% 14.7%
Source: Santa Clara County 2022 Point in Time; American Community Survey 2015-2019.
As seen in Table B3-1, all groups except females, seniors, and Asian-identifying residents were
overrepresented in the Santa Clara County homeless population, compared to the City of Cupertino
population. Bolded figures in Table B3-1 represent over-represented demographic groups. Though
data by race is not collected at the individual jurisdiction level through the Point in Time Count, it is
estimated that the over-representation of Hispanic/Latinx, Black or African American, Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Multi-Racial, and American Indian or Alaska Native community
members that is seen in the countywide count may also be true of the homeless community within
the city at any given time. Additionally, though data on the number of homeless community members
in the city who have one or more disabilities is not counted at the city level, it is estimated that they
may be over-represented due to the existing challenges Bay Area residents with physical and mental
disabilities face in accessing affordable housing. To address the needs of these groups, the City will
support homeless services providers, support new affordable housing development and prioritize
projects targeting special needs groups such as those experiencing homelessness, and revise the
Zoning Code to facilitate the development of emergency shelters and low-barrier navigation centers
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-41
through Policy HE-5.1 and Strategies HE-2.3.1, HE-5.1.1, and HE-5.1.4. Approximately 34.0
percent of homeless individuals that responded to the survey reported that they believe rent or
mortgage assistance would have prevented homelessness for them, 28.0 percent believed that
employment assistance would have prevented homelessness, 28.0 percent reported alcohol and drug
counseling as a prevention tool, 26.0 percent reported mental health services, and 23.0 percent
reported general assistance accessing benefits. The primary barriers to obtaining housing were the
ability to afford rent (69 percent of respondents), lack of a job and income (55 percent), lack of
available housing (32 percent), shortage of money to afford moving costs (28 percent), and challenges
of navigating the housing process (18 percent).
Homeless residents typically congregate to camp in the Lawrence Mitty Park area in east Cupertino
on a property that the City acquired with the intention of developing it as a park along the Lawrence
Expressway. While encampments are frequent in this area, it is not near transit or homeless services.
Additional areas where homeless residents camp include along most freeway on- and off-ramps,
embankments off roadways and overpasses, and parks. Most areas are out of sight from the roadway.
One particular area, in addition to Lawrence Mitty, is at the south embankment at Tantau Avenue and
I-280 (on the south side of 280), in the Caltrans right-of-way. This location is not close to transit or
services and the individuals there are either chronically homeless/jobless with no evidence that they
are using public transit, or those individuals that have their own personal vehicles.
Additionally, many transient unhoused residents sleep in parks and vehicles overnight then pack up
and leave during the day. In particular, Alves Drive, Civic Center, and Memorial Park are examples of
areas where unhoused residents frequently spend the night and leave the areas during the daytime.
The City has a permitted rotating car park facility used by unhoused residents that have their own
vehicles that they park overnight at the facility. The facility is closer to transit but the individuals using
the facility have personal vehicles.
The City participates in, and offers, several countywide and local homelessness resources to meet the
needs of this population. Programs that are available regionally and locally include the following.
• Countywide Resources and Services:
o Sacred Heart Community Service provides several homelessness prevention programs,
including emergency rent and deposit financial assistance.
o Here4You Hotline is a centralized referral system to connect residents with temporary
housing programs, rental assistance, and referrals to other community services.
o Emergency Assistance Network provides emergency financial assistance and other
services to prevent homelessness, utility disconnections, and hunger. Services include one-
time rent and mortgage payment assistance, move-in costs for rental deposits, one-time
utility assistance, on-site information and referrals, food pantries, and more.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-42
o Santa Clara County Homeless Prevention System assists low-income families or
individuals at risk of losing their housing through temporary financial assistance, legal
support, and case management.
o Law Foundation of Silicon Valley has a legal aid program providing housing discrimination
and eviction prevention representation.
• Local Resources and Services:
o West Valley Community Services (10104 Vista Drive) provides rental and utility assistance,
case management services, information, referrals, food pantry, and transitional housing for
single adults and women with children under age six.
o De Anza College Housing Assistance Grants Program provides funds to eligible students
to prevent eviction, assist with move-in costs, or to maintain secure housing to be able to
continue their education. The City of Cupertino has contributed $50,000 to the program,
eligible students may receive up to $2,000 in assistance.
o West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park Program is a partnership between the City of
Cupertino, faith-based communities, and service organizations and consists of volunteer
sites that host overnight guests for up to two months on an annual rotating basis, allowing
for temporary overnight parking. The program also connects homeless individuals and
families with case management and hospitality services.
DISPLACEMENT
The shortage of housing in Cupertino, particularly in relation to the number of jobs in the city, creates
a market where households do not move regularly. Owners move very infrequently: 22.1 percent of
homeowners moved into their current residence in or before 1989, and 73.9 percent moved into their
current residence in 2009 or earlier. In contrast, 45.9 percent of renters have moved to their current
residence since 2015.
Another indicator of displacement is the potential of assisted units converted to market-rate
properties. Cupertino reports 153 units at a low risk of conversion, with no other units at risk.
According to the Sensitive Communities map of vulnerable communities, five of the City’s census
tracts are vulnerable to displacement, which is similar to surrounding areas.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-43
Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they
met the following criteria:
They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased
redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
Share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent, 2017
AND
The tract meets two of the following criteria:
• Share of renters is above 40 percent, 2017
• Share of people of color is above 50 percent, 2017
• Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are
severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
• They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement
pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases,
2012-2017
OR
Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding
tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.UrbanDisplacement.org/.
A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income
households. These factors include overpayment, overcrowding, and housing condition, as well as
vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing prices compared to
wage increases. The Urban Displacement Project analyzes income patterns and housing availability to
determine the gentrification displacement risk at the census tract level. Seven displacement typologies
exist in Santa Clara County:
• Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement: These tracts are predominantly low- or mixed-
income, susceptible to changes if housing prices increase.
• Ongoing Displacement: These tracts were previously low income, before seeing a significant
loss of low-income households between 2000 and 2018.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-44
• At Risk of Gentrification: These are low- or mixed-income tracts with housing affordable to
lower-income households; however, the tract has seen increases in housing costs or rent values
at a greater rate than regional increases or resulting in a larger rent gap locally than regionally.
• Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: These tracts are predominantly occupied by moderate-,
mixed-moderate, mixed-high, or high-income households.
• At Risk of Becoming Exclusive: These tracts are also predominantly occupied by
moderate-, mixed-, or high-income households, with housing affordable to middle- to high-
income households but ongoing increases in prices.
• Stable/Advanced Exclusive: These are high-income tracts with housing only affordable to
high-income households, and marginal or rapid increases in housing costs.
• High Student Population: These are areas excluded from the classification spectrum due to
their high concentration of student residents.
All of Cupertino, with the exception of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, is considered
Stable/Advanced Exclusive. Rancho Rinconada is considered Stable Moderate/Mixed Income.
Dramatic increases in home and rental prices have impacted residents throughout Cupertino and the
greater Bay Area, though renters are typically disproportionately burdened by housing market
increases in annual rate increases, compared to homeowners who have fixed-rate mortgages. However,
the Urban Displacement Project has not identified any areas of Cupertino that have a greater risk of
displacement for lower- and moderate-income renters compared to the rest of the state.
According to the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), the average home value in Cupertino has
increased by nearly 60 percent between February 2015 and February 2023, from $1,602,012 to
$2,562,110, for an average increase of approximately 7.5 percent annually. Despite this rapid increase,
housing prices in Cupertino have increased at a slower rate than most other incorporated jurisdictions
in Santa Clara County, with the exception of the Cities of Palo Alto (5.2 percent) and Los Altos Hills
(6.2 percent). While the prices have increased more slowly in these cities, the median home value in
both exceeds that of Cupertino, with a median value of $3,125,678 in Palo Alto and $5,340,078 in Los
Altos Hills. However, the median home price in Cupertino is still only affordable to above moderate-
income households. Rent prices in Cupertino have increased at a significantly slower rate than home
values, but still present a barrier for lower-income households. Between February 2015 and 2023, the
average rent for a two-bedroom unit, for example, increased from $3,414 to $3,899 according to a
survey of online rent tracking platforms, resulting in an annual average increase of 1.8 percent. The
median rent in February 2023 was affordable to moderate-income households.
While the rate of increase in wages has kept up with increases in rent in Cupertino, they have not
matched increases in home values. The median income in Cupertino has increased approximately 4.8
percent annually, from $120,201 in 2010 to $171,917 in 2019, according to the ACS. The difference
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-45
in these trends indicates growing unaffordability of housing in the city. To address affordability
challenges, the City will encourage and incentivize development of affordable housing units,
particularly in areas in close proximity to resources and will identify funding for financial assistance
for first-time homebuyers. (Strategies HE-2.3.1 and HE-2.3.5).
Strategy HE-1.3.2 to rezone sites to accommodate higher density housing;
Strategy HE-1.3.9 to lower fees for all multifamily development and parking requirements for studio
apartments and single-room occupancy units to encourage development of these housing types;
Strategy HE-2.3.4 to target Below-Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund to benefit populations
with the greatest need;
Strategy HE-2.3.6 to facilitate development of housing by partnering with developers to purchase
surplus properties for development; and
Strategy HE-2.3.7 to incentivize development of affordable housing.
Displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can
support, their housing condition is unstable or unsafe, and when the household is overcrowded. Each
of these present barriers to stable housing for the occupants. As discussed in Section B3.7, Integration
and Segregation, the rate of poverty in Cupertino is approximately 7.7 percent, with the highest rate
in the northern portion of the city. The City has included several programs to increase the supply of
affordable housing by providing assistance with acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction; providing
technical assistance, streamlining, and other incentives; and working with affordable housing providers
to preserve units. Public comment received during City Council meetings also expressed a desire to
see reasonable renter protections; Strategy HE-3.3.6 proposes to study rent stabilization and tenant
protection ordinances in California and displacement in Cupertino due to rising rents and evictions.
Work with relevant stakeholders to establish tenant protection and/or a rent stabilization to ensure
protection for renters, as appropriate based on findings.
ACCESS TO MORTGAGE LOANS
In many communities, disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications,
particularly in denial rates. This is true in the Census Tracts that include Cupertino, but primarily only
for Black/African American applicants. Mortgage denial rates are consistent by race, ranging from 18
to 20 percent, with the exception of Black/African American applicants (33 percent). It should be
noted that only six Black/African American applicants were received out of 2,214 total applications
in 2018 and 2019, so these findings may not represent a larger, more general pattern in the region.
Figure B3-5, Disproportionate Housing Needs, summarizes information on disproportionate housing
needs in the city.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-46
B3.10 SITES ANALYSIS
The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities
in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have
access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households. Assembly Bill (AB)
686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites in
relation to fair housing factors to determine whether the sites inventory further entrenches existing
fair housing issues. When patterns of fair housing issues do overlap with sites identified in the
inventory (parcels with pipeline projects, parcels that are vacant, and parcels that are considered
underutilized), the City is obligated to establish strategies to mitigate and improve conditions
contributing to fair housing issues. What follows is an analysis of the distribution of the City’s sites
inventory by income category compared to citywide patterns, in the context of the fair housing issues
discussed earlier in the Fair Housing Assessment.
OVERALL SUMMARY
For the purposes of this analysis, the location of the sites within the city will be described by their
associated census tracts and census block groups. Figure B3-6 illustrates the distribution of the sites
inventory by affordability along with the boundaries of the city’s census tracts and block groups. Table
B3-3 summarizes the conditions in areas of the city with RHNA sites or projects, organized by census
tract and block group, with the percentage of units in a given income category that are in this block
group. Please note, Figure B3-5 shows tract boundaries prior to the 2020 Census update to match
ACS data used in the analysis.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-47
Figure B3-6 RHNA Sites by Affordability with Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-48
Table B3-3 Fair Housing Factors and Percentage of RHNA Units
Tract and Block
Group
RHNA Inventory, by Affordability Category
TCAC Opportunity
Area, 2021
TCAC Education
Score
Jobs
Index
In a Racially Concentrated
Area of
Affluence?
CalEnviro-Screen 4.0
Percentile
Median Household
Income
Households with Income Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Households with a
Disability
(%)
Children in Female-
Headed
House-
holds (%)
Non-White
(%)
Households Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community Vulnerable to
Dis-
placement?
VLI &
LI Units
VLI &
LI Units (%)
Mod.
Income Units
Mod.
Income Units (%)
Above-
Mod Income Units
Above
Mod Income Units (%)
Census Tract 5077.01,
Block Group 1 0 0.0% 2 0.2% 11 0.3%
Highest
Resource 0.999
61
No 11.5
$160,491
4.7% 7.5% 3.4%
62.0%
0.9% 43.5% 36.6% No
Census Tract 5077.01,
Block Group 3 162 7.8% 70 8.2% 181 5.7% 82 $183,750 77.5%
Census Tract 5077.02,
Block Group 3 31 1.5% 18 2.1% 35 1.1% Highest
Resource 0.999 45 No 2.3 $205,804 4.4% 5.9% 0% 73.9% 1.3% 16.3% 33.3% No
Census Tract 5077.03,
Block Group 4 1 0.0% 5 0.6% 22 0.7% Highest
Resource 0.966 51 No 5.8 Data Not
Available 5.3% 8.2% 4.9% 66.0% 3.6% 32.2% 24.9% No
Census Tract 5078.05,
Block Group 1 254 12.2% 99 11.6% 268 8.5%
Highest
Resource 0.959
71
No 19.2
$107,538
13.7% 5.2% 10.7%
79.6%
12.3% 42.1% 43.5% No
Census Tract 5078.05,
Block Group 3 88 4.2% 0 0.0% 211 6.7% 68 $142,969 77.7%
Census Tract 5078.06,
Block Group 3 48 2.3% 55 6.5% 221 7.0% Highest
Resource 0.996 81 No 17.9 $144,239 7.9% 3.7% 9.2% 92.6% 10.2% 28.2% 42.4% Yes
Census Tract 5078.07,
Block Group 1 15 0.7% 12 1.4% 21 0.7% Highest
Resource 1 72 No No 14.2 $178,750 1.8 6.2 7.7 83.1 11.12 27.8 31.2
Census Tract 5078.08,
Block Group 2 0 0.0% 2 0.2% 18 0.6%
Highest
Resource 0.997
52
No 1.5
$197,625
2.5% 2.8% 2.1%
85.4%
2.9% 19.4% 21.7% No
Census Tract 5078.08,
Block Group 4 118 5.7% 53 6.6% 160 5.1% 43 $211,111 82.2%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-49
Table B3-3 Fair Housing Factors and Percentage of RHNA Units
Tract and Block
Group
RHNA Inventory, by Affordability Category
TCAC Opportunity
Area, 2021
TCAC Education
Score
Jobs
Index
In a Racially Concentrated
Area of
Affluence?
CalEnviro-Screen 4.0
Percentile
Median Household
Income
Households with Income Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Households with a
Disability
(%)
Children in Female-
Headed
House-
holds (%)
Non-White
(%)
Households Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community Vulnerable to
Dis-
placement?
VLI &
LI Units
VLI &
LI Units (%)
Mod.
Income Units
Mod.
Income Units (%)
Above-
Mod Income Units
Above
Mod Income Units (%)
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 1 0 0.0% 93 10.9% 70 2.2%
Highest
Resource 0.998
80
No 18.3
$171,351
4.6% 5.7% 1.5%
77.1%
4.57% 40.4% 32.3% Yes Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 3 12 0.6% 5 0.6% 12 0.4% 81 $128,250 78.4%
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 4 82 3.9% 34 4.0% 98 3.1% 78 $221,563 69.6%
Census Tract 5080.03,
Block Group 1 83 4.0% 33 3.9% 87 2.8% Highest
Resource 0.964 72 No 17.1 $158,971 7.8% 12.1% 0.8% 79.2% 14.0% 41.3% 43.1% Yes
Census Tract 5081.01,
Block Group 1 253 12.2% 130 15.3% 48 1.5%
Highest
Resource 0.973
81
No 18.3
$224,438
1.4% 3% 2.7%
77.7%
7.3% 20.5% 24.2% No Census Tract 5081.01,
Block Group 2 89 4.3% 126 14.8% 62 2.0% 80 $201,563 78.2%
Census Tract 5081.01,
Block Group 3 252 12.1% 111 13.0% 290 9.2% 79 $174,929 79.3%
Census Tract 5081.02,
Block Group 1 581 28.6% 0 0.0% 1,321 39.9% Highest
Resource 0.905 69 No 18.1 $171,324 4.8% 2.9% 4.5% 76.5% 4.7% 40.2% 13.5% No
Census Tract 5083.04,
Block Group 5 11 0.5% 4 0.5% 11 0.3% Highest
Resource 0.903 76 No 11.8 $90,515 9.2% 4.7% 14.6% 81.5% 13.8% 47.0% 25.3% Yes
Source: American Communities Survey (2015-2019); US Department of Housing and Urban Development (2014-2017); ESRI, 2018; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) 2021 and 2023; OEHHA, 2022; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, 2018.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-50
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-51
Analysis of Fair Housing Factors Relating to RHNA Site and Project Placement Similarities
As shown in Table B1-1, many of the areas in the city that include RHNA sites have similar conditions
to each other, and therefore are not expected to reinforce existing patterns of segregation or poverty
by disproportionately concentrating housing sites of a particular income level in areas with high or
low levels of poverty or segregation. All of the city’s units to meet RHNA are within areas that were
designated Highest Resource under the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (TCAC)
opportunity areas classification system in 2021. In 2023, when the opportunity areas methodology was
shifted to evaluating each census tract in comparison to other cities in the Council of Governments
area, none of the census tracts in the city were identified as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty.
TCAC’s evaluation of education outcomes in the area scored all of the census tracts with inventory
sites or projects in Cupertino within the 90th percentile or better.
In all of the census tracts with sites or pending projects in the inventory, rates of poverty are below
15 percent, which is similar to the overall rates of poverty citywide. None of the sites are in RCAAs,
as defined and identified by HCD.
None of the census tracts in Cupertino are considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535,
which refers to a census tract with a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score in the 75th percentile or higher. None
of the parts of Cupertino where RHNA sites or projects are located has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score
higher than the 20th percentile. Though not identified in Table B1-1, nearly all of Cupertino, including
all areas where RHNA inventory sites or projects are located, was ranked in the 80th percentile or
better on the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) Healthy Places Index in 2021.
Additionally, because the zones to which many of the inventory sites will be rezoned have maximum
permitted densities of 65 dwelling units per acre, the City has estimated that sites larger than 0.5 acres
will develop with affordability levels that can accommodate a mix of lower-, moderate-, and above
moderate-income households. This can help to avoid any overconcentration of housing to
accommodate a particular income level in any one part of the city.
AREAS OF DIFFERENCE
The remaining analysis will focus on fair housing factors that meaningfully differ between some parts
of the city and others as it relates to the proportion of sites in each part of the city and the affordability
level of housing that is estimated may develop on the site.
Access to Employment
Cupertino is known regionally as a jobs center, so fittingly many of the census block groups with sites
in the inventory or pending projects have high scores on HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index, indicating that
residents of those census block groups live within close proximity to jobs. However, because much
of the city’s employment is centered in the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, at De Anza College,
and near the Apple campus, residents of areas on the outskirts of the city may have a higher
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-52
transportation cost to access employment opportunities. Additionally, because not all workers in these
areas live within Cupertino and not all Cupertino residents work in these areas, city residents may have
longer distances to travel to work despite living in areas close to office and commercial uses. It is
important to note that the decision regarding where to reside is not solely dependent on the location
of one’s job; other factors such as access to schools, preferred social and cultural amenities and
experiences, and demography also influence this decision. Most of the block groups with RHNA sites
or projects have a Jobs Proximity Index score of at least 68, indicating a moderate to close proximity
to employment areas. Four block groups with RHNA sites or projects have scores lower than 60.
In Block Group 3 of Tract 5077.02, which is south and west of the De Anza College area, the Jobs
Index score is 45, among the lowest in the city. Just 1.5 percent of the lower-income units, 2.1 percent
of moderate units and 1.1 percent of above-moderate units are estimated to develop in this block
group. This will not reinforce any historic patterns of siting more affordable housing far from
employment centers. Additionally, sites in the inventory that are within this block group are located
in the part of the block group that is closest to commercial areas in central Cupertino, which may help
to mitigate the distance of the block group overall.
In Block Group 4 of Tract 5077.03, which is due west of De Anza College, the Jobs Proximity Index
score was 51. This block group is predominantly a lower-density residential area near several large
park areas. Two pending projects are identified within this area. One, the Canyon Crossing project, is
planned to be predominantly market-rate housing with a small number of moderate- and lower-
income units. The other, currently called the “Bateh Brothers/Alan Row” project, will only include
moderate- and above moderate-income units. Combined, these project units represent less than 0.1
percent of the lower-income units, 0.6 percent of moderate-income units, and 0.7 percent of above
moderate-income units in the combined sites inventory and projects. Accordingly, placement of these
projects is not expected to significantly establish or reinforce patterns of affordable housing units
being placed far from job centers.
Block Groups 2 and 4 of Tract 5078.08 are due south of central Cupertino and just west of the I-85
and De Anza Boulevard corridors and have Jobs Proximity Index scores of 52 and 43, respectively. It
is estimated that 5.7 percent of lower-income units, 6.4 percent of moderate-income units, and 5.7
percent of above moderate-income units are expected to develop in the two block groups combined.
This area has one transit route along De Anza Boulevard with 30-minute transit frequency, which can
help to mitigate the cost associated with accessing employment from farther away. Additionally,
several of the sites in this area (including sites 54, 55, and 56) are already allowed to develop at 60
dwelling units per acre under AB2011 and SB6, and are being targeted for rezoning by the City to
mixed-use zones, which can help to promote the development of additional employment
opportunities in close proximity to new housing.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-53
Disability
The city as a whole has low rates of households with any members who have disabilities, and none of
the census tracts in the city has a rate of more than 20 percent of households with members who have
disabilities. Only one census tract has a rate of disability between 10 and 20 percent, Tract 5080.03. In
this census tract, 12.1 percent of households report having a member with a disability. This tract also
includes a non-profit-run housing project for adults with disabilities, Adults Toward Independent
Living. Sites 5 and 6 are within this census tract, and together represent 4.0 percent of the lower-
income units, 3.9 percent of moderate-income units, and 2.8 of above moderate-income units of the
sites and projects counted towards RHNA. By identifying sites in this area with a high level of density,
it is estimated that more affordable units may develop here, which can help to prevent displacement
for households with disabled members.
RaceAs a whole, the population of Cupertino is majority non-white, with no census block groups in
the city having a majority of White residents. The most common non-white racial group that
Cupertino residents identify with is Asian, and Asian community members are the predominant group
in the Garden Gate and Jollyman/Faria neighborhoods. Census tracts in southern and eastern
Cupertino also have sizeable Asian populations, though with a lower “predominance gap.” No other
non-white racial groups are predominant in any other part of Cupertino, and only a small portion of
the far northwest corner of the city is predominantly White. This area is the neighborhood
surrounding Rancho San Antonio County Park and a large portion of this tract is located in Los Altos,
which has a majority White demographic.
Citywide, the lowest rate of minority residents is 59.0 percent non-white; among census block groups
with sites or projects in the RHNA inventory, the lowest rate is 62.0 percent of residents identifying
as non-white (Block Group 1 of Tract 5077.01). This tract had a median household income of
$160,491 as of the 2015-2019 ACS. Few of the RHNA inventory sites or projects are in this block
group, including no lower-income units, 0.2 percent of moderate-income units, and 0.3 percent of
above moderate-income units are estimated to develop in this block group. This block group is on the
far west side of the city in a predominantly low-density residential area. Because of the low number of
units expected to develop in this area, it is unlikely that their development would establish or reinforce
any existing fair housing concerns in this area.
The block group with one of the highest rates of non-white residents is Block Group 3 of Tract
5078.06. Of the total population in this block group, 92.6 percent identify as non-white. Of the RHNA
units in the sites inventory and project list, it is estimated that 2.3 percent of lower-income units, 6.5
percent of moderate-income units, and 7.0 percent of above moderate-income units will develop in
this area. The median household income here is $144,239, which is high compared to the state as a
whole but on the mid- to lower-end of median incomes in Cupertino. The development of moderate-
income housing in this area may allow for existing community members who are experiencing housing
cost burden to find more affordable options without leaving established community networks.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-54
Household Income, Housing Affordability, Familial Status, and Overcrowding
The median income for all block groups in the city in 2019 is higher than the 2020 state median income
of $87,100, and for many of the block groups in the city, the median income is greater than $125,000.
Two block groups with RHNA units have median incomes below $125,000: Block Group 1 of Tract
5078.05 has a median income of $107,538, and Block Group 5 of Tract 5083.04 has a median income
of $90,515. Though these levels of income are relatively high compared to the state as a whole, the
high cost of housing in this area means that high-earning households may still experience a meaningful
cost burden or may experience overcrowding. Additionally, a high level of households with single
female households can be correlated with lower median incomes and higher housing cost burden.
Much of Block Group 5 of Tract 5083.04 extends into areas of Sunnyvale with older stock, multifamily
housing, which may contribute to a relatively median lower income.
Block Group 5 of Tract 5083.04, which was mentioned as having the lowest median income in the
city, also has the highest percentage of cost-burdened renter households of any of the block groups
with inventory sites or pending projects (47.0 percent of renter households). Though it does not have
a high rate of homeowners experiencing cost burden, it does have the second-highest rate of
household overcrowding of any tract in the city with sites or projects in the RHNA inventory (13.8
percent of households). This tract also includes the highest rate of families with children and single-
female heads of household at 14.6 percent of households. This tract is on the north side of the city
and extends beyond the city borders into Sunnyvale, with only a small piece of Block Group 5 included
in Cupertino’s boundary. Inventory sites in this area represent only 0.5 percent of lower-income units,
0.5 percent of moderate-income units, and 0.3 percent of above moderate-income units. Therefore, it
is not expected that development of sites in the inventory will exacerbate any overconcentration of
lower-income households that may exist in this census tract.
Block Group 1 of Tract 5078.05 has the city’s second-lowest median income and is part of the census
tract with the highest rate of homeowner cost burden and second-highest rate of renter cost burden
of any tract in the city with sites or projects in the RHNA inventory (with 43.5 percent of homeowners
and 42.1 percent of renters experiencing cost burden). This tract also has the third-highest rate of
households experiencing overcrowding of any with sites or projects in the inventory, at 12.3 percent,
and the second-highest rate of children in female-headed households (10.7 percent). Of the units
counted in the sites inventory and pending projects, 12.2 percent of lower-income units, 11.6 percent
of moderate-income units, and 8.5 percent of above moderate-income units are in this block group.
An additional 4.2 percent of lower-income units and 6.7 percent of above moderate-income units are
estimated to develop in Block Group 3 of the same census tract. This tract is also on the north side
of the city and the tract also includes two small areas within Sunnyvale. The mix of income levels
estimated to develop on many of these sites is expected to increase the overall number of affordable
units in this census tract without creating an overconcentration of lower-income units.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-55
As mentioned previously, some areas with higher median incomes also experience the negative effects
of an overall high cost of housing. For example, Census Tract 5080.03 has the highest rate of
households experiencing overcrowding (14.0 percent) of any tract in the city where RHNA sites
inventory or project units are located. It also has the second-highest rate of homeowner cost burden
(43.1 percent) and the third-highest rate of renter housing burden (40.4 percent) of any tract in the
city with RHNA sites inventory or project units. Block Group 1 of this census tract has a median
income of $158,971. Though not among the highest median income levels in the city, this is also not
among the lowest. This census tract is on the city’s east side and has a low overall number of
households, as a large percentage of the land area of the tract is made up of Cupertino High School,
DJ Sedgwick Elementary School, Hyde Middle School, and a few large church properties.
Census Tract 5078.06 has the city’s third-highest rate of homeowner cost burden, at 42.4 percent,
though renters in this area do not experience the same high rate of housing cost burden (28.2 percent).
This tract also has one of the higher rates of household overcrowding (10.2 percent). While the single-
family homes that are present in this tract are relatively large, the tract contains a significant number
of multifamily units. Block Group 3 is the block group in this census tract where several RHNA
inventory sites and pending projects are located. Located on the city’s north side, this block group has
a median household income of $144,239. Of the units in the RHNA sites inventory and pending
projects, 2.3 percent of lower-income units, 6.5 percent of moderate-income units, and 7.0 percent of
above moderate-income units are expected to develop in this area. It is expected that including units
in this area that can accommodate higher-income households may provide more housing
opportunities for moderate- or higher-income households that may be looking to move out of the
housing where they have been experiencing cost burden without having to leave their current
neighborhood.
Vulnerability to Displacement
Four census tracts in the city were identified by UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project as being
communities that are vulnerable to displacement. Three of the four have been discussed previously in
this analysis in discussions of the fair housing factors that likely contribute to residents in these areas
experiencing a heightened vulnerability to displacement. Below is a summary of the vulnerability
factors that exist in these three tracts:
• Tract 5078.06 has the city’s third-highest rate of homeowner cost burden, at 42.4 percent. It
also has a moderately high rate of households experiencing overcrowding (10.2 percent) and
one of the city’s largest non-white populations, at 92.6 percent.
• Tract 5080.03 has the highest rate of households experiencing overcrowding (14.0 percent) of
any tract in the city where RHNA sites inventory or project units are located. It also has the
second-highest rate of homeowner households experiencing housing cost burden (43.1
percent) and the third-highest rate of renter households experiencing housing cost burden
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-56
(41.3 percent). It also has the highest rate of residents with disabilities in the city (12.1 percent).
This tract contains a significant number of smaller multifamily units, which may contribute to
overcrowding; however, its proximity to schools may make it a more attractive neighborhood
for families with children.
• Tract 5083.04 contains a block group with the lowest median income and a comparatively high
level of renter households experiencing cost burden. Among census tracts with RHNA
inventory sites or projects, it is also the tract with the second-highest rate of households
experiencing overcrowding (13.8 percent) and the highest rate of children in female-headed
households (14.6). However, the majority of this census tract is not within Cupertino city
limits.
One additional tract, Tract 5080.01, was not previously discussed in this analysis but was given a
designation of being a community vulnerable to displacement. Of the sites in the RHNA inventory
and project list, 4.5 percent of lower-income units, 115.5 percent of moderate-income units, and 5.7
percent of above moderate-income units are estimated to develop in this census tract. The tract has
relatively high rates of renters and homeowners experiencing cost burden (40.4 percent of renters and
32.3 percent of homeowners), but neither of these rates is among the highest levels citywide. Though
each of these individual factors is not among the highest rates in the city, the combination of each of
these factors can make residents in this area vulnerable to displacement.
B3.11 FAIR HOUSING RESOURCES AND MAPS
This section provides information on fair housing resources available in Santa Clara County and
supporting maps.
FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
Fair housing assistance organizations in Santa Clara County are listed in Figure B3-7. Data regarding
fair housing inquiries is depicted on Figures B3-8 through B3-10. Figure B3-11 shows the location
of the county’s public housing buildings. Figure B3-12 shows HCVs by census tract.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-57
Figure B3-7 Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, Santa Clara County
Source: Organization Websites
Name
Project
Sentinel Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Housing and
Economic
Rights
Advocates
State of California
1814 Franklin St.
Ste. 1040 Oakland,
CA 94612
(510) 271-8443 https://www.heraca.org
Bay Area Legal
Aid
Parts of Santa Clara
County
1735 Telegraph Ave.
Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 663-4755 https://www.baylegal.org
California
Department
of Fair
Employment
and Housing
State of California
2218 Kausen Dr.
Ste. 100 Elk Grove,
CA 95758
(916) 478-7251 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov
Law
Foundation of
Silicon Valley
Greater Silicon
Valley, Santa Clara
County
152 N. 3rd St. #3
San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 293-4790 https://lawfoundation.org
WebsiteService Area Address Phone
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-58
Figure B3-8 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries, 2013-2021
Source: Organization Websites
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-59
Figure B3-9 FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, Santa Clara County, 2013-2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-60
Figure B3-10 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Jurisdiction
San Jose 39 9 9 8 0 3 0 146 9 111 225
Santa Clara 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 26 1 12 40
Sunnyvale 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 17 1 16 29
Palo Alto 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 18 1 9 26
Gilroy 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 4 15
Morgan Hill 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 12
Campbell 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 11
Mountain View 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 11
Los Gatos 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 8
Cupertino 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 7
Milpitas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 6
Saratoga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Los Altos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Los Altos Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TotalDisabilityRace
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color
Failure
to
Respond
None
Cited
Decision
Not To
Persue
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-61
Figure B3-11 Public Housing Buildings, Santa Clara County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-62
Figure B3-12 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-63
INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section provides information on factors such as race, ethnicity, diversity, segregation, and
disability status in Cupertino, along with supporting maps.
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Figures B3-13 and B3-14 show population by race and ethnicity in Cupertino. Figure B3-15 shows
senior and youth population by race. Figures B3-16 and B3-17 show AMI and poverty rate by race
and ethnicity. Figure B3-18 shows the percentage non-white population by census block groups.
Figures B3-19 through B3-21 show census tracts by racial majority. Figure B3-22 shows
neighborhood segregation by census tract. Figures B3-23 and B3-24 show the diversity index by
block group. Figure B3-25 shows the share of population in Cupertino by disability status and Figure
B3-26 shows population with a disability by census tract. Figure B3-27 shows age distribution in
Cupertino. Figures B3-28 through B3-31 show share of households by size, type, presence of
children, and tenure. Figure B3-32 shows housing units by number of bedrooms and tenure. Figure
B3-33 through B3-36 show household data by census tract.
Figure B3-13 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-64
Figure B3-14 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-15 Senior and Youth Population by Race, Cupertino, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-65
Figure B3-16
Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: Black or African American Area Median Income comes from ABAG, but it does not align with Figure B3-17s poverty rate.
Figure B3-17 Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-66
Figure B3-18 Percentage Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-67
Figure B3-19 White Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-68
Figure B3-20 Asian Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-69
Figure B3-21 Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-70
Figure B3-22 Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-71
Figure B3-23 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-72
Figure B3-24 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-73
DISABILITY STATUS.
Figure B3-25 Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-74
Figure B3-26 Percentage of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-75
FAMILIAL STATUS.
Figure B3-27 Age Distribution, Cupertino, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-28 Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-76
Figure B3-29 Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-30 Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years
old), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-77
Figure B3-31 Housing Type by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-32 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Cupertino,
2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-78
Figure B3-33 Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Census
Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-79
Figure B3-34 Percent Households with Single Female with Children by Census
Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-80
Figure B3-35 Percentage of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-81
Figure B3-36 Percentage of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-82
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Figure B3-37 through B3-41 depict data on housing income in Cupertino.
Figure B3-37 Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-83
Figure B3-38 Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-84
Figure B3-39 Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-85
Figure B3-40 Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-86
Figure B3-41 R/ECAPs, 2013
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50% or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average
tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-
minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-87
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
EDUCATION
Figure B3-42 shows TCAC opportunity areas educational score by census tract.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-88
Figure B3-42 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-89
EMPLOYMENT
Figure B3-43 shows jobs by industry in Cupertino for 2002 through 2018. Figure B3-44 shows job
holders by industry. Figure B3-45 shows jobs to household ratio and Figure B3-46 shows jobs to
worker ratio by wage. Figure B3-47 depicts the unemployment rate from 2010 through 2021. Figure
B3-48 shows TCAC opportunity areas economic score by census tract. Figure B3-49 shows jobs
proximity index by block group.
Figure B3-43 Jobs by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-90
Figure B3-44 Job Holders by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-45 Jobs to Household Ratio, Cupertino, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-91
Figure B3-46 Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, Cupertino, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-47 Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-92
Figure B3-48 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-93
Figure B3-49 Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-94
ENVIRONMENT
Figure B3-50 shows TCAC opportunity areas environmental score by census tract. Figure B3-51
shows the CalEnviroScreen by census tract. Figure B3-52 shows the healthy places index by census
tract.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-95
Figure B3-50 TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract,
2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-96
Figure B3-51 CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-97
Figure B3-52 Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-98
PATTERNS IN DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Figures B3-53 and B3-54 depict data on race and ethnicity and populations with limited English
proficiency. Figure B3-55 shows TCAC opportunity areas composite score by census tract. Figure
B3-56 depicts the social vulnerability index by census tract. Figure B3-57 shows SB 535
disadvantaged communities.
Figure B3-53 Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race
and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: There are no moderate or low resource areas in the city.
Figure B3-54 Population with Limited English Proficiency, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-99
Figure B3-55 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-100
Figure B3-56 Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-101
Figure B3-57 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-102
DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Figure B3-58 depicts population by disability status and Figure B3-59 shows data by disability type.
Figure B3-60 shows data by disability for seniors. Figure B3-61 shows employment by disability
status. Figure B3-62 depicts the share of population with a disability by census tract.
Figure B3-58 Population by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-59 Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18
Years and Over, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-103
Figure B3-60 Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Cupertino,
2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-61 Employment by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-104
Figure B3-62 Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-105
DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
HOUSING NEEDS
Figure B3-63 shows the population of Cupertino indexed from 1990 through 2020. Figure B3-64
depicts housing permits issued by income group and Figure B3-65 shows housing units by year built.
Figure B3-66 depicts distribution of home value for owner-occupied units for 2019. Figure B3-67
shows the Zillow home value index for 2011 through 2020. Figure B3-68 shows the distribution of
contract rents for renter-occupied units. Figure B3-69 shows the median contract rent for 2009
through 2019.
Figure B3-63 Population Indexed from 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-64
Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Cupertino, 2015-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-106
Figure B3-65 Housing Units by Year Built, Cupertino
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-66 Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-107
Figure B3-67 Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-68 Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-108
Figure B3-69 Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN
Figure B3-70 shows overpayment by jurisdiction. Figures B3-71 through B3-74 show overpayment
(cost burden) by tenure, AMI, race and ethnicity, and family size, respectively. Figure B3-75 depicts
a map of overpayment for renter households by census tract and Figure B3-76 shows this map for
owner households.
Figure B3-70 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-109
Figure B3-71 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-72 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI),
Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-110
Figure B3-73 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino,
2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-74 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-111
Figure B3-75 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census
Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-112
Figure B3-76 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by
Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-113
OVERCROWDING
Figure B3-77 shows occupants per room by jurisdiction (city, county, and Bay Area as a whole).
Figure B3-78 shows occupants per room by tenure (renter versus owner) for Cupertino. Figures B3-
79 and B3-80 show overcrowding by race and ethnicity and AMI, respectively. Figure B3-81 depicts
overcrowded households by census tract.
Figure B3-77 Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-78 Occupants per Room by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-114
Figure B3-79 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.
Figure B3-80 Occupants per Room by AMI, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-115
Figure B3-81 Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-116
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Figure B3-82 depicts percentage of units lacking kitchen and plumbing facilities.
Figure B3-82 Percentage of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing
Facilities, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
HOMELESSNESS
Figures B3-83 through B3-86 show homeless statistics.
Figure B3-83 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa
Clara County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 7 377 696
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 3 301 400
Unsheltered #243 7,413
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-117
Figure B3-84 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara
County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-85 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, Santa
Clara County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-118
Figure B3-86 Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness,
Santa Clara County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
DISPLACEMENT
Figure B3-87 through B3-93 depict data on displacement in Cupertino.
Figure B3-87 Location of Population One Year Ago, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 128 5 201 79 52
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 153 11 130 129 20
Unsheltered 1,668 65 2,328 445 383
Chronic Substance
Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-119
Figure B3-88 Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-89 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Cupertino 153 0 0 0 153
Santa Clara County 28,001 1,471 359 58 29,889
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted
Units in Database
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-120
Figure B3-90 Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-121
Figure B3-91 Location Affordability Index by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-122
Figure B3-92 Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-123
Figure B3-93 Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2020
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-124
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Figure B3-94 shows mortgage applications by race and ethnicity in Cupertino and Figure B3-95
shows mortgage application denial rates by race and ethnicity.
Figure B3-94 Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-
2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: Applications were very low for American Indian/Alaskan Native (6 total), Black/African American (also 6 total), and Hispanic/Latino applicants (33
total).
Figure B3-95 Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity,
Cupertino, 2018-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Housing Resources and Opportunities B.4
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐i
Table of Contents
B4 Housing Resources and Opportunities ............................................................. B4-1
B4.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. B4-1
B4.2 Pending Projects .......................................................................................................... B4-2
B4.3 Sites Inventory .............................................................................................................. B4-5
B4.4 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... B4-30
Tables
Table B4-1 Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 2023–2031 .................................... B4-2
Table B4-2 Pending Projects .......................................................................................................... B4-3
Table B4-3 Realistic Capacity Examples, Residential-Only ........................................................... B4-7
Table B4-4 Realistic Capacity Examples, Mixed-Use Zones .......................................................... B4-9
Table B4-5 RHNA Capacity Prior to Rezone ................................................................................ B4-12
Table B4-6 RHNA Capacity with Rezone ..................................................................................... B4-12
Table B4-7 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones ............................................................... B4-13
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details ......................... B4-14
Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones ................................................................ B4-19
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details ......................... B4-21
Table B4-11 Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA ................................................ B4-26
Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA ................................................ B4-27
Table B4-12 Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA ........................ B4-31
Figures
Figure B4-1 Priority Housing Sites Map ............................................................................... B4-32
Figure B4-2 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 1 ................................................................. B4-33
Figure B4-3 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 2 ................................................................. B4-34
Figure B4-4 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 3 ................................................................. B4-35
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐1
B4 HOUSING RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES
California law (Government Code Section 65583 (a)(3)) requires that the Housing Element contain
an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites that can be developed
for housing within the planning period and nonvacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for
redevelopment. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities
and services to these sites.
B4.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the State of California–required process that
seeks to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic
segments of the community. The process is split into the following three steps.
1. Regional Determination: The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) provides each region with a Regional Determination of housing need,
which includes a total number of units split into four income categories. The City of Cupertino
is in the region covered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). HCD allocated
ABAG a Regional Determination of 441,176 units for the 6th cycle RHNA covering the years
from 2023 to 2031. This is the total number of units that the 109 cities and counties in the
ABAG region must collectively plan to accommodate.
2. RHNA Methodology: ABAG is responsible for developing a RHNA Methodology for
allocating the Regional Determination to each city and county in their region. This
methodology must specifically identify objectives, including, but not limited to, promoting
infill, equity, and environmental protection; ensuring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively
furthering fair housing. Of the 441,176 units allocated to the ABAG region, 4,588 were
allocated to Cupertino.
3. Housing Element Updates: Each city and county must then adopt a Housing Element that
demonstrates how the jurisdiction can accommodate its assigned RHNA through zoning.
HCD reviews each jurisdiction’s Housing Element for compliance with State law.
Cupertino’s share of the regional housing need for the eight-year period from 2023 to 2031 is 4,588
units, which is a 431 percent increase over the 1,064 units required during the 5th Cycle (2015 to 2023)
RHNA planning period. The housing need is divided into the four income categories of housing
affordability. Table B4-1, Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 2023–2031, shows
Cupertino’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle (2023–2031) planning period and the percentage of the city’s
total RHNA that is allocated to each affordability category.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐2
Table B4-1 Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 2023–2031
Income Group Unit Allocation Percentage
Very Low Income (<50% of AMI)* 1,193 26.0%
Low Income (50%-80% of AMI) 687 15.0%
Moderate Income (80%-120% of AMI) 755 16.5%
Above Moderate Income (>120% of AMI) 1,953 42.6%
Total 4,588 100.0%
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Final
Methodology , 2021
*It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low- income category is allocated to the extremely low-income category. There are
projected to be 596 new extremely low-income households during the 6th cycle planning period.
AMI = Area Median Income
B4.2 PENDING PROJECTS
Projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning
of the RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA based on the affordability
and unit count of the development. For projects yet to receive their certificate of occupancy or final
permit, the element can demonstrate that the project is expected to be built within the planning period.
For projects that have received their certificate of occupancy, affordability is based on the actual or
projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period
of the units within the project.
Cupertino has a significant number of development projects that are seeking entitlements or that have
been approved. Table B4-2, Pending Projects, summarizes the inventory of residential and mixed-use
projects that are pending approval or that have current active entitlements. None of the projects listed
in Table B4-2 have received a certificate of occupancy or final permit. As of July 2023, of the more
than 3,319 units that the City has approved, there were an estimated 1,618 housing units in the pipeline
assumed to meet a portion of the City’s RHNA. Of these units, 586 units are affordable to lower-
income households, 49 units are affordable to moderate-income households, and 893units are market
rate. Affordability for lower- and moderate-income units are based on tax credits and private funding.
Figure B4-1 provides a map of all approved and pending projects along with the sites that will be
used to meet the RHNA. Sites in this map are designated by the RHNA affordability levels that are
expected to be accommodated by the site.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐3
Table B4-2 Pending Projects
Site
ID
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Project Name Site Address/
Intersection
Existing
Units
Project Total Portion Counted Toward RHNA Funding
Source Project Status Total Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Percentage/Phase
Assumed Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
P1
31620122
The Rise (Vallco)
10101 N Wolfe Road
0 2,669 890 0 1,779
Phase 1 581 0 1,321 Abu Dhabi
Investment
Authority.
Potential Low-
Income
Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC)
application.
Building permit application not yet submitted.
Project site soil remediation completed summer
2023. New architect on board and value
engineering in process. Sand Hill Property Co.
The developer has completed demolition and the
process of cleaning up the west side of the site,
which includes Phases 1 and 2 of the project
(2,669 units). The foundation permits have been
issued, so construction can begin. The City fully
anticipates the west side (1902 units total, 581
affordable) being available in the planning period.
The City is not relying on the east side of the
project (Phase 2: 767 units total, 309 affordable) to
meet the RHNA.
31620121 10330 N Wolfe Road Phase 2
(Not Counted
Toward RHNA)
309 0 458
P2 32627043 Westport 21267 Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0 259 48 0 211 100% 48 0 211 LIHTC
Building permits have been issued and
construction is ongoing for 48-unit below-market
rate (BMR) portion and 88 townhomes/rowhomes.
Construction for senior living is anticipated to begin
winter 2023.
P3 34216087 Canyon Crossing 10625 S. Foothill Boulevard 1 18 1 3 14 100% 1 3 14 --- Demolition permits issued. Building permits
submitted in early summer 2023.
P4 36610126 Coach House/
1655 S. De Anza
7357 Prospect Road 0 34 3 1 30 100% 3 1 30 --- Entitlement approved late spring 2023. Applicant to
submit building permits by winter 2023. 36610061 1655 S. De Anza
P5
32634066
Marina Food
10118-10122 Bandley Drive
0 206 0 36 170 100% 0 36 170 --- Entitlements granted in 2022. Project being value
engineered currently. 32634043 10145 N. De Anza
Boulevard
P6
34214066
Bateh Brothers 22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0 10 0 2 8 100% 0 2 8 --- Under construction. Anticipated completion late
winter 2023. 34214104
34214105
P7 35907021 Bianchi
Townhomes 10040 Bianchi Way 2 7 0 1 6 100% 0 1 6 --- Application under review.
P8 35920030 McClellan LLC 20860 McClellan Road 1 12 0 6 6 100% 0 6 6 --- Demolition permit issued in summer 2023. Building
permits under review.
P9 362 31 003 Cleo 20638 Cleo Avenue 1 4 0 0 4 100% 0 0 4 --- Pre-application. Ready to submit.
Total 5 3,219 942 49 2,228 --- 633 49 1,770 --- ---
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐4
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐5
B4.3 SITES INVENTORY
AVAILABILITY OF LAND
State Housing Element law emphasizes the importance of adequate land for housing and requires that
each Housing Element “…identify adequate sites … to facilitate and encourage the development of a
variety of housing types for all income levels…” (California Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)).
To allow for an adequate supply of new housing, land must be zoned at a variety of densities to ensure
that development is feasible for a wide range of income levels. The identified land must also have
access to appropriate services and infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, and roads.
To demonstrate the City’s capacity to potentially meet its RHNA, an adequate-sites inventory was
conducted. The inventory must identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate
zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of housing types for households of all income levels. The
analysis of the relationship of suitable sites to zoning provides a means for determining the realistic
number of dwelling units that could be constructed on those sites in the current planning period.
SITES APPROPRIATE FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSING
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to provide an analysis showing that zones identified for
lower-income households are sufficient to encourage such development. The law provides two
options for preparing the analysis: (1) describe market demand and trends, financial feasibility, and
recent development experience; or (2) use default density standards deemed adequate to meet the
appropriate zoning test. According to State law (California Government Code Section
65583.2(c)(3)(B)), the default density standard for Cupertino is 30 dwelling units per acre. The City
has included several sites, listed in Tables B4-7 and B4-9, that allow for densities up to 80 units per
acre, that well exceed the City’s default density.
SITES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the
previous planning period and a vacant site identified in two or more previous consecutive planning
periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the site is subject to an
action in the Housing Element that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the
planning period that will allow residential use by right for housing developments with at least 20
percent units affordable to lower-income households. The City is not relying on any sites that were
previously used to meet the lower income RHNA.
REALISTIC CAPACITY
In determining the realistic capacity for the City’s inventory of sites, the City considered land use
controls and site improvements and assumed an 80 percent adjustment to reflect developable acreage
due to on-site improvements, including sidewalks, utility easements, and infrastructure improvements
(roadway access, water, sewer, and stormwater). All sites are served by or planned to be served by
infrastructure, with no constraints identified that would reduce capacity beyond the 80 percent
adjustment. To further determine an appropriate realistic capacity assumption, the City considered
and evaluated the implementation of its current multifamily development standards (e.g., setbacks,
building height, parking, density requirements, land use controls, water and wastewater access, and
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐6
open space requirements) as well as project examples to determine approximate density and unit
capacity so as to not over-project unit potential. The city also reviewed both residential and mixed-
use project examples to further determine the appropriate realistic capacity for the sites inventory.
Realistic Capacity for Residential Sites
Table B4-3 shows project examples in Cupertino from 2016 to 2023. Overall, projects show a very
high realistic capacity, ranging from 80 to more than 100 percent of the site. On example sites where
the total exceeded 100 percent of the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan
and zoning density, a density bonus was used. Proposed projects must achieve 100 percent of the
maximum density prior to applying for density bonus units. When determining the realistic capacity
that should be applied to the sites listed in Table B4-7, the City looked at both the 80 percent
adjustment for land use controls and site improvements, and project examples. To ensure capacity is
not over projected, the city assumed a 95 percent realistic capacity on all residentially zoned sites in
Table B4-7.
There is one exception. For Site 10, due to an active 100 percent affordable housing proposal, not yet
entitled, the City assumed the realistic capacity and affordability based on the tentative plans for this
project.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐7
Table B4-3 Realistic Capacity Examples, Residential-Only
Project
Name Acres Project Status Unit
Affordability
General Plan/
Zoning
Total
Project
Units
Max.
Allowable
Units
Realistic
Capacity
Percentage
Proposed
Use Prior Use
Hamptons 12.44 Entitlements
granted in 2016
871 AM, 30 M, 41
Lower. Affordable
units from
inclusionary
program
High-Density
Residential
(35+ dwelling
units/acre)
942 942 >100% 100%
residential
342 units. The plan
is to demolish all
units and construct
942 new
apartments.
McClellan
subdivision 1.25
Entitled in
October 2022.
Demolition
permit issued.
Building permits
in review.
6 AM, 6 ADUs Low-Density
Residential 6 6 100% 100%
residential
One home and a
barn/large storage
shed. The plan is to
demolish existing
uses and redevelop
entire site.
Cleo Small Lot
SFR 0.23
Project
Application in
review as of
2023.
BMR in-lieu of fee
Medium
(10-20 du/ac);
P(R3).
4 5 80%
4
residential
units
One single family
home. The plan is to
demolish existing
use and redevelop
entire site.
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐8
Realistic Capacity for Commercial/Residential (Mixed-Use) Sites
In Cupertino, Planned Development (P) zoning districts with a residential component (e.g., P(Res))
in the Housing Sites inventory, allow horizontal and vertical mixed-use development by right.
Additionally, Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (2) provides special density rules for what it
terms “Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of the
General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the
site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
Table B4-4 summarizes three approved mixed-use developments, Marina Plaza, Westport, and
Vallco. These projects range in realistic capacity from 83 to 344 percent, with most coming in around
113 percent. This suggests that mixed-use projects in Cupertino develop at greater than 100 percent
of the permitted density. For example sites where the total number of units exceeded 100 percent of
the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan and zoning density, a density bonus
was used. Proposed projects must achieve 100 percent of the maximum density prior to applying for
density bonus units Since the City still needs to account for the unlikely possibility of nonresidential
uses on mixed-use sites in the current market, while the trends over the past decade indicates
development on most large sites at close to or over 100 percent of the maximum allowable density,
the City conservatively estimates a 75 percent realistic capacity for sites with mixed-use zoning in the
sites inventory.
Additionally, out of all development projects over the past three years within a P(Com/Res) zoning,
two were 100 percent residential, three included a mix of uses, while none developed with 100 percent
commercial uses. This track record further shows the high potential for residential to develop on sites
that allow for commercial uses.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐9
Table B4-4 Realistic Capacity Examples, Mixed-Use Zones
Project Name Acres Project Status Unit Affordability General Plan/Zoning
Total
Project
Units
Max.
Allowable
Units
Realistic
Capacity
Percentage
Proposed Use Prior Use
Marina Plaza 5.12 Entitled 2022 170 AM, 18 M, 18 Median
Commercial/Residential; Planned Development with
Commercial and Residential Uses (P(CG/Res)).
Includes density bonus.
206 179 115% Mixed-use
100% commercial, 45-50k sf retail center and a
standalone restaurant building. The structures
were constructed in the 1970s.The plan is to
demolish existing use and redevelop the entire
site. As of 2022, the combined site had an ILV of
0.45, with the two individual parcels having ILVs
of 0.11 and 1.26.
Westport 7.76 Entitled 2020. 136 Building
Permits Issued as of 2022.
88 AM, 123 AM Senior
Assisted Living,
48 Lower senior units
Commercial/Residential -Planned Development with
Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG/,Res).
Includes density bonus and waivers.
259 237 109% Mixed-use (+/- 20ksf,
259 residential)
100% commercial, (72k sf village shopping
center). The existing structures, constructed in the
1970s, were demolished to allow and
redevelopment of the entire site. Prior to
entitlement, some spaces were occupied. Under
construction now.
Vallco 50.82
Entitled 2018. Demolition and
Foundation permits issued in
2019 and 2020
1,779 AM, 267 VLI,
623 Low
Regional Commercial/ Planned Development with
commercial uses (entitled when residential uses were
allowed on site). Includes density bonus, concessions
and waivers
2,669 1,779 150%
Mixed-use (2mn office,
200k +/- sf comm, 2,669
residential)
100% commercial, (1.27k s.f. regional mall). The
plan is to demolish the existing use and redevelop
the entire site. There were few existing tenants.
Canyon Crossing 1.38 Entitled 2022. Demolition permits
issued in 2022.
1 VLI, 1 LI, 1 M,
1 median, 14 AM
Commercial/Residential at 15 du/ac. Planned
Development with Commercial and Residential uses
(P(CG/Res). No Density Bonus
18 20 90% Mixed-use (4500 s.f. plus
18 units)
100% commercial strip mall and one residential
unit. The structures were developed in the 1950s
and 1960s. The site is currently vacant, as the
prior use was demolished to redevelop the entire
site. Prior to demolition, ILV was 0.01.
1655 S. De Anza 1.68 Entitled 2023 1 M, 1 LI, 3 VLI, 29 AM
Commercial/Residential at 5-15 du/ac. Planned
Development with Commercial and Residential uses
(P(CG/Res 5-15)).
Includes Density Bonus and waivers.
34 25 136% Mixed-use (7600 s.f. and
34 units)
100% commercial, 11,650 s.f strip mall and
adjoining parcel with parking lot improvements
constructed in the early 1960s. The plan is to
demolish the existing use and redevelop the
entire site. There were/are existing tenants. The
ILV as of 2022 was 0.28.
Verandas 0.55 Built in 2019 19 lower (SROs) Commercial/Residential; P(CG/Res)
Includes Density Bonus and reduced parking standards 19 14 135% 100% residential Vacant
Alan Row/Bateh
Brothers 0.78 Building Permit Issued 2022 8 AM, 2 M Commercial/Residential; P(CG/Res)
No Density Bonus 10 12 83% 100% residential
100% commercial, ~2800 sf standalone liquor
store constructed in the 1960s with two adjacent
undeveloped properties. The plan is to demolish
the existing use and redevelop the entire site.
Store was owner-operated.
Bianchi Townhomes 0.34 Project Application in review as of
2023. 1 Median, 6 AM
Commercial/Office/Residential, P(CG/Res).
No bonus units, but waivers, concession and a reduced
parking standard
7 8 88% 100% residential (7 units)
Existing four-plex built in the 1950sPlan is to
demolish existing use and redevelop the entire
site. As of 2023, the site had an ILV of 0.11.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐10
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐11
UNIT ALLOCATION
For determining capacity, the City assumed a mixed-income approach for each site to not only provide
for a more realistic assumption, but to ensure the city is affirmatively furthering fair housing. The City
used the percentage of the RHNA category to distribute the units on each site and has distributed
accordingly. For most sites, the City assumed that 41 percent of each site will be affordable to lower-
income households, 16 percent will be affordable to moderate-income households, and 43 percent
will be affordable to above moderate-income households. For sites that do not allow for at least 16
units per site (Sites 12, 18, 19, 25, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 43) and for sites that were also smaller than 0.5
acres but still met the 16-unit threshold (2, 4, 11, 12, 17, 21, 45, and 54), capacity was allocated towards
the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. On Site 10, there is an active 100 percent
affordable housing proposal that has not yet been entitled, so all estimated units were assigned to the
lower-income category. Similarly, on Sites 36 and 37, the realistic capacity was based on a pending
Senate Bill (SB) 330 application. Site 27 is owned by Santa Clara County and in December 2023
released a Request For Offers (RFO) for an affordable housing development on the site. In January
2024, the County selected Eden Housing as the developer for the site, with the objective of having a
fully-entitled project prior to the end of the 2024 calendar year. The County included the City in the
RFO and developer selection process and Eden Housing has, as of February, begun having regular
meetings with the City on its community outreach strategy and refining their plans to develop an all
affordable housing project with units affordable to lower and moderate-income households. Based on
this the City has allocated the capacity on the site accordingly.
PROPOSED REZONE CAPACITY
All of the sites within the City’s inventory have been identified for either rezoning, a change in General
Plan land use designation to allow for increased density, or both. As shown in Table B4-5, the City
does not currently have sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA. As part of Strategy HE-1.3.2, the City
commits to completing changes to the land use designation and rezoning by January 31, 2024. The
rezoning and changes in General Plan land use designation will increase the maximum density on
many sites to as much as 80 dwelling units per acre. This will allow the City to cover the shortfall
identified and allow for a surplus in all income categories Table B4-6. Additionally, per Government
Code Section 65583.2(g)(2), and as shown in Table B4-6, 50 percent of the very low- and low- income
shortfall (534 units) is being met on sites that allow for exclusively residential development. Also note,
not all residential capacity in the city is identified in the priority housing sites list and therefore, the
shortfall is most likely even lower.
Tables B4-7 through B4-10 provide further information and detail on each of the priority housing
sites in the City’s inventory list. Please note that the site numbers listed here are added only as an
additional way to reference the site and do not indicate any preference or priority. Figures B4-1 –
B4-4, maps the housing priority sites potential sites.
Additionally, to comply with Government Code section 65583.2, subd. (c)(4), AB 725, for
Metropolitan jurisdictions, Cupertino must accommodate at least 25 percent of the moderate and 25
percent above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing. As shown in Table
B4-7 and B4-9, all sites listed are large enough to accommodate at least 5 housing units. Therefore,
the City is meeting the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subd. (c)(4).
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐12
Table B4-5 RHNA Capacity Prior to Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031
RHNA
Pending
Project
Capacity
Current
Residential Site
Capacity
Current Mixed-
Use Sites
Capacity
Projected
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Total
Capacity Shortfall
Very Low 1,193 633 151 49 116 813 1,067 Low 687
Moderate 755 49 2972 411 57 1,020 59
Above Moderate 1,953 1,770 1733 61 19 1,821 70
Total 4,588 2,168 485 520 192 3,654 939
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
1 Sites allowing 30 du/acre or more
2 Sites allowing 20-29 du/acre
3 Sites allowing less than 20 du/acre
Table B4-6 RHNA Capacity with Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031
RHNA
Pending
Projects
Capacity
Residential
Site Capacity
with Rezone
Mixed Use Site
Capacity with
Rezone
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,193 633 833 596 116 2,178 298 Low 687
Moderate 755 49 360 436 57 902 147
Above Moderate 1,953 1,770 662 695 19 3,146 1,193
Total 4,588 2,452 1,855 1,727 192 6,226 1,638
Source: City of Cupertino, July 2023
NOTE: While the City assumes that ADUs will provide capacity to meet the RHNA, the City is not relying on ADU capacity to meet the RHNA targets.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐13
Table B4-7 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones
Site ID APN Acres Existing
General Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum Unit
Capacity (100%)
Realistic Unit
Capacity (95%)
Lower
Income Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
1 31623027 0.64 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 42 35 14 6 15
2 36903005 0.47 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 31 29 12 5 12
3 32634047 1.09 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 71 67 27 11 29
4 35907006 0.32 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 21 20 8 3 9
5 37506006 1.71 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 137 130 53 21 56
6 37506007 0.96 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 77 73 30 12 31
7 31621031 1.81 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 118 112 46 18 48
8 31623026 1.78 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 116 110 45 18 47
9 32632050 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 54 51 21 8 22
10 32627053 0.75 Transportation T 0 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 49 40 40
11 32336018 0.42 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 35 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 27 26 11 4 11
12 31604064 0.44 Res Low 1-5 A1-43 5 MD - Medium Density R3/TH 10.01 20 9 8 4 4
13 32607022 1.64 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 131 125 51 20 54
14 32607030 0.92 Commercial BQ 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 74 70 29 11 30
15 32607031 0.24 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 19 18 7 3 8
16 32607036 1.74 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 139 132 54 21 57
17 36937022 0.39 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 25 24 10 4 10
18 36937023 0.22 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 8 7 1 6
19 36937024 0.17 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 6 6 1 5
20 36934053 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 19 18 7 3 8
21 35918044 0.26 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 17 16 7 3 6
22 36610121 1.34 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 47 45 18 7 20
23 36610137 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 32 31 13 5 13
24 36619047 2.33 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 151 144 59 23 62
25 36619078 0.08 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 5 5 1 4
26 35909017 1.00 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 65 62 25 10 27
27 31620088 5.16 Reg Shopping CG 0 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 335 319 207 112 0
28 35913019 0.99 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 MD - Medium Density R3 10.01 20 20 19 8 3 8
29 35606001 0.73 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 26 24 10 4 10
30 35606002 0.69 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 24 23 9 4 10
31 35606003 0.25 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 5 3
32 35606004 0.87 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 30 29 12 5 12
33 36231001 0.25 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 1 7
34 36231030 0.23 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 8 8 1 7
35 32720034 1.34 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 LM - Low Medium R3/TH 5.01 10 13 13 2 11
Total 1,963 1,855 833 360 662
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐14
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
1 316 23 027 20149 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Commercial building and
unpermitted warehouse
(Sun Design Center)
Yes n/a 1957, aged
Site 1 is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of
Stevens Creek Blvd and approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. One
of the commercial structures, a concrete tilt-up, currently a kitchen and bathroom remodel store, was built in 1957 and is in very aged
condition, with no exterior improvement made, but not dilapidated condition, and the other is a wooden warehouse that is unpermitted. The
owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011
(2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.72 so development on this site is considered
feasible.
2 369 03 005 20010 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial building Yes n/a 1955. Aged building
Site 2 is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of
Stevens Creek Blvd. Site 2 is located in the central core area approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site
include a commercial structure, currently a breakfast restaurant. The building was constructed in 1955 and while not dilapidated, is not in good
shape. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential
buildings. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The
improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.17 so development on this site is considered feasible.
3 326 34 047 10125 Bandley Dr Restaurant Yes n/a 1979. Aged building
Site 3 is a 1.09-acre site located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both
north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd and approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza College. The site currently has a commercial building that
was constructed in 1979 that is aged but not dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses
include commercial and multi-family residential uses. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.41 so development on this site is
considered feasible.
4 359 07 006 20950 Stevens Creek
Blvd Single tenant retail Yes n/a
1966, Aged
borderline
dilapidated
Site 4 is a 0.32-acre site located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both
north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. and is approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a commercial
structure. The existing structure was constructed in 1966 and is borderline dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping
the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential uses. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential
development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.17 so
development on this site is considered feasible.
5 375 06 006 19220 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1970, aged and
dated
Sites 5 and 6 are two parcels totaling 2.67 acres located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses
located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. Site 5 includes an office
building that was constructed in 1970, currently occupied by a childcare facility. Site 6 is developed with an office building, currently occupied
by law offices, that was constructed in 1969. The owner of the two parcels has expressed continued interest in redeveloping the sites. The site
would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land
value ratio for these parcels are 0.38 (Site 5) and less than 0.01 (Site 6) so development on this site is considered feasible.
6 375 06 007 19300 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1969, aged and
dated
7 316 21 031 19875 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Cort Furniture and
childcare. Yes n/a 1964
Site 7 is a 1.81-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Center, which is a mix of commercial and residential
uses located approximately 1.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on Site 7 include a commercial building with a furniture rental
store and a day care center, and associated parking. The building was constructed in 1964 and is a concrete tilt up with very little
improvements on the exterior. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. Several developers have expressed interest in
redeveloping the site and discussed potential with City staff. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011
(2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.43 so development on this site is considered
feasible.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐15
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
8 316 23 026 20111 Stevens Creek
Blvd Office building.
Yes, active
conversation
with property
owner,
conversations
with interested
developer in
Fall 2023.
n/a 1982
Site 8 is a 1.78-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential
uses. Site 8 is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately one mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the
site include a dentist’s office and associated parking, adjacent to Site 1. The building was constructed in 1982 and has had minimal upgrades.
Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. The property is on the same block 11051 N, Blaney, which has an application on
file for a 5-story, 85-unit/acre apartment development. Developers have contacted the City about the possibility of redeveloping this site. The
site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-
land value ratio for this site is 0.80 so development on this site is considered feasible.
9 326 32 050 20883 Stevens Creek
Blvd Office building. No response
received n/a 1981
Site 9 is a 0.83-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site
9 is located approximately 0.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include an office building. The building is occupied by
a tech company and was constructed in 1981. The site is across the street from a pipeline project (Bianchi) and two vacant commercial
buildings (former Fontana’s Restaurant and Pizza Hut) that are strong redevelopment candidates. Neighboring uses include commercial uses,
with single-family uses and amenities in close proximity. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011
(2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 19.72 so development on this site may be a
challenge; however, due to the nearby presence of a pipeline project and the potential for redevelopment of other nearby parcels in this
corridor, it is estimated that this will not be a barrier to redevelopment. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest in developing near
this site. Redevelopment of small, dated buildings is occurring across the street which includes an SB330 preliminary application to redevelop
three existing buildings (two restaurants and one larger format commercial building) with associated parking lots and an approved townhome
development in the vicinity.
10 326 27 053 Mary Ave site Vacant Yes. City
Owned n/a n/a
Site 10 is located in the Garden Gate neighborhood and is located east of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out from
unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway 85 that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include
multi-family residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.
In response to an October 2022 RFP for projects for this property, the site has an active proposal for a 40-unit, two-story affordable (100% Low
and Very Low Income) housing project developed by Cupertino Rotary Housing Corporation, Housing Choices Coalition, and Charities
Housing. The project will include 18 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
This site does not have a current assessed land or improvement value, so an improvement-land value ratio could not be calculated for this
site.
11 323 36 018 11025 N De Anza Blvd Vacant Yes n/a 1960
Site 11 is a 0.42-acre parcel located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses.
Site 11 is located north of Interstate 280 at the northwest corner of Homestead Road and Sunnvale-Saratoga Road. The small commercial
structure that previously occupied this site was recently demolished and the site is now vacant. The owner has expressed an interest in
redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include multi-family homes and a variety of commercial structures. The property is close to the Apple
Campus and close to bus lines on De Anza and Homestead Rd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB
2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to the lack of improvements on the
site, so development is considered feasible.
12 316 04 064 19820 Homestead Rd Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1954, borderline
dilapidated
Site 12 is a 0.44-acre site located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses
located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on Site 12 include a single-family home that was built in 1954 and is borderline
dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include similar single-family homes. The
improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐16
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
13 326 07 022 [no address] Church - tennis courts Yes n/a Sites 13 and 16 are 1.64 and 1.74-acre parcels, respectively, that are located in the Homestead Road Special Area, as are Sites 14 and 15.
Sites 14 and 15 are two adjacent parcels totaling 1.16 acres. This area is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses located
immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include tennis courts, parking, and a vacant lot. The parcels have the potential to
either develop separately or as a consolidated lot, though it is likely that sites 14 and 15 would develop as a consolidated lot due to their sizes
and arrangement. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping these four sites together. Neighboring uses include a church
sanctuary and parking lot, a new bank building, older office buildings and an electrical power substation. Additionally, a neighborhood center is
located across Homestead Road in the City of Sunnyvale. The sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011
(2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for all four parcels is 0 as there is no assessed improvement
value.
14 326 07 030 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
15 326 07 031 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
16 326 07 036 [no address] Outdoor sand courts on
Church property. Yes n/a
17 369 37 022 20421 Bollinger Rd Vacant lot Yes n/a Vacant lot Sites 53 (see mixed-use zoning inventory), 17, 18 and 19 are adjacent parcels, owned by the same property owner, located on the north side
of Bollinger Road just east of South DeAnza Boulevard. The South Blaney Neighborhood includes a mix of single- and multi-family housing
and commercial use. Existing uses on the sites include a commercial structure and residential/duplex uses. Neighboring uses include
commercial and single-family uses. Site 17 is currently vacant. The owner of sites 18 and 19 has expressed interest in developing townhomes
on all or part of Sites 18 and 19. Site 19 currently has a single-family house constructed in 1940 that appears aged but not yet dilapidated.
The current use of Site 18 is a duplex that is aged but not yet dilapidated; the age of this house is unknown. Site 53, which is adjacent to Sites
17, 18, and 19, is a vacant commercial building (former Taco Bell – with no interest in re-leasing this building from the property owner) that
was built in 1991 and is in need of repair, though not yet dilapidated and is a site that is generating regular code enforcement inquiries due to
its unmaintained appearance. The property owner has expressed consistent and strong interest in developing the properties and has met with
City staff to discuss potential and options. The site has excellent access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd. The
sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-
land value ratio for Site 17 is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value. Sites 18 and 19 have improvement-land value ratios of 2.00 and
2.44, respectively. While this is higher than the default assumption of redevelopment feasibility, the owner’s proactive interest in
redevelopment is considered sufficient to overcome this high improvement value ratio.
18 369 37 023 20411 Bollinger Rd Duplex Yes n/a Mid-1950s/
60s, Aged
19 369 37 024 20431 Bollinger Rd Single Family Home (legal
non-conforming) Yes n/a Mid-1950s/
60s, Aged
20 369 34 053 10891 S Blaney Ave Strip Mall Yes n/a 1961, Aged
condition
Site 20 is a 0.54-acre parcel in the South Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses
located immediately north of Bollinger Road at the intersection of Bollinger Road and S. Blaney Ave. The site is 0.4 miles from De Anza Blvd
and 0.6 miles from Miller Ave, both of which have amenities at the intersection. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure that
was built in 1961 and is in fair condition. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. There have been multiple
developer/broker contacts regarding this site since late 2022. This site and Site 52 have the same owner and the two properties will likely be
consolidated or redeveloped jointly. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the
completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.28 so development is considered feasible.
21 359 18 044 10619 South De Anza
Blvd Strip mall Yes n/a 1966, Aged
Site 21 is a 0.26-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza
Blvd. Existing uses on the Site 21 include commercial uses, including a hair salon, small café, and massage store. There is also an associated
parking lot. The building was constructed in 1966 and is in aged but not in dilapidated condition. The owner has expressed interest in
redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential
development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.34 so
development is considered feasible.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐17
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
22 366 10 121 1505 S De Anza Blvd Commercial, Kelly-Moore
Paints No. Yes For sale 1965
Site 22 is a 1.34-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, and is very underutilized. The site is developed with a dated
industrial building, originally a lumber yard, that has had a succession of short-term commercial tenants and is now vacant. The most recent
occupant was a paint store. The property has a large surface parking area with worn paving that has few cars present during business hours
(Site 23). The site is located along a stretch of De Anza Blvd. where most sites are redevelopment candidates. The east side of DeAnza Blvd.
Is in the City of San Jose, where strip malls and similar under-performing commercial sites are currently being redeveloped with residential
uses. The building was constructed in 1965. However, a recent entitlement for property approximately 750 feet south of this property at 1655
S. De Anza was approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. Neighboring
uses include commercial uses, multi-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under
AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.25 so development is considered
feasible. Site 22 is located adjacent to site 23 which is currently surface parking. City staff attended two meeting with a Long Beach based
developer, Linc Housing, in March 2024. The developer expressed interest in doing a 100 percent affordable project and informed staff that
the owner is aggressively marketing the site for housing development. Staff has an additional meeting with the prospective developer’s team
later in March.
23 366 10 137 [no address] Parking lot behind
KinderCare
Yes. The
property owner
has been
interested in
developing
with residential
in the past 2
years.
n/a n/a
Site 23 is a 0.92-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, adjacent to Site 22, which has active interest to develop an
affordable housing project. The surrounding area is predominantly low-intensity commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. The existing
use on Site 23 is a parking lot located behind a day care center, the site does not have any structures of its own but provides parking for
adjacent low-density uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and residential uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner has been contacted
regarding their interest in redeveloping this site, but a response has not yet been received. In the past, however, this property owner has been
interested in redeveloping this property with residential uses. However, a recent entitlement for adjacent property at 1655 S. De Anza was
approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. While the site is not eligible for
by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to frontage requirements of the law, the property is adjacent to other property
which are eligible for such development and therefore, contiguous development is anticipated. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is
0 as there is no assessed improvement value.
24 366 19 047 1361 S De Anza Blvd Yamagami's Nursery Yes n/a
1960
Sites 24 and 25 are a 2.33-acre parcel and a 0.08-acre parcel, respectively, located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is
predominantly commercial uses, a dated nursery building, located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on Sites 24 and 25 include a nursery and
an associated parking lot. The nursery was constructed in 1960 and is a dated building. The owner has expressed a strong interest in
redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family units, townhome units, De Anza Blvd, and new residential
development in the City of San Jose. The site has fair access to amenities and bus service along De Anza Blvd. While the site is not eligible
for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to proximity to freeway limitations of the law, the property owner interest for
redevelopment is strong. The improvement-land value ratio for Site 24 is 0.11 and 0 for Site 25 (no assessed improvement value), so
development is considered feasible.
25 366 19 078 No address Portion of Yamagami's
site Yes n/a
26 359 09 017 10105 S De Anza Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a
1977, older building
with no significant
improvements
Site 26 is a one-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza
Blvd. Existing uses on Site 26 include a commercial building and parking lot. The current commercial building was constructed in 1977 and
remains in fair condition. The site is located 0.5 miles from De Anza College and Apple’s Infinite Loop Campus. There are several offices
located within walking distance of the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family units, and De Anza Blvd. The owner has
expressed an active interest in redeveloping this property. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens
Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011
(2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.42 so development is considered feasible.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐18
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
27 316 20 088 [no address] Vacant site with parking
lot, north of Vallco site Yes n/a n/a
Site 27 is a 5.16-acre parcel located in the Vallco Shopping District, which is predominantly commercial uses located south of Interstate 280
along Wolfe Road. The site is presently a vacant lot. The owner has expressed interest in transferring this property to Santa Clara County to
allow the redevelopment of this site with affordable housing development, including teacher housing. Neighboring uses include single-family
uses, Wolfe Road, and the Interstate 280 corridor. The site has excellent access to planned amenities, is adjacent to a significant pipeline
project (Vallco/The Rise), and is in close proximity to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along Wolfe Road.
While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to proximity to freeway limitations of the law, the
property owner interest for redevelopment is strong. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to a lack of assessed improvement
value, so development is considered feasible. The site is owned by Santa Clara County and in December 2023 released an Request For
Offers (RFO) for an affordable housing development on the site. In January 2024, the County selected Eden Housing as the developer for the
site, with the objective of having a fully-entitled project prior to the end of the 2024 calendar year. The County included the City in the RFO and
developer selection process and Eden Housing has, as of February, begun having regular meetings with the City on its community outreach
strategy and refining their plans to develop an all affordable housing project with units affordable to lower and moderate-income households.
Based on this the City has allocated the capacity on the site accordingly.
28 359 13 019 20865 Mcclellan Rd Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1957, Aged
borderline
dilapidated
Site 28 is a 0.99-acre parcel located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and
located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. Site 29 currently includes a single-family
home built close to the McClellan Road right-of-way with a large rear yard. Neighboring uses include single-family housing. A developer has
made contact with the City regarding the development of townhomes on this property since 2021, with continued interest for development in
2023. The site has good access to amenities within 0.25-0.5 miles of the site and has fair access to bus service at De Anza College. The
improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible.
29 356 06 001 10857 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
Sites 29 through 32 are contiguous parcels located in the Monta Vista North Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family
residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. The individual parcels range in size from 0.25 acres to 0.87 acres. Existing
uses on the site include four occupied single-family homes built between 1947 and 1957. Neighboring uses include tennis courts, a golf
course, and single-family homes. The current physical condition of these houses is borderline dilapidated. The four parcels are adjacent to
each other and have common ownership, and there has been active developer interest in developing this area into townhomes. The existing
cul-de-sac (Evulich Ct.) could also be incorporated into the development and the City could consider selling this right of way to the developer
for development purposes to allow a cohesive and contiguous site planning. Property owners have attended almost all housing element
meetings to ensure parcels are included on the sites inventory list. The improvement-land value ratio for these sites are 0.84 (Site 29), 1.01
(Site 30), 0.89 (Site 31), and 0.51 (Site 32), for a combined ratio of 0.80, so development is considered feasible.
30 356 06 002 10867 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
31 356 06 003 10877 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
32 356 06 004 10887 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
33 362 31 001 20666 Cleo Ave Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1951, good
condition
Site 33 is a 0.25-acre site located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes
and located immediately southwest of SR 85. Site 34 is currently developed with an occupied one single-family residence that was constructed
in 1951. This lot is similar in size to another lot on this street where a Habitat for Humanity development was developed on a site and another
lot where a developer is proposing 4 townhomes. The existing structure on the property is legal non-conforming and any improvements must
comply with existing multi-family zoning, which the property owner is unwilling to do. However, the current property owner is interested in
redeveloping the site in its entirety and as a result the zoning is being updated to allow townhome development on the site to make the site
more attractive for development, similar to the one being considered approximately 200 feet to the east of this site. The improvement-land
value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐19
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
34 362 31 030 [no address] Also on
Cleo Vacant Yes. n/a 1950's, good
condition
Site 34 is a 0.23-acre parcel located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential
homes and located immediately west of Highway 85. The irregularly-shaped parcel is currently undeveloped and vacant. Neighboring uses
include single-family and duplex homes. This lot is similar in size to another lot on this street where a Habitat for Humanity development was
developed on a site and another lot where a developer is proposing 4 townhomes. The zoning is being updated to allow townhome
development on the site to make the site more attractive for development, similar to the one being considered approximately 60 feet to the
south of this site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to a lack of improvements, so development is considered feasible.
35 326 20 034 10231 Adriana Ave Single Family Residential Yes n/a Single Family
Residential
Site 35 is a 1.34 acre-parcel currently occupied with a Single-Family Residential unit. The property owner recently inherited the property and is
very motivated to redevelop the site with higher density residential. The owner most recently reiterated the intention to develop the property in
September 2023. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 4.44. However, due to the owner’s recent interest, this is not considered a
barrier to development.
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
36 316 23 093 1.35 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 88 132 30 102 37 316 23 036 0.24 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65
38 369 06 002 0.9 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 72 54 31 23
39 369 06 003 0.53 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 42 32 18 14
40 369 06 004 1.29 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 103 77 44 33
41 359 10 015 1.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 77 58 24 9 25
42 359 10 060 0.98 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 64 48 20 8 20
43 359 10 044 0.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 12 9 5 4
44 359 08 025 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 54 40 16 6 18
45 359 08 026 0.45 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 29 22 9 4 9
46 359 08 027 0.87 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 57 42 17 7 18
47 359 08 028 0.85 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 55 41 17 7 17
48* 359 08 029 0.92 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 60
49 326 09 052 0.74 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 59 44 18 7 19
50 326 09 060 2.75 Commercial P(Rec/Enter) Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 220 165 68 26 71
51 326 09 061 1.12 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 90 67 27 11 29
52 369 34 052 2.70 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 176 132 54 21 57
53 369 37 028 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 36 27 11 4 12
54 366 19 055 0.40 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 14 11 7 4
55 366 19 053 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 20 15 6 2 7
56 366 19 054 1.75 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 61 46 19 7 20
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐20
Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
57 316 05 050 1.02 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 82 61 25 10 26
58 316 05 051 0.62 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 50 37 15 6 16
59 316 05 052 0.73 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 58 44 18 7 19
60 316 05 053 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 74 55 23 9 23
61 316 05 056 6.94 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 555 416 171 67 178
62 316 05 072 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 43 32 8 24
63 359 20 028 0.75 Quasi-Public BQ 0 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3) 20.01 35 26 20 8 3 9
Total 2,276 1,727 596 436 695
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
NOTE: *The City is not relying on site 48 to accommodate the RHNA and capacity is not reflected in Table B4-12.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐21
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
36 316 23 093 20007 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial buildings Yes n/a 1978.
Sites 36 and 37 are two parcels located in the Heart of the City - Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and
residential uses. These sites are approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and located about halfway between Apple’s
Infinite Loop and Apple Park campuses. The parcels are 1.35 and 0.24 acres, respectively. Neighboring uses include commercial
uses and multi-family residential. Existing uses on the site include a childcare center in one building and two vacant commercial
buildings. The building was constructed in 1978. In May 2023 the property owner expressed an interest in redeveloping the site.
The City is currently reviewing a project application under Builder’s Remedy for a 141 unit rental development. Based on the
pending application, it is estimated that 141 units, with 20% lower income units, in a 5-story building, could be developed on this
site. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd. The site would also be eligible
for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value
ratio for Site 36 is 0.22 and 0.40 for Site 37, so development is considered feasible.
37 316 23 036 10051 N Blaney Ave Childcare center Yes n/a
1969. Tenant
improvements in
2020.
38 369 06 002 19610 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Strip Mall (House of
Falafel)
Yes n/a
1960, aged. No
improvements made
to structures since
construction.
Sites 38, 39, and 40 are a set of three parcels totaling 2.72 acres located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is a
mix of commercial and residential uses. The Sites are located 1.5 miles east of De Anza College and a little under 1 mile south of
the Apple Park campus, and range in size from 0.53 acres to 1.29 acres. Existing uses on the site include commercial buildings
built in the 1960s and are aged, but not yet dilapidated. The strip mall portion has vacancies. Neighboring uses include a variety
of commercial buildings and single-family homes. As of September 2023, the parcels are under contract negotiations with Toll
Brothers, an established residential developer with the intent to develop townhomes for a mix of income levels. The site would
also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The site has
excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and lends development at densities greater than
townhome densities. The improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 0.03 (Site 38), 0.05 (Site 39), and less than 0.01 (Site
40) so development is considered feasible.
39 369 06 003 10071 E Estates Dr Commercial building
(United Furniture)
40 369 06 004 10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture parking
lot
41 359 10 015 10133 S De Anza Blvd
Strip mall north of Vardy's
Shopping Center (S&G
Carpet)
Yes n/a
1952, with some
improvements in
1970. No additional
improvements since.
Aged.
Site 41 is a 1.18-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The
site is located approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus.
Existing uses on the site include a bank, restaurant, and assorted commercial uses along with associated parking. The owner
has recently expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and single-family uses. It
is anticipated that the site would be designed with live/work units fronting S. De Anza Blvd to retain the “commercial” look along
South De Anza Blvd corridor. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek
Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB
2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 2.30; however, due to the lack
of improvements over the past 50 years it is estimated that this will not be a barrier to redevelopment.
42 359 10 060 10211 S De Anza Blvd Vardy’s shopping center.
No. There has been
interest expressed
from developers and
brokers regarding
developing the site
with housing or a
mixed-use project.
n/a 1960, aged
Site 42 is a 0.98-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site
42 is located approximately 0.65 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus. The
site is developed with an older, partially occupied shopping center, including one vacancy and a sandwich shop and associated
parking. Neighboring uses include both commercial and single-family uses. It is anticipated that Live/Work type units would be
designed on the site, given its location on the South DeAnza Boulevard corridor. The site would also be eligible for by-right
residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. There has been interest expressed from
developers and brokers regarding in developing the site with housing or a mixed-use project. The site has excellent access to
amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The
improvement-land value ratio for this site is 1.30, but due to the potential for co-development with Site 43, it is not estimated that
this will be a barrier to redevelopment. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest for these types of sites, older shopping
centers with a high turnover rate. Neighboring site 41 is for sale and there is a developer interested in a 100 percent affordable
project. This site has a similar make up to sites 42 and 43. The owner of sites 42 is elderly and runs a family-owned business.
There is a currently vacant storefront which occupies a big portion of the center.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐22
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
43 359 10 044 10201 S. De Anza Blvd Acupuncture Clinic
No. There has been
expressed interest
from developers
interested in
developing the site.
n/a 1953, aged
Site 43 is a 0.18-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located
along De Anza Blvd. Site 43 is located approximately 0.65 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple
Infinite loop campus. Existing uses on Site 43 include a standalone commercial building occupied by an acupuncture clinic and
associated parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. Could develop in
conjunction with Site 42 and it is anticipated that this could be developed with live/work units. The site would also be eligible for
by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. There has been expressed interest
from developers interested in developing the site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.21 so development is
considered feasible. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest for these types of sites, older shopping centers with a
high turnover rate. Neighboring site 41 is for sale and there is a developer interested in a 100 percent affordable project. This
site has a similar make up to sites 42 and 43. Based on the developer interest in this area, there is a high probability of this site
developing in conjunction with site 42.
44 359 08 025 20840 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Commercial building
(former Fontana’s
restaurant)
No
n/a 1996
Sites 44 through 48 are a set of five parcels totaling 13.73 acres, of which only the western most 3.92 acres are expected to be
redeveloped. In particular, only a portion of site 47 is anticipated to be rezoned to allow residential units. These parcels are
located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which consists of predominantly commercial uses located both
north and south sides of Stevens Creek Blvd. The sites are located within 0.3 mile of De Anza College to the east and within 0.8
miles of Apple’s Infinite Loop and Bandley campuses to the north. Existing uses on the Sites 44 through 48 include commercial
buildings and associated surface parking areas. At least one commercial building (former Pizza Hut) on these sites has been
vacant for the past seven years and is in dilapidated condition near the Stevens Creek right-of-way, and another commercial
business (Fontana’s Restaurant) in this development closed during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained unoccupied since
that time. The City Council, Planning Commission and many residents have indicated support for the redevelopment of the
western portion of this site with housing during the extensive public hearings and community outreach done for the Housing
Element update in 2022-23. The extant buildings are of mixed quality, but some are in very poor condition. While site 48 has a
newer building, due to the proximity of the site to potential neighboring development, the site could be redeveloped together with
the adjacent sites as a mixed-use development. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, with single-family uses in close
proximity. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd. The site would
also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-
land value ratios for these parcels are 0.65 (Site 44), 0 (Site 45), 4.20 (Site 46), 2.79 (Site 47), and 2.60 (Site 48), for a combined
ratio of 2.38. However, because only portions of the more developed sites are expected to redevelop, it is not estimated that the
existence of these improvements will be a barrier to redevelopment. As of January 2024, sites 44 through 47 have a preliminary
SB 330 application on file, which indicates interest in development, but the project has not yet been finalized or approved. As
previously mentioned, the sites are part of a larger property that is owned by the same long term ownership group. There is
interest in beginning to divest some of their interests. Additionally, there has been another project in the vicinity already approved
for a townhome development within a few hundred yards of Site 48.
45 359 08 026 20830 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Parking lot in front of
Staples n/a n/a
46 359 08 027 No address Staples building n/a 1996
47 359 08 028 20690 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Crossroads Shopping
Center (Former Pizza Hut
building and surrounding
parking lots, and western
parking lot only)
n/a n/a
48* 359 08 029 20750 Stevens Creek
Blvd Dish’n’Dash Restaurant No n/a 2012
49 326 09 052 20916 Homestead Rd Strip Mall
No. Developer
interest as of Dec.
2023.
n/a 1984, Aged not
dilapidated
Sites 49, 50, and 51 are three parcels totaling 4.61 acres, located on the east side of Stelling Road, immediately south of
Homestead Road. The parcels range in size from 0.74 to 2.75 acres and are located directly across Stelling Road from Sites 13-
16, establishing a large swath of redevelopment sites at a major intersection and gateway to the City from neighboring Sunnyvale.
The sites are located 1 mile north of De Anza College and within 0.8 miles of Apple’s Infinite Loop and Bandley campuses to the
southeast. There has not been any reinvestment in the properties and there is a high turnover rate of the current businesses. There
are no long-term establishments. The surrounding area is predominantly single- and multi-family homes, including adjacent
50 326 09 060 20990 Homestead Rd Strip Mall and Bowling
Alley
No. Developer
interest as of Dec.
2023.
n/a 1976, Aged not
dilapidated
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐23
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
51 326 09 061 20956 Homestead Rd Strip Mall
No. Developer
interest as of Dec.
2023.
n/a 1979, dated
apartment complexes, along with commercial uses located north of Interstate 280. Current uses include retail buildings constructed
in 1984, 1979 and 1976. The buildings are aged but not dilapidated, though it is expected that the commercial uses would be
redeveloped along with the parking area. There have been no façade improvements to the structures since the 1980s. Site 50, the
largest of the four sites, is owned by a large housing developer and is currently occupied by a bowling alley located on the property
which has not had any improvements since the late 1990s. Due to shared parking easements and the fact that the properties are
not owned by the same owner, the parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated site. The two strip
centers are occupied by several ethnic food uses and there is frequent turnover in the tenancy. Neighboring uses include residential
and commercial uses. There have been multiple developers interested in these sites as of September 2023. The site has excellent
access to most amenities, with only fair access to parks located within the City of Cupertino city limits, and is close to bus service
on Homestead Road and De Anza Blvd. Two of the three parcels would be eligible for by-right residential development under
AB2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone and due to adjacency of the third parcel, it makes sense to consider this as
one site. This site is across the street from Sites 13 and 14 for which there is owner interest. Improvement-land value ratios for
these parcels are 0.30 (Site 49), 0.03 (Site 50), and 0.75 (Site 51), so development is considered feasible.
In summary, Sites 49, 50, and 51 are viewed by real estate agents and developers as one site for redevelopment, and although
this is made of up three separate parcels, would develop as one. The City will also incentivize lot consolidation through program
HE-1.3.7 to assist with the development of affordable housing on this site and make development more financially feasible. Site
51 is 1.12 acres, irregularly-irregularly shaped, landlocked with only a drive aisle out to Stelling Road. Given its configuration and
access it cannot redevelop independently. Site 50, presently occupied with a derelict bowling alley and bar, is 60 percent of the
total site area and was acquired by Barry Swenson, a major Northern California home developer, in late 2021. In order to
redevelop the overall 4.61-acre site access to Homestead Road from Sites 50 and 51 will be needed, which requires the
inclusion of Site 49, the smallest of the three parcels. The tenants on Sites 49 and 51 are a mix of underperforming restaurants
and a nail salon, typical of the strip commercial centers located along the City’s major transportation corridors that City staff has
been receiving inquiries about for redevelopment as higher-density housing. There have been two broker inquiries since
December 2023 regarding the potential for housing development on this site, including all of the three parcels (49,50, and 51).
52 369 34 052 10787 S Blaney Ave Strip Mall
No. City staff has
had three
conversations with
developers
regarding this site
over the past 6
months.
n/a 1961, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 52 is a 2.70-acre parcel located adjacent to Site 20. Sites 52 and 20 are under the same ownership. The site is 0.4 miles
from De Anza Blvd and 0.6 miles from Miller Ave, both of which have amenities at the intersection. Existing uses on the site
include commercial structures. There is a strip mall on the site, but the owner and several developers have expressed an interest
in redeveloping the site. The site has access to bus service on Bollinger Road. The site would also be eligible for by-right
residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio is 0.36,
so development is considered feasible. This site has had numerous ongoing inquiries from developers and brokers about
redeveloping. The majority of the strip mall is in poor condition and dated beyond renovation.
53 369 37 028 10710 S De Anza Blvd Vacant Taco Bell building Yes n/a 1991, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 53 is a 0.56-acre parcel located adjacent to Sites 17, 18 and 19. Existing uses on the site include a vacant commercial
building which was formerly occupied by Taco Bell. The property owner has expressed an interest in 2022 and 2023 in
redeveloping the site and has remained committed to not re-leasing the property for commercial uses. The site has excellent
access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential
development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio is 0.04, so
development is considered feasible.
54 366 19 055 1471 S De Anza Blvd
Commercial Building (red
barn). Same owner as
Summerwinds Nursery
Yes n/a
Sites 54, 55, and 56 are located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along
De Anza Blvd. Sites 55 and 56 are 0.56- and 1.75-acre parcels, respectively, and are the site of Summerwinds Nursery. The
nursery was built in 1978 and is aged but not yet dilapidated. Other locations (Sunnyvale and the Almaden area of San Jose,
both cities neighboring Cupertino) of the Summerwinds chain of nurseries have recently closed and have redeveloped with
housing. Site 54 is a 0.40-acre parcel owned by the same owner as the Summerwinds nursery but is operated independently.
Existing uses on Site 54 include a commercial use and parking lot. The current building was constructed in 1968, and, like the
nursery, is aged but not yet dilapidated. Due to its proximity to the other sites, it is expected to redevelop at the same time as the
55 366 19 053 1491 S De Anza Blvd Summerwinds Nursery Yes n/a 1978, Aged not
dilapidated
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐24
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details
Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
56 366 19 054 1491 S De Anza Blvd Summerwinds Nursery Yes n/a 1978, Aged not
dilapidated
nursery site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner of these sites has reached out in recent
years. This site has also been of interest to housing developers. Sites 22-25 are adjacent to the south and north of this property.
The site has fair access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd. Two of the three sites (Sites 54 and 56) would also be
eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-land value
ratios for these sites are 0.07 (Site 54), 0 (Site 55, with no assessed improvement value), and 0.06 (Site 56), so development is
considered feasible.
57 316 05 050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center
Yes
n/a 1969, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 57 to 62 are located in the North Vallco Park Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located north of
Interstate 280 and immediately west of the Apple Park Campus. The six parcels range in size from 0.54 acres to 6.87 acres. All
six parcels are owned by the same entity, and the owner has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping a portion of this site to
include residential uses while maintaining much of the commercial portions of the development and is planning to pursue
entitlements once the site has been rezoned. Existing uses on the site include commercial uses, many of which were constructed
in the late 1960s. Neighboring uses include existing apartments, single-family uses, a Church, some commercial buildings in the
City of Sunnyvale and the Apple Park Campus. The existing 99 Ranch commercial building and a standalone commercial
(bank/Starbucks) building are expected to be demolished and replaced with a new building with the 99 Ranch store on the first
floor and apartments above at the northeast corner of the site. In a later phase, the owner intends to demolish an older building
adjacent to a parking garage and build an all-residential structure. The owner has indicated an interest in the development of just
over 300 units and a minimum of 115,000 s.f. of commercial uses. It is anticipated that a maximum of between 2.75 and 3 acres
of the existing property, in two different locations will be rezoned to allow the maximum of 310 residential units that the property
owner anticipates constructing on this site. The site has excellent access to amenities but less access to park space and has
access to bus service along Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential
development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 1.34
(Site 57), 4.57 (Site 58), 3.05 (Site 59), 3.70 (Site 60), 0.57 (Site 61), and 1.61 (Site 62), for a combined ratio of 1.38. However,
because only part of the site will be redeveloped and the current owner is managing the planned redevelopment, this is not
considered a barrier to development.
58 316 05 051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
59 316 05 052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
60 316 05 053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
61 316 05 056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 2016, Good condition
62 316 05 072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1999, Aged not
dilapidated
63 359 20 028 20920 Mcclellan Rd St. Jude’s Church parking
lot and orchard Yes n/a n/a
Site 63 is located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located
east of the Highway 85 corridor. The site is located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and approximately 0.5
miles east of the Apple Results Way/Bubb Campus. The primary current use of the site is a church and associated buildings.
Neighboring uses include townhomes, single-family housing, and De Anza College. The City last spoke to the Church in
September 2022, and they expressed an active interest in developing the portion of their property, limited to approximately 0.75
acres with affordable residential uses, the existing Church buildings would remain. However, some of the parking area and open
green space on the northwest corner of the lot may be redeveloped. The zoning on the site would be changed to allow residential
uses on 0.75 acres of the site. The site is eligible to develop with affordable housing pursuant to new state laws prior to the
completion of the rezone. The site has fair access to amenities and is in close proximity to bus service at De Anza College. The
improvement-land value ratio is 5.78; however, because only part of the site will be redeveloping and the church building will not
be removed from the site, it is not estimated that these improvements will be considered a barrier to development.
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
NOTE: *The City is not relying on site 48 to accommodate the RHNA and capacity is not reflected in Table B4-12.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐25
DEVELOPMENT OF NON-VACANT SITES
As shown in Tables B4-3 and B4-4, the city has a track record of developing affordable and market-
rate housing on non-vacant sites. Based on this track record, the City believes the priority housing
sites are prime candidates for redevelopment. Non-vacant sites were evaluated for suitability based on
a combination of their improvement-land value ratio (ILV), age and condition, and owner interest in
redevelopment. Sites with an improvement-land value ratio less than 1.0, which is to say sites where
the value of current improvements is lower than that of the land on its own, were deemed to be
suitable for redevelopment. While land and improvement values prior to redevelopment were not
available for some older projects, where this data was available, project examples shown in Table B4-
4 indicate that most recent non-vacant sites that have redeveloped have had improvement-land value
ratios of less than 1.0, though one parcel of Marina Plaza had an ILV of 1.26, suggesting that an ILV
higher than 1.0 was not inherently a barrier to redevelopment, even with existing tenants. Access to
amenities was also considered when identifying potential redevelopment sites. Additionally, buildings
in poor condition or without recent improvements, along with buildings older than 40 years, were
considered suitable for redevelopment. Recent examples of mixed-use development projects on non-
vacant sites shown in Table B4-4 show that buildings that are more than 40 years old (built before
1983) were able to be redeveloped due to building age and condition even where the building had
tenants prior to redevelopment, so in these cases existing tenancy or active use is not considered a
barrier to redevelopment. Owner interest was also considered an important factor in evaluating
suitability, particularly in cases where the owner has taken proactive steps to seek out redevelopment
or is directly managing the site’s redevelopment, as was a long-term lack of tenants in the case of Sites
44 and 47. These factors were all considered jointly along with building condition when determining
the development potential of sites described in B4-8 and B4-10. The majority of non-vacant sites
identified for redevelopment have some combination of factors including having been built more than
40 years ago, lack of ongoing maintenance or poor condition, having an ILV less than 1.0, and having
active owner interest in redevelopment. In cases where buildings are not anticipated to be removed as
part of redevelopment, building age, existing building conditions and ILV were given lower
consideration.
As is shown in Table B4-4, the City’s existing policy of providing development waivers and
concessions, along with the density bonus program, have been helpful in facilitating development on
non-vacant land. Additionally, to promote the development of non-vacant sites, the City has included
Strategy 1.3.4 to establish an outreach and coordination program to connect developers, builders,
and owners of non-vacant sites.
DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL SITES AND POTENTIAL LOT CONSOLDIATION
Small Site Development
A small site is classified as a site that is smaller than one-half acre in size. The City is relying on 16
sites to meet a portion of the RHNA on sites that are smaller than one-half acre, as shown in Table
B4-11. The City is assuming that 84 units would be affordable to moderate-income households and
146 units would be affordable to above moderate-income households. The City has not allocated
lower-income units to any of the small sites in the inventory. Additionally, while the City is planning
to rezone these parcels to provide for housing opportunities, these small sites are not needed to meet
the RHNA. Strategy 1.3.7 has been included to help facilitate lot consolidation to encourage
affordable housing development.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐26
Table B4-11 Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA
Site
Number Acreage Total
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
(95%)
Lower-
Income
Capacity
Moderate-
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate-
Income
Capacity
2 0.47 31 29 11 18
4 0.32 21 20 7 13
11 0.42 27 26 10 16
12 0.44 9 8 4 4
15 0.24 19 18 7 11
17 0.39 25 24 9 15
18 0.22 11 10 2 8
19 0.17 9 8 1 7
21 0.26 17 16 4 12
25 0.08 5 5 1 4
31 0.25 9 8 5 3
33 0.25 9 8 1 7
34 0.23 8 8 1 7
43 0.18 12 9 5 4
45 0.45 29 22 9 13
54 0.40 14 11 7 4
Total 255 230 0 84 146
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023.
Lot Consolidation
Due to the large number of smaller sites in the City (90 percent of the sites in the City are less than
0.33 acre in size), the City encourages lot consolidation and has a track record of lot consolidation, as
shown in Table B4-11A. Table B4-11A illustrates that there is a precedence of residential projects
developing on property that previously had commercial uses, whether as a mixed-use project or as
solely residential development. Trends also show that lot consolidation occurs frequently for this type
of development. Table B4-11A also reflects that lot consolidations approved by the City vary with
regard to the number of parcels included in the project. The City has approved smaller consolidations
with two or three parcels merging into one, as well as larger consolidations with 11 parcels being
consolidated into two. Due to the size and configuration of parcels in the City, lot consolidation is
common for redevelopment of existing commercial converting to mixed use or residential
development. While consolidation is not required of any sites, in the sites inventory (Table B4-8 or
B4-10), Sites 49, 50 and 51 would benefit from lot consolidation due to the fact that the sites are
irregularly shaped and have limited access with only one access point. It is important to note, that the
City does not have control over market conditions and can present hypothetical consolidation
scenarios, however it is possible that further consolidation could occur or that a developer proposes
a dense residential project on a small parcel. As previously mentioned, the City has included Strategy
1.3.7 to help facilitate lot consolidation to encourage affordable housing development.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐27
Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA
Project Name/
Address
Year
Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N)
Additional
Details
Marina Plaza
10145 N. De Anza,
20118 Bandley Dr
Approved 2022.
Extended 2023
Mixed Use Project (206
residential units)/Above
moderate, moderate
income
2 1 N
Yes – Currently a center
with grocery store and a
standalone restaurant, with
associated surface parking
lots. Current uses will be
demolished.
Developed under
existing zoning and
density bonus.
Hamptons
19500 Pruneridge
Ave
Approved 2016
Residential Project (942
residential units)/Above
moderate, moderate, and
lower income
3 1 Y
Yes – Currently has 342
residential units.
Current uses will be
demolished.
General Plan
Amendment and
Zoning approved
as part of 5th Cycle
Housing Element
Vallco
10101 and 10330 N
Wolfe Road
Approved
2018/Amended
2024
Mixed Use Project (2,669
residential units, 890 lower
income, retail and office
uses)
11 2 Y
Yes – Site had an existing
mall and anchors (Macy’s,
JC Penney and Sears). The
current property owner
acquired property from
anchors and the mall from a
different entity. Half the site
has been demolished and
site remediation has been
completed. The site will be
redeveloped with mixed use
development
Used SB35
streamlining and
Density bonus
under existing
zoning at time of
project application.
Canyon Crossing
10625 S. Foothill
Boulevard
Approved 2022.
Demolition
completed
Mixed Use Project (18
residential units)/Above
moderate-, moderate- and
lower-income units,
commercial uses
2 14 N
Yes – Site had an existing
strip center and one home.
Uses were demolished.
Built under existing
zoning
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐28
Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA
Project Name/
Address
Year
Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N)
Additional
Details
Alan Row
Approved 2022.
Demolition
complete, units
under
construction
Residential Project (9
units)/ Above moderate-
and moderate-income units
3 8 Y
Yes – Site had an existing
liquor store and associated
parking. Uses were
demolished.
Built under existing
zoning
1655 S. De Anza Approved 2023
Mixed Use Project (34
units) Above Moderate with
moderate- and lower-
income level
2 12 Y
Yes – Currently an existing
strip center with associated
parking. Current uses will be
demolished.
Existing zoning and
density bonus
Builder’s Remedy
(Shan Restaurant
etc.)
N/A
Residential (142 units)
above moderate-, lower-
income
3 1 Y
Yes – Currently two existing
strip malls and one
standalone commercial
building and associated
parking. Current uses will be
demolished.
Builder’s remedy
Source: City of Cupertino, March 2024
Note: Where the number of final parcels exceeds the number of original parcels, existing lots were consolidated by the developer to make a unified development site and subsequently subdivided.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐29
NO NET LOSS
Per state law, the City is required to maintain “no net loss” of the housing capacity represented by
this list of parcels and the sites they comprise. To facilitate this, the inventory presented below has
been designed with excess capacity.1 This allows some degree of flexibility in decision making for
individual development projects as they come forward for approval by City Council.
With some limited flexibility, the City is committed to permitting housing on each of the parcels
listed in Tables B4-7, and B4-9, and in so doing ensuring that the number of units listed for each
parcel in the table--“planned capacity”—is achieved. Should the City approve development that is
inconsistent with the parcel’s planned capacity, it is then required as part of that approval to:
1. Find, based on quantitative evidence, that the remaining inventory of housing sites is still
sufficient to meet the City’s 6th-Cycle RHNA, or
2. Identify one or more available sites with the realistic development capacity to replace the
housing that would have otherwise been developed had consistency with planned capacity
been achieved.
SITES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the
previous planning period and a vacant site identified in two or more previous consecutive planning
periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the site is subject to an
action in the Housing Element that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the
planning period that will allow residential use by right for housing developments with at least 20
percent units affordable to lower-income households. There are no sites included on Tables B4-7 or
B4-9 that were previously included to meet the lower income RHNA. However, as a part of the
rezoning process, all sites assumed to meet the lower income RHNA will comply with Government
Code Sections 65583, (c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
None of the sites identified in the sites inventory are within the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, though sites near Calabazas Creek are adjacent to the boundary
of this floodplain. None of the sites are in a California Office of Emergency Services Dam Inundation
Area. Only one site, Site 21, is partially within a California Geological Service (CGS) Seismic Hazards
Program liquefaction zone. Because they are adjacent to a more mountainous area of the city, Sites 30
through 33 are partly in an area with class seven landslide susceptibility. This CGS classification is
graded on a scale from zero to 10, where 10 signifies areas where landslides have occurred or have the
highest level of susceptibility. The remainder of the sites are in class zero areas.
The entirety of Cupertino is within a CalFire Local Responsibility Area, and therefore does not have
an assigned Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
1 Excess capacity is primarily comprised of the development potential created by SB9, which allows owners of a single-family property to
divide their property into two parcels. Each of these parcels would then have the capacity for three units each—the main residence, plus and
ADU and a Junior ADU.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐30
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
California Government Code Section 65583.1(a) states that a town, city, or county may identify sites
for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior Housing
Element planning period, whether the units are permitted by right, the need for ADUs in the
community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors.
Based on recent changes in State law reducing the time to review and approve ADU applications,
requiring ADUs that meet requirements to be allowed by right, eliminating discretionary review for
most ADUs, and removing other restrictions on ADUs, it is anticipated that the production of ADUs
will increase in the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period.
The City issued the following ADU building permits over the last five years:
2018 – 15 ADUs received building permits
2019 – 15 ADUs received building permits
2020 – 19 ADUs received building permits
2021 – 41 ADUs received building permits
2022 – 30 ADUs received building permits
Therefore, based on the most recent five-year period, there are about 24 building permits for ADUs
approved each year. This analysis assumes that the annual average of 24 per year will be projected over
the next eight years, for a total of 192 ADUs during the planning period. While ADUs provide an
affordable housing option, the city does not need this capacity to meet the RHNA. To promote ADUs,
the City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to promote the construction of affordable ADUs through
several actions.
To determine assumptions on ADU affordability in the ABAG region, ABAG conducted a regional
analysis of existing ADU rents and prepared a draft report in September 2021. The analysis resulted
in affordability assumptions that allocate 30 percent of ADUs to very low-income households, 30
percent to low-income households, 30 percent to moderate-income households, and 10 percent to
above moderate-income households. Affordability of ADUs projected to be built in the city during
the planning period were based on the ABAG analysis.
B4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table B4-12, RHNA Summary, summarizes Cupertino’s sites inventory, including the proposed
rezone capacity for the 2023-2031 planning period.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐31
Table B4-12 Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA
RHNA
Category
2023-
2031
RHNA
Pending
Projects
Capacity
Residential
Site
Capacity
with
Rezone
Mixed
Use Site
Capacity
with
Rezone
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,193
633 833 596 116 2,178 298
Low 687
Moderate 755 49 360 436 57 902 147
Above
Moderate 1,953 1,770 662 695 19 3,146 1,193
Total 4,588 2,452 1,855 1,727 192 6,226 1,638
Source: ABAG 2021, City of Cupertino, 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐32
Figure B4-1 Priority Housing Sites Map
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐33
Figure B4-2 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 1
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐34
Figure B4-3 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 2
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐35
Figure B4-4 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 3
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐36
This page intentionally left blank.
Housing Constraints B.5
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐i
Table of Contents
B5 Housing Constraints ........................................................................................... B5-1
B5.1 Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................ B5-1
B5.2 Nongovernmental Constraints .................................................................................... B5-31
B5.3 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ....................................................................... B5-34
Tables
Table B5-1. Residential Land Use Density Classifications .............................................................. B5-1
Table B5-2. Residential Development Standards ............................................................................ B5-3
Table B5-3. Parking Requirements ................................................................................................. B5-4
Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone ........................................................................ B5-7
Table B5-5. Permitted Uses in Residential Zones ........................................................................... B5-9
Table B5-6. Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) ............................................ B5-15
Table B5-7. Comparison of Single-Family Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County .... B5-17
Table B5-8. Comparison of Small Multifamily (10 units) Housing Development Fees in
Santa Clara County ................................................................................................... B5-18
Table B5-9. Comparison of Large Multifamily (100+ Units) Housing Development Fees in
Santa Clara County ................................................................................................... B5-19
Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) .................................................... B5-21
Table B5-11. Single-Family Development Process ......................................................................... B5-24
Table B5-12. Multifamily and Planned Development Process ......................................................... B5-25
Table B5-13. PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties ....................................... B5-36
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐1
B5 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
State law requires that Housing Elements include an analysis of governmental and nongovernmental
constraints on the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.
Governmental constraints include land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, fees and
exactions, and permitting procedures. Nongovernmental constraints include market-driven and land
costs, construction costs, and the availability of financing, as well as environmental hazards, such as
wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding.
B5.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
The General Plan provides the policy and program direction necessary to guide land use decisions.
The existing General Plan is current and legally adequate and is not considered an impediment to
housing production. Table B5-1, Residential Land Use Density Classifications, lists the General Plan
land use classifications that allow residential development.
Table B5-1. Residential Land Use Density Classifications
Residential Hillside 1 Hillside Single-Family Housing See Note
Low Density Single-Family Housing 1–5 du/ac
Low/Medium Density Single-Family Housing 5.01–10 du/ac
Medium Density Multifamily Housing 10.01–20 du/ac
Medium/High Density Multifamily Housing 20.01–35 du/ac
High Density Multifamily Housing Current–35.01+ du/ac
Planned – 35.01–50 du/ac 2
High/Very High Density Multifamily Housing 50.01–65 du/ac 2
Very High Density Multifamily Housing 65.01 – 80 du/ac 2
Commercial/Residential – MH Commercial/Residential 20.01–35 du/ac 2
Commercial/Residential – H Commercial/Residential 35.01–50 du/ac 2
Commercial/Residential – HVH Commercial/Residential 50.01–65 du/ac 2
Commercial/Residential – VH Commercial/Residential 65.01–80 du/ac 2
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
Notes:
1 – Residential Hillside Classification is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect human life from
hazards associated with floods, fires, and unstable terrain. It applies one of four slope-density formulae to determine allowable residential density.
2 – The City is planning to create new and modify existing General Plan Land Use Designations (see Strategy 1.3.3).
Classification Development Category Maximum Density
(dwelling units per acre)
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐2
NEW AND REVISED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The City is in the process of creating two new General Plan Land Use designations – High/Very High
Density (HVH), which will allow for 50.01 to 65 units per acre and Very High Density (VH), which
will allow for 65.01 to 80 units per acre. The City will also modify the Commercial/Residential (C/R)
designation to apply different densities to sites with the C/R land use designation. The City will also
allow solely residential uses to be permitted if the project is 100 percent affordable. (Strategy HE-
1.3.3). These new designations will allow for increased housing capacity in Cupertino.
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code establishes development standards and densities
for housing in the city. These regulations include minimum lot sizes, maximum number of dwelling
units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking
requirements. These standards are summarized in Table B5-2, Residential Development Standards.
As required by State law, the City’s Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The development
standards for the City’s zoning district that permit residential development are summarized in Table
B5-2. All zoning and development standards, as well as list of fees, are available on the City’s website,
consistent with transparency requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65940.1,
subsections (a)(1)(A)) and (a)(1)(B)).
Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2) provides special density rules for what it terms
“Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of
the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for
the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
NEW ZONING DISTRICT
The City is in the process of creating a new R4 Zoning District that will align with the two new General
Plan Land Use designations, High/Very High Density, and Very High Density allowing 50.1 to 65
units per acre and 65.01 to 80 units per acre, respectively (Strategies HE-1.3.3 and HE-1.3.9). The
City will create development standards, looking at height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc., to ensure that
maximum densities can be achieved.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐3
Source: City of Cupertino, Municipal Code Tile 19: Zoning
Notes: .
N/A = Not Applicable/Available
Note: Standards in planned development districts are consistent with the applicable residential zone. For example, P(CG, R-3) would indicate a mixed-use planned development for which the commercial use would follow
Commercial General development standards and the residential component would be subject to the development standards of the R-3 zone. For residential projects in Planned Development zoning districts, the P zoning
allows flexibility in proposing their own standards depending on the types of units being proposed.
Table B5-2. Residential Development Standards
Zoning
Minimum Lot
Area
(square feet)
Setbacks (feet) Maximum
Height (feet)
(stories)
Maximum
Structural Lot
Coverage
Maximum Floor-
Area Ratio Front --- Interior Side Street Side Rear
A 215,000 30 20 -20 25 28 40% -
A-1 43,000 -
215,000 30 20 -20 20 28 40% 45%
R-1 5,000-20,000 20
Varies, no less than 5
feet on 1st floor
(combined 10 – 15
depending on zoning
district) and no less
than 10 feet on 2nd floor
(combined 25 feet)
12 20 28 (two stories)
45% (plus 5% for
overhangs, patios,
porches, and
similar unenclosed
features)
45%
R-2 8,500 20 20% of lot width, no
less than 6 feet 12 -
20 or 20% of the
lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
30 (two stories) 40% -
R-3
9,300
(1st 3 units)
2,000
(each add.)
20
1st Floor – 6
2nd Floor – 9
> 24 feet tall – 18
12 > 24 feet
tall – 18
20 feet or 20% of
the lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
30 (two stories) 40% -
RHS 10,000-
440,000 10-25
1st Floor – 10
2nd Floor – 15
3rd Floor - 20
1st Floor – 15
2nd Floor – 15
3rd Floor - 20
20-25 30 -
Lesser of 6,500 sq.
ft. or (4,500 + ((Net
Lot Area -
10000)/1000)
(59.59)) x (Slope
Adjustment Factor)
R-1C No minimum Units adjacent to development boundary - Same setbacks as required in the adjacent
zones. 30 N/A N/A
CG No minimum Per General or
Special Plans 0-12 0-12 20 30 No minimum N/A
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐4
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
In California, providing sufficient parking for vehicles is an essential part of good planning. At the
same time, however, excessive parking requirements can detract from the feasibility of developing
new housing at a range of densities necessary to facilitate affordable housing. The City’s Zoning Code
establishes residential parking standards, as summarized in Table B5-3, Parking Requirements. The
City has included Strategy HE-1.3.9 to analyze parking standards in comparison to those of
neighboring jurisdictions, reduce parking requirements in response to this analysis, and revise all
residential parking standards to ensure parking is not a constraint to the development of housing.
Table B5-3. Parking Requirements
R-1 Single-Family 4 / Dwelling Unit (DU) (2 garage, 2 open)
R-2 Duplex 3 / DU (1.5 enclosed, 1.5 open)
R-3 High-Density Multifamily (all size units) 2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open)
RHS Single-Family 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
A-1 Single-Family 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
P
Single-Family
High-Density Multifamily
Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse
4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open)
2.8 / DU (2 garage, 0.8 open)
BQ Permanent emergency shelter Minimum of one parking space for each
nonresident employee
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
State law requires the City to consider the impacts of development standards on the cost of housing,
and further to consider the cumulative impacts of development standards on the cost and supply of
housing. The City has historically tried to be creative in allowing multiple forms of residential
developments in its Planning Development and Cluster zoning, such as row homes, townhomes,
condominiums, and small lot single-family etc. Within single-family neighborhoods, the City has
required a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. This standard is not a constraint on the development
of housing since other forms of development and zoning allowed much smaller lot sizes. Further, the
passage both of Senate Bill (SB) 9, which allows for lot splits and duplexes by-right, and of new
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation, which allows up to two ADUs and one junior accessory
dwelling unit (JADU) by-right, in addition to the primary residence on the single-family lot, has
lessened the constraints on what are traditionally single-family zoned properties.
Similarly, the primary development standard affecting housing costs for multifamily units is typically
the maximum allowable density. The R-3 District permits multifamily residential development. This
district requires a minimum lot area of 9,300 square feet for a development with three dwelling units
Zoning
Designation Housing Type Parking Requirement
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐5
and an additional 2,000 square feet for every additional dwelling unit. The minimum lot width in the
R-3 District is 70 feet, and lot coverage may not exceed 40 percent of net lot area. For single-story
structures, required setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and the greater of 20
feet or 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; the minimum side yard setback for two-story structures
is 9 feet. The maximum height of any building is two stories and may not exceed 30 feet. This height
limit is used because many R-3 districts are contiguous to single-family residential neighborhoods.
Basements submerged entirely below grade, except for lightwells required for light, ventilation, and
emergency egress, which may have a maximum exterior wall height of two feet between natural grade
and ceiling, are permitted and are not counted towards the height requirements. For these reasons,
the building height standards in the R-3 District are not considered a constraint to housing production.
Furthermore, the development standards for the R-3 District are on par with standards present in
neighboring jurisdictions and do not unreasonably constrain the development of multifamily housing.
Multifamily residential uses are permitted uses in the R-3 District without the need for a Use Permit.
Developments are able to achieve the maximum allowable densities under existing development
standards, including the height limit and maximum lot coverage. For example, looking at the number
of developable units on a one-acre parcel, the maximum density allowed on a one-acre parcel is 20
units. With a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent and assuming two stories of residential
development, approximately 35,000 square feet of residential development can be achieved. Using
conservative assumptions of 20 percent common area space and large unit sizes of 1,400 square feet,
20 units can be developed under this scenario. This analysis demonstrates that projects would be able
to achieve the maximum allowable density in the R-3 District under the development standards.
Other zoning districts where residential development is allowed include Planned Development
Residential or P(Res) zoning districts. These are typically higher-density zoning districts with densities
of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Building heights typically range from two to three stories (higher
along transportation corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard). There are
no maximum floor-area ratio limits and this zoning district allows a multitude of development types
ranging from multifamily apartments, condominium developments to small lot single-family,
rowhomes/townhomes to cluster developments. The City has seen great success in developing a
variety of housing types with this zoning designation and has been able to meet (and with State density
law bonuses, exceed) the maximum density for a site.
In addition, the designation of selected housing sites as Priority Housing Sites (see Policy HE-1.3)
ensures that the designated number of units assigned to sites in Tables B4-7 and B4-9 of this 6th
Cycle Housing Element can be readily achieved, regardless of the specific development standards of
the R-3 and other multifamily-allowing districts.
ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY ZONE
The City evaluated the cumulative impact of its land use controls on the cost and supply of housing,
including development standards that limit sites’ building envelope (setbacks, private open space, and
parking) and lot coverage restrictions. Based on this evaluation, none of the land use controls in
conventional residential zoning districts would prevent an applicant from reaching the maximum
density allowed for single-family development in single family-zones and multifamily developments in
all zones, including Planned Development zoning districts, where multifamily is allowed, or otherwise
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐6
constrain housing development. Current development standards for the residential zones that permit
multifamily housing were applied to RHNA inventory sites of varying size that are listed in Tables
B4-7 or B4-9, or hypothetical sites representing common parcel sizes in each respective zone when
an inventory site was not available. The results confirmed the above conclusion, and each scenario
achieved the respective zone’s maximum allowable density (Table B5-4).
In the R-2 zone (maximum 20 units per acre), the City analyzed development feasibility on the
minimum parcel size, 8,500 square feet, and on an approximately one-half acre parcel. Sites larger than
one-half acre were not evaluated, as development standards do not become more restrictive as parcel
size increases. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of one-, two-, and
three-bedroom units served by the required covered/garaged and uncovered (screened) parking.
The R-3 and Planned Development zones (maximum 35 units per acre) are the City’s existing
multifamily designation and is intended to allow more conventional stacked residential product types.
Development feasibility on the minimum parcel size, approximately 9,300 square feet for the R-3
zone, was evaluated. To represent development on a larger site, the City combined three adjacent
parcels identified in the sites inventory (sites 17, 18, and 19) to create an approximately single three-
quarter acre lot. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of studio, one-,
and two-bedroom units served by the required covered/garaged and uncovered (screened) parking.
Similarly, in the Planned Development zoning district, there are no minimum parcel sizes – the only
development regulation that dictates number of units allowed is density. These Planned Development
zoning districts are located mainly along the City’s arterials and an analysis of the previously approved
projects in the 5th Cycle production period indicates that the adopted standards are not barriers to
development.
As part of Strategy HE-1.3.3, the City is proposing an R-4 zone (maximum 80 units per acre) to
allow even higher density development to occur, in appropriate areas. As presently drafted, the
standards are comparable to those applicable to development in the R-3 zone, with the exception of
maximum height and lot coverage. The R-4 zone will permit development up to a maximum of 70
feet (5 floors) instead of 30 feet (2 floors) and allows for a lot coverage maximum of 0.55 instead of
0.4. The City evaluated development feasibility on a 1.6-acre parcel identified in the sites inventory
(site 13), which represents a lot size commonly found in the R-4 zone, and on a 1-acre lot to represent
development at the smaller end of the parcel size spectrum. In both scenarios, the maximum density
can be achieved with a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom units in a five-floor podium-style
product with the first two floors reserved exclusively for parking. As lot size increases, developers may
develop wrap-style products to reduce building footprint and increase space for community amenities
without sacrificing livable square footage.
The first step in the analysis was to determine the allowable building footprint given the site size and
the maximum lot coverage. The next step was to determine the maximum allowed developable
envelope given the lot coverage, setback, open space, and parking requirements. Private open space
was accommodated within the developable envelope and was not assumed to encroach into setback
areas. Covered parking was subtracted from the maximum building footprint to determine the
occupiable area on the first floor. Occupiable area on the second floor, and additional floors, was set
equal to the first floor building footprint, including parking area, less additional setback/step-back
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐7
requirements. Average unit size was calculated by dividing the total occupiable building area by the
permitted number of units (site acreage multiplied by density). Density bonus units are not factored
into the calculations.
Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
R-2 Zone
APN: N/A N/A
Square footage: 8,500 22,000
Length (feet): 100 200
Width (feet): 85 110
Lot coverage: 0.4 0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max): 2 2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 3,400 8,800
Maximum building envelope given setbacks and parking (see below for
spaces per unit) 3,060 8,800
Covered parking spaces per unit: 2 2
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 1,760 4,400
Parking type: Garage Garage
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 4,000 12,800
Number of units: 4 10
Average unit square footage: 1,000 1280
Achievable Density (units per acre): 20 20
Permitted Density (units per acre): 20 20
R-3 Zone
Sites 17, 18, 19 Scenario 2
APN: 369-37-022-024 N/A
Square footage: 33,750 9,450
Length (feet): 225 105
Width (feet): 150 90
Lot coverage: 0.4 0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max): 2 2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 13,500 3,780
Maximum building envelope given setbacks, parking (see below for
spaces per unit) and private open spaces (10-20% of unit size): 22,080 4,992
Covered parking spaces per unit: 1 1
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 5,400 1,600
Parking type: Garage / Carport Garage / Carport
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 21,060 5,772
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐8
Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone
Number of units: 27 8
Average unit square footage: 780 722
Achievable Density (units per acre): 35 35
Permitted Density (units per acre): 35 35
New R-4 Zone
Site 13 Scenario 2
APN: 32607022 N/A
Square footage: 71,500 43,750
Length (feet): 325 250
Width (feet): 220 175
Lot coverage: 0.55 0.55
Number of stories (70 ft max): 5 4
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 39,325 24,063
Maximum building envelope given setbacks, parking (see below for
spaces per unit) and private open spaces (10% of unit size): 49,920 29,340
Covered parking spaces per unit: 1 1
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 39,300 24,000
Parking type: Structured garage Structured garage
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 118,000 69,408
Number of units: 131 80
Average unit square footage: 901 868
Achievable Density (units per acre): 80 80
Permitted Density (units per acre): 80 80
ZONING FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available
through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various
types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing,
multifamily housing, manufactured housing, mobile homes, emergency shelters, and transitional
housing, among others. See Table B5-4, Permitted Uses in Residential Zones, for permitted and
conditionally permitted uses by land use in residential zones.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐9
Table B5-5. Permitted Uses in Residential Zones
Land Use A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 BQ
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P -
Single-family dwelling unit P P P P P P -
Dwelling, multifamily - - - - - - P -
Manufactured Housing P P P P P P P -
Residential Care Facility
(6 or fewer) P P P P P P P -
Residential Care Facility
(7 or more)
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
Transitional and Supportive
Housing P P P P P P P -
Emergency Shelter - - - - - - - P
Employee Housing
(36 Beds or 12-unit spaces) P P - CUP-
Admin. - - - -
Employee Housing
(6 or fewer employees) P P P P P P P P
Source: City of Cupertino Zoning Code
Notes: P – Permitted Use, - – Not Allowed, CUP - Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development, CUP - PC –
Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also called “second units” in the Zoning Code, are attached or
detached residential dwellings that provide complete, independent living facilities for one or more
persons. That is, they include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation
on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling. To comply with Government Code Section 65852.2,
ADUs must be permitted ministerially subject to objective design standards.
Junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) are ADUs of less than 500 square feet and must be permitted
within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. An existing bedroom or interior
entry into the single-family home is not required for JADUs. Currently, ADUs and JADUs are
permitted within all zones where single-family and multifamily dwellings are permitted.
ADUs and JADUs offer an opportunity for homeowners to earn additional income and provide an
opportunity for affordable housing units.
One additional off-street parking space is required if the principal dwelling unit has less than the
minimum off-street parking spaces for the residential district in which it is located. In most cases,
State law exempts ADU development from having to provide parking, except in Residential hillside
zoning districts far from transit lines. The City routinely reviews its ADU ordinance to ensure
compliance with State law and will continue to do so. ADUs must also comply with the underlying
site development regulations specified by the zoning district.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐10
In February 2024, The City adopted an updated ADU ordinance to comply with state law, and to go
above and beyond the State requirements. The updated ordinance includes the following:
Permit up to three streamlined ADUs of any kind (three detached, three attached or three
JADUs, or three conversion ADUs);
In duplexes, permit streamlined ADUs similar to single family but up to a maximum of four
units total: two detached, two attached, two JADUs or two conversion ADUs.
The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure
compliance with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the city plans to take to
promote the development of ADUs.
TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Transitional housing is defined in Section 50675.2 of the Health and Safety Code as rental housing for
stays of at least six months but where the units are recirculated to another program recipient after a
set period. Transitional housing may be designated for a homeless individual or family transitioning
to permanent housing. This housing can take many structural forms, such as group housing and
multifamily units and may include supportive services to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills
in support of independent living.
Supportive housing is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14 as housing with linked on-
site or off-site services with no limit on the length of stay and occupied by a target population as
defined in Health and Safety Code Section 53260 (i.e., low-income person with mental disabilities,
AIDS, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, or persons whose disabilities originated before
the age of 18). Services linked to supportive housing are usually focused on retaining housing, living
and working in the community, and/or health improvement.
Government Code Section 65583 requires that transitional and supportive housing types be treated as
residential uses and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same
type in the same zone. Additionally, according to Government Code Section 65651(a), supportive
housing must be permitted by-right in multifamily zones and mixed-use and nonresidential zones
allowing multifamily. Both transitional and supportive housing types must be explicitly permitted in
the Municipal Code. Additionally, Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires that jurisdictions
change their zoning to provide a “by-right” process and expedited review for supportive housing. The
City currently permits Transitional and Supportive housing consistent with State law but has included
Strategy HE-2.3.1 to assist with the development of these housing types.
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Pursuant to State law, licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents are permitted by right
in all residential districts (including A, A-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, RHS, and R-1C). Licensed small group
homes are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures that would impede
such uses from locating in a residential district. Furthermore, small group homes (with six or fewer
persons) with continuous 24-hour care are permitted by right in all residential districts. Large group
homes (with more than six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 District, subject to
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐11
Planning Commission approval. Strategy HE-5.1.5 has been included to ensure compliance with
State law and allow facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
EMERGENCY SHELTERS
The Zoning Ordinance allows for permanent and rotating homeless shelters in the Quasi-Public
Building (BQ) zone by-right without discretionary review. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted
within existing church structures in the BQ zone for up to 25 occupants. The operation of rotating
shelters cannot exceed two months in any one-year span at a single location. Permanent emergency
shelter facilities are permitted in the BQ zone. To ensure compliance with Government Code Section
65583 (a)(4) (Assembly Bill [AB] 2339), the City will amend the Zoning Code to also permit emergency
shelters in the new R4 zoning district by-right without discretionary review and update the definition
of emergency shelter. The R4 zone is close to services and grocery stores and has sufficient capacity
for an emergency shelter. The R4 zone has 22 parcels totaling 26.72 acres, ranging in size from 0.24
to 5.16 acres, with the majority of the parcels ranging from 0.05 to 1.75 acres. These parcels assumed
to accommodate a potential emergency shelter are all non-vacant sites and the suitability and
development potential of these sites is discussed in conjunction with the sites inventory, including in
Table B4-4 and associated discussion. Based on the identified need in Appendix B2, Housing Needs
Assessment, the City is required to identify sites with capacity for 102 persons experiencing
homelessness. Based on an estimate of 200 square feet per person of lot space, 0.47 acres would need
to develop with an emergency shelter use. Redevelopment of this amount of R4-zoned land from the
inventory would not cause the RHNA inventory to enter a capacity shortfall. Strategy HE-5.1.1 has
been included to allow emergency shelters in the R4 zoning district and review; amend the definition
of emergency shelter to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation
centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care; and revise managerial standards to ensure
compliance with State law including AB 2339.
SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units are one-room units intended for occupancy by a single
individual. They are distinct from a studio or efficiency unit, in that a studio is a one-room unit that
must contain a kitchen and bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or
bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance does not currently
define or identify where SRO units are permitted, but SRO units are treated as a regular multifamily
use, subject to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses in the same zone. However, to
add clarity around the permissibility of these units, Strategy HE-2.3.10 has been included to define
SROs and allow them in the R4 zoning district.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐12
LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS
AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of low-barrier navigation centers that meet the
requirements of State law. “Low Barrier Navigation Center” means a Housing First, low-barrier,
service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary
living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public
benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. To ensure compliance with State law, Strategy HE-
5.1.4 has been included.
FARMWORKER AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, any employee housing consisting of no more than 36
beds in a group quarter or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be
deemed an agricultural land use. No Conditional Use Permit (CUP), zoning variance, or other zoning
clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural
activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural
uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee
housing is located. The Employee Housing Act also specifies that housing for six or fewer employees
shall be treated as a residential use. In 2014, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent
with the State Employee Housing Act, permitting employee housing for six or fewer residents in all
residential zoning districts and employee group quarters in the A and A-1 districts, and in the RHS
district with approval of an Administrative CUP.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Manufactured housing can be an affordable housing option for low- and moderate-income
households. Currently, the City permits mobile homes for purposes of a caretaker unit in the Park and
Recreation zone by right. Strategy HE-5.1.6 has been included to amend the Zoning Code to permit
manufactured homes, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.3, in the same manner and in
the same zoning districts as a conventional or stick-built structures are permitted.
SB 35 STREAMLINING
SB 35 requires jurisdictions that have failed to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocation (RHNA) to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing
developments that incorporate affordable housing. The City Council adopted procedures for
processing Streamlined Projects on September 3, 2019. The SB 35 Checklist in Resolution No. 19-
113 has been updated to reflect amendments to State law by AB 1485 and is available online. This
procedure has an established process that specifies the SB 35 streamlining approval process and
standards for eligible projects. The City has also processed the Vallco Town Center (The Rise)
Development, which included 2,669 residential units, 226,500 square feet of retail uses, and
approximately 1,955,000 square feet of office development under SB 35.
SENATE BILL 330 PROCESSING PROCEDURE
SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, established specific requirements and limitations on
development application procedures. Housing developments for which a preliminary application is
submitted that complies with applicable General Plan and zoning standards is subject only to the
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐13
development standards and fees that were applicable at the time of submittal. This applies to all
projects unless the project square footage or unit count changes by more than 20 percent after the
preliminary application is submitted. The developer must submit a full application for the
development project within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application. The City has
established an application process related to SB 330 and makes the preliminary application available
on the City’s website.
SB 9 CALIFORNIA HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND MORE EFFICIENCY (HOME)
ACT
SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State
bill that requires cities to allow one additional residential unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling
units. Since the adoption of this section of the Government Code, the City has adopted regulations
that allow development beyond that allowed under State law to permit duplexes in qualifying single-
family zoning districts.
CONSTRAINTS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
California SB 520, passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for
persons with disabilities and develop programs that accommodate the housing needs of disabled
persons. Additionally, in public comments to City Council, community members expressed a need for
the City to explore ways to increase housing opportunities for the developmentally disabled population
and reducing barriers to accessing below-market rate units. The City does this with the adopted
Reasonable accommodation procedure and will be removing the CUP process for larger residential
care facilities through implementation of Strategy HE-5.1.5. Reasonable Accommodation
Procedure
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an
affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land
use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons
with disabilities and do not impose significant administrative or financial burdens on local government
or undermine the fundamental purpose of the zoning law. Reasonable accommodations refer to
modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples
include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or to height limits to permit elevators.
The City of Cupertino adopted an ordinance in April 2010 for people with disabilities to make a
reasonable accommodations request. Chapter 19.25 provides a procedure to request reasonable
accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair
Housing Act, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act. A reasonable accommodation may be approved by the City’s Director
of Community Development, only after the director first finds:
The proposed improvements are necessary to provide housing access for persons with
disabilities.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐14
The reasonable accommodation granted is one that will accomplish the purpose with the least
modification to the development or land use regulations from which reasonable
accommodation is being requested.
The granting of the reasonable accommodation will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title.
The City’s requirements for approval of a reasonable accommodation conform to the State’s
requirements and therefore do not serve as a constraint on housing for individuals with disabilities.
Separation Requirements: The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires residential care facilities located in
the A, A-1, R-1, RHS, R1C, R-2, and R-3 zones with seven or more persons must have a minimum
distance of 500 feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility, provided that the
facility obtains any license.
Site Planning Requirements: Site planning requirements are no different for these uses than other
residential uses in the same zone.
Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations: The City provides for a variety of housing types
intended to care for the special needs of individuals with disabilities. The City’s Zoning Ordinance
defines residential care facilities in residential dwellings where non-medical care is provided. Small or
large community residential care facilities include counseling, recovery planning, medical, or
therapeutic assistance facilities for the elderly; facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise
handicapped; alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities; and other similar care facilities.
Licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer individuals are allowed by right in all residential
districts, while large care facilities are subject to a CUP in all residential districts. The City has included
Strategy HE-5.1.5 to allow residential care facilities for seven or more persons subject only to those
restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Definition of Family: The Zoning Ordinance contains a broad and inclusive definition of family. A
family means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Families are distinguished from groups occupying a hotel, lodging
club, fraternity or sorority house, or institution of any kind. This definition of family does not limit
the number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.
Therefore, the City’s definition of “family” is not a constraint on housing for individuals with
disabilities.
BUILDING CODES AND PERMITTING
The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the California Building Code that might
diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐15
DEVELOPMENT FEES AND EXACTIONS
Housing development is subject to permit processing and impact fees. These fees help to compensate
the public for any impact associated with the new development. Like cities throughout California,
Cupertino collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and
the administrative costs associated with processing applications. New housing typically requires
payment of school impact fees, sewer, and water connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater
treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical development and planning
fees collected are outlined in Table B5-5, Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022).
Table B5-6. Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022)
Parcel Map $19,190
Tentative Map $31,919
Temporary Use Permit $4,256
Administrative Conditional Use Permit $7,048
Minor1 $19,305
Major2 $32,169
Minor1 $8,868
Major2 $16,196
Minor Duplex / Residential3 $6,782
Minor4 $13,355
Major5 $19,878
Minor Residential Permit $3,482
Two‐Story Permit without Design Review $4,522
Two‐Story Permit with Design Review $5,427
Director Minor Modification6 $4,757
Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit $3,965
Environmental Impact Report
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $60,000 - $150,000, depending on the scope
of the project
Negative Declaration ‐ Major
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $30,000 - $45,000
Negative Declaration ‐ Minor
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $20,000 - $35,000
Categorical Exemption
(Plus County Filing Fee) $347 filling fee
Subdivisions
Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits
Ministerial Residential Permits
Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐16
Estimated cost: $5,000 - $25,000, depending on complexity
of project/studies required
All Nonresidential and Multifamily (per sq. ft.) $0.45
Residential Single-Family (per sq. ft.) $0.22
Source: City of Cupertino, Schedule C – Planning.
Notes:
1. For 10,000 square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other nonresidential use, or six or less residential units (Cupertino Municipal
Code, Chapter 19.12).
2. For more than 10,000 square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other nonresidential use, or greater than six residential units (Cupertino
Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).
3. Architectural approval of single-family homes in a planned development zoning district, redevelopment, or modification of duplexes, and associated
landscaping, where such review is required (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).
4. Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs, and lighting for new development, redevelopment, or modification in
such zones where such review is required (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).
5. Architectural approval of all other development projects (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).
6. An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing process (Cupertino Municipal Code,
Chapter 19.164).
In the spring 2022, the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative conducted a survey of fees and
permit processing times in Santa Clara County. Fourteen of fifteen jurisdictions completed the survey.
The results indicated that Cupertino’s fees are on the higher end when looking at all Santa Clara
County jurisdictions. Cupertino’s fees totaled $136,596 per single-family home (Table B5-6), $77,770
per unit of a hypothetical 10-unit multifamily development (Table B5-7), and $73,959 per unit of a
100-unit multifamily development (Table B5-8). The median fees for other jurisdictions who
completed the survey were $70,626 for a single-family home, $31,802 per unit for a 10-unit
development, and $29,902 per unit for a 100-unit development. The fees also represent a relatively
low percentage of the overall cost to develop housing in Cupertino. Based on the Santa Clara County
Planning Collaborative survey results and an analysis on housing development costs performed by
Century Urban, a San Francisco-based real estate consulting firm, Cupertino’s fees represent 2.9
percent of total development costs for a single-family home, 10.3 percent for a 10-unit multifamily
development, and 10.5 percent for a 100-unit multifamily development. While the current fee structure
is on the high end and could be a constraint on development, City fees represent a very small
percentage of the overall cost of developing housing within the city. The City has included Strategy
HE-2.3.9 to review and revise impact fees as needed.
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐17
Table B5-7. Comparison of Single-Family Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County
Campbell $4,062 $43,300 $25,194 $72,556 2,600 2.6%
Cupertino $5,271 $18,179 $113,146 $136,596 5,000 2.9%
Gilroy $4,747 $11,105 $53,367 $69,219 5,000 1.5%
Los Altos Hills $4,880 $108,659 $33,092 $146,631 5,000 3.1%
Los Gatos $11,202 $16,718 $4,538 $32,458 2,600 1.2%
Milpitas $17,360 $23,110 $0 $36,728 $77,198 2,600 2.8%
Monte Sereno $2,900 $16,928 $7,894 $5,723 $33,445 5,000 0.7%
Morgan Hill $0 $13,760 $42,143 $55,903 2,600 2.0%
Mountain View $0 $14,720 $71,347 $4,356 $90,423 2,600 3.3%
San Jose $312 $9,607 $9,919 2,600 0.4%
Santa Clara $1,816 $13,675 $56,543 $72,034 2,600 2.6%
Saratoga $7,811 $35,033 $21,428 $64,272 5,000 1.4%
Sunnyvale $456 $14,322 $99,268 $19,343 $133,389 2,600 4.8%
Unincorporated County $10,984 $14,182 $25,166 2,600 0.9%
Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.
Jurisdiction Entitlement
Fees
Construction
Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees/DU % of Dev.
Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐18
Table B5-8. Comparison of Small Multifamily (10 units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County
Campbell $22,887 $4,027 $179,075 $205,989 $20,599 2.7%
Cupertino $84,275 $44,478 $648,951 $777,704 $77,770 10.3%
Gilroy $8,107 $17,904 $375,938 $401,949 $40,195 5.3%
Los Altos Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Los Gatos $16,965 $27,935 $12,743 $57,643 $5,764 0.8%
Milpitas $36,714 $131,118 $485,068 $90,362 $743,262 $74,326 9.8%
Monte Sereno $0 $27,675 $15,065 $5,411 $48,151 $4,815 0.6%
Morgan Hill $28,052 $45,798 $339,890 $413,740 $41,374 5.5%
Mountain View $2,841 $137,000 $550,770 $4,356 $694,967 $69,497 9.2%
San Jose $65,000 $61,600 $107,500 $234,100 $23,410 3.1%
Santa Clara $37,929 $29,239 $5,826 $72,995 $7,299 1.0%
Saratoga $7,811 $51,302 $111,520 $170,633 $17,063 2.3%
Sunnyvale $19,768 $35,918 $1,095,000 $116,043 $1,266,729 $126,673 16.8%
Unincorporated County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.
Jurisdiction Entitlement
Fees
Construction
Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees/DU % of Dev.
Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐19
Table B5-9. Comparison of Large Multifamily (100+ Units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County
Campbell $28,802 $53,594 $1,771,670 $1,854,066 $18,541 2.6%
Cupertino $84,275 $1,453,082 $5,858,542 $7,395,899 $73,959 10.5%
Gilroy $33,787 $129,816 $3,749,871 $3,913,474 $39,135 5.6%
Los Altos Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Los Gatos $16,965 $189,996 $119,936 $326,897 $3,269 0.5%
Milpitas $36,714 $616,695 $4,858,789 $461,772 $5,973,970 $59,740 8.5%
Monte Sereno $0 $193,741 $129,164 $92,729 $415,634 $4,156 0.6%
Morgan Hill $98,913 $141,780 $3,398,900 $3,639,593 $36,396 5.2%
Mountain View $45,000 $278,900 $7,899,900 $35,250 $8,259,050 $82,591 11.8%
San Jose $650,000 $616,000 $1,075,000 $2,341,000 $23,410 3.3%
Santa Clara $84,156 $161,009 $59,633 $304,798 $3,048 0.4%
Saratoga $12,211 $429,705 $1,097,200 $1,539,115 $15,391 2.2%
Sunnyvale $21,545 $240,807 $8,510,640 $1,056,257 $9,829,249 $98,292 14.0%
Unincorporated County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.
Jurisdiction Entitlement
Fees
Construction
Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees /
DU
% of Dev.
Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐20
REVIEW OF LOCAL ORDINANCES
SHORT-TERM RENTALS
On September 15, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20-2200 with new rules to regulate
short-term rentals (STRs), residential rentals of 30 days or less, such as those conducted through or
VRBO. As of January 2021, all STRs must be registered with the City, pay a $211 STR registration
fee, and must comply with the rules, such as those listed here:
STRs must be an incidental use and operated by a primary resident.
Stays are limited to 60 days for un-hosted stays (no host/operator present on-site).
Limit of one STR per parcel and one rental agreement per night.
Guest occupancy is limited to two times the number of bedrooms within the STR, or two for
a studio unit.
Must provide the minimum parking spaces required by the zoning district in which it is located,
and designate at least one on-site parking space for the STR.
Must have a local contact that can respond to any complaint within 60 minutes.
May not be used for commercial purposes or events that are likely to result in violation in
traffic, parking, noise, or other standard regulating the residential use and character of the
neighborhood. Must comply with quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Must provide a guest manual to the guest upon booking and in a prominent place within the
STR. The guest manual must include information on noise, quiet hours, trash collection, vehicle
parking, and any relevant regulations from the Municipal Code. A sample Guest Manual
Template can be found here.
Must maintain a license plate registry of all guest vehicles. A sample vehicle registration log can
be found here.
Must retain records documenting compliance for three years.
May not occur in any ADU.
STR platforms are required to:
Prevent bookings of any STR that does not have a valid registration number with the City;
Collect the Transient Occupancy Tax and remit it to the City; and
Retain records for three years in case they are needed to verify compliance.
Cupertino’s STR ordinance is not seen as a constraint but rather a way to preserve the rental stock to
ensure rental units are available for current and future Cupertino residents.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐21
BELOW-MARKET RATE MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City’s BMR Residential Mitigation Program requires all new residential developers to either
provide below market rate units or pay a mitigation fee, which is placed in the City’s Below Market-
Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). The BMR Mitigation Program is based on a nexus
study prepared by the City that demonstrated that all new developments create a need for affordable
housing. Under this program, developers of for-sale housing where units may be sold individually
must sell at least 15 percent of units at a price affordable to median- and moderate-income
households. Projects of seven or more units must provide on-site BMR units. Developers of projects
of six units or fewer can either build a unit or provide pay the Housing Mitigation fee. The City treats
its BMR units the same as density bonus affordable unit, meaning the provision of BMR units can
count as density bonus affordable units. Density bonus units that are counted toward the BMR unit
total also have to meet the other requirements of the BMR program related to affordability. The City
also accepts density bonus affordable units of a deeper affordability than the required BMR units
would have been as units counting toward the BMR unit requirements. The City’s BMR program is
a way to ensure affordable units are built in the city and has not been seen as a constraint to housing
development.
PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
As a comparison, Table B5-9, Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months), lists estimated
permitted processing time from neighboring communities within Santa Clara County. Cupertino’s
review times are similar to approval times for surrounding jurisdictions and not seen as a constraint
to development. However, in response to feedback received from developers in a focus group, the
City has included Strategy 2.3.1 through which the City will give priority in permit processing for
projects providing 100 percent affordable housing throughout the city, including projects for special-
needs groups, in order to encourage housing affordability and address the desire for expedited
processing times.
Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months)
Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Cupertino 1-3 1-6 2-4 2-4 3-6 6-12
Gilroy 1-2 1-2 2-4 N/A 4-5 5-6
Los Altos Hills 1-2 0.5-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 5-8
Los Gatos No Data 3-6* 1-2 2-4 4-6 6-12
Milpitas 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
Monte Sereno 0.75 0.75 1 1-2 N/A 1-2
Morgan Hill 1-2 1-3 2-3 2-3 4-6 4-6
Mountain View 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐22
Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months)
Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
San Jose 2 1-3 7 7 7-11 5-12
Santa Clara 0-1 0-1 0-3 4-9 6-9 6-12
Saratoga 1 1-2 2-3 N/A 4-6 6-12
Sunnyvale 1-3 1-3 3-6 6-9 9-18 9-18
Unincorporated
County 4-6 6-8 9-12 12-15 15-18 15-18
Source: Santa Clara County Constraints, Fees, & Processing Times Survey Quick Summary, 2022.
Note: Permit processing times indicated in months
*Time to first review; and City staff time.
APPROVAL PROCESS
The Housing Element must examine the length of time between receiving approval for a housing
development and submittal of an application for building permits. The time between application
approval and building permit issuance is influenced by a number of factors, none of which are directly
impacted by the City. Factors that may impact the timing of building permit issuance include required
technical or engineering studies; completion of construction drawings and detailed site and landscape
design; securing construction and permanent financing; and retention of a building contractor and
subcontractors.
The majority of residential permits in Cupertino are for single-family homes, with building permit
issuance generally taking 8 to 14 months after Planning approvals. In Cupertino, most approved
projects are constructed in a reasonable time period following approval.
As is shown in Table B5-10, projects for ADUs and single-family review (building permit only)
requiring ministerial review are usually reviewed within two to four weeks. Discretionary approvals,
such as two-story single-family homes, subdivisions involving multiple homes, townhomes, or small-
lot homes, have longer processing time frames (three to nine months depending on the scope of the
project), as is shown in Table B5-11. Larger housing developments requiring multiple approvals
involve joint applications and permits that are processed concurrently and may require additional
environmental review. All approvals for a particular project are reviewed in a single Planning
Commission and/or City Council meeting. The typical permit processing times in Cupertino are
similar to or lower than those in other jurisdictions and do not pose a major constraint to new
development in the city. Cupertino is able to process applications in a timely manner because City
staff works closely with applicants during a pre-application process. The pre-application is currently
free of charge and its duration may vary depending on the completeness or complexity of the project.
The typical pre-application process may consist of the following:
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐23
Initial preliminary consultation with property owners/developers to go over project objectives
and City development standards.
Submittal and review of conceptual development plans.
Preliminary consultations with relevant City departments (i.e., Fire, Building, Public Works), as
deemed necessary.
Submittal and review of pre-submittal materials and final plans.
One-story, single-family homes in properly zoned areas do not require entitlements from the
Community Development Department and are reviewed concurrently with building permit review.
However, two-story single-family homes require a two-story permit, which is approved by the Director
of the Community Development Department and takes two to three months to process. Two-story
homes very seldom require a meeting unless they are requesting an exception or a variance. Residential
subdivisions require a tentative parcel map or tentative subdivision map, depending on the number of
units in the development, and take two to four months to receive approvals. Multifamily residential
developments in R3 Districts are typically approved in two to four months.
Multifamily projects with more than six units require major development permits, while those with
fewer than six units require minor development permits. In the case of minor development permits,
only an administrative review is required unless a decision is appealed. For major development permits,
the Planning Commission is the final review body for developments of up to 49 units, except in cases
where their decision is appealed, at which point the final approval is within the authority of the City
Council. Developments with 50 or more units are approved by the City Council. Appeals may be
made when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made. In either
case, a public meeting is required but not a public hearing (i.e. only mailed notices within 300 feet of
the project are required, but not a published notice in the newspaper), unless a subdivision is proposed,
in which case, they are reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
Review of the development proposal requires the following findings:
1. The proposed development and/or use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposed development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, underlying zoning regulations, and the
purpose of this title and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Finding 2 does not preclude alterations for reasonable accommodation requests or group homes. The
City applies these findings in a manner compliant with the Housing Accountability Act using the
“specific, adverse impact” standard outlined therein. The City also regularly provides information to
the Planning Commission about the Housing Accountability Act findings which must be made by the
decision making body in order to deny a project to remind the acting body about the high bar for
being able to reduce the density or deny the project. Additionally, these findings are not considered a
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐24
barrier to development, as the City has not denied any housing development projects in over fifteen
years.
To ensure approval findings are not a constraint on the development of housing, Strategy HE-1.3.9
commits the City to removing the bolded text from approval finding 1 for residential developments:
“The proposed development and/or use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.”
Building Permit
Standard plan check and building permit issuance for single-family dwellings in Cupertino takes
approximately 20 business days. Plan checks for large additions, remodels, and major structural
upgrades for single-family homes are also reviewed within 20 business days. If a second review is
necessary, the City will take approximately 15 business days to complete the review.
Over-the-counter plan checks are available for simple home remodels and small residential additions
of 250 square feet or less. Building Department staff typically review these projects in less than 30
minutes during normal business hours. Any projects with more than 10 units might take 30 business
days to review. Cupertino’s building permit procedures are reasonable and comparable to those in
other California communities. Tables B5-10 and B5-11 provide the typical process for a single-family
and multifamily development. These timeframes assume the applicant meets all development
regulations.
Post-entitlement phase permit applications are provided with determinations of application
completeness within 15 days of receipt, and permits for complete post-entitlement applications are
issued within 30 days (for buildings with 25 units or fewer) or 60 days (for 25+ units) in compliance
with SB 2234.
Table B5-11. Single-Family Development Process
Step 1: Application intake 2 days Staff and applicant
Step 2: Plan review Up to 30 days Staff
Step 3: Noticing and comment period 2 business days plus 2 weeks Staff
Step 4: Finalizing approval letter Up to 2 business days Staff
Estimated Total Processing Time 7-9 weeks Staff
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐25
Table B5-12. Multifamily and Planned Development Process
Step 1: Project intake 2 business days Staff and applicant
Step 2: Plan review and distribution 30 business days Staff
Step 3: Environmental and
architectural review
Categorical Exemption no studies needed
– 2 weeks
Staff and consultants
EIR – 9-12 months
Categorical Exemption but needs some
studies – 2 months
MND – 4-6 months
Architectural review (Concurrent) – 2-3
weeks
Step 4: Plan review (second cycle) 30 days Staff
Step 5: Schedule hearings 3 weeks Staff
Step 6: Schedule Planning
Commission/City Council hearing, if
needed
3 – 6 weeks Staff/Planning
Commission/City Council
Estimated Total Processing Time 20 – 26 Months Staff
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
DESIGN GUIDELINES AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design guidelines. However, all Planned Development
Zoning Districts, the R1 District, RHS District, the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area, and the
North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area are subject to design guidelines. These design
guidelines pertain to features such as landscaping, building and roof forms, building entrances, colors,
outdoor lighting, and building materials.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidelines are intended to promote high-quality private-
sector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private investment and public
activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area. Design guidelines
promote retention and development viability of single-family residential-sized lots and enable a
transition from these smaller single-family neighborhoods to the larger, multifamily residential and
mixed-use properties fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard. The City requires design review for certain
residential developments to ensure that new development and changes to existing developments
comply with City development requirements and policies. These include:
Variances in the R-1 District.
Two-story residential developments in the R-1 District where second-floor to first-floor area
ratio is greater than 0.66:1:00 and/or where second-story side yard setback(s) are less than 15
feet to a property line.
Two-story addition, new two-story home, and/or second-story deck in the R1-a zone.
Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐26
Any new development or modifications in planned development residential or mixed-use
residential zoning districts.
Single-family homes in a planned development residential zoning district.
Modifications to buildings in the R1-C or R-2 zoning districts.
Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and modifications to buildings in the R-3 zoning district.
For Single-Family Residential, the design guidelines for all projects include the following:1, 2
There should not be a three-car-wide driveway curb cut.
No more than 50 percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area.
o In the R1-a zone, the maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be 25 feet,
which will accommodate a two-car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided
through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the
property.2
Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more.
All roofs should have at least a one-foot overhang.
Porches are encouraged.
o In the R1-a zone, the following porch design guidelines apply:2
When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in
height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than
its width.
o Structural supports should be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or
massive.
o The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged.
o The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of
typical single-story elements in the neighborhood.
o Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and
fence elements.
In R1-6e and R1-a zones, entry features should not be higher than 14 feet from natural grade
to plate.2
The City has detailed two-story design principles incorporated in the R-1 District. These design
principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes into existing neighborhoods by
providing a framework for the review and approval process. Two-story homes with a second story to
1 Refer to the Eichler Design Handbook- Fairgrove Neighborhood for additional design guidelines in the R1-6e zone.
2 Nonconformance with the design guidelines in the R1-a zone shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no
adverse impacts from the proposed project.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐27
first-floor ratio greater than 0.66:1.00 and homes with second-story side setbacks less than 15 feet
must offset building massing with designs that encompass higher-quality architectural features and
materials. For Two-Story Design Guidelines, the mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably
compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. All new construction should not be
disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building
forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. Additionally, the design
should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume in interior spaces.
In the R1-a zone, all second-story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second-
story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every 24 feet, with a minimum 4-foot
depth and 10-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. The current
pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. When
possible, doors, windows, and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and
horizontally and symmetrical in number, size, and placement. In the R1-a zone, windows on the side
elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of five feet above the second floor and have
permanent exterior louvers to a height of five feet above the second floor or have sill heights of five
feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor’s privacy.
Two-story homes that are subject to Design Review required by Section 19.28.040(E) in the Zoning
Ordinance (except in R1-a zones) must include:
An identifiable architectural style.
Design features, proportions, and details consistent with the architectural style selected.
Visual relief deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development.
Materials of high quality.
Appropriate building mass and scale.
Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure
Reflect symmetry, proportion, and balance in design.
The design guidelines are intended to ensure development is consistent with the existing
neighborhood character and are generally not considered significant constraints to housing
production. These design guidelines currently contain subjective design standards, which are
inconsistent with State housing law. While much of the design guidelines are applicable to only single-
family development, the City is in the process of developing objective design standards for other forms
of residential development. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.9 to review and revise design and
development standards to ensure they are objective in nature, while preserving existing neighborhood
character without creating any undue constraints on new housing development. This will also address
feedback received from developers during a focus group, during which participants expressed a desire
for certainty and consistency in the review process. It should be noted that single family or duplex
developments are not expected to generate any significant housing options during the 6th Housing
Element cycle since the City is largely built out and most housing will be infill development with
attached multifamily or townhome developments in R3 and R4 zoning districts.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐28
No discretionary design review is required to permit multifamily housing in the R-3 zone.
Design review is not required for projects in the R-3 zone, where multifamily housing is
permitted by-right. The City is in the process of adopting Objective Design standards for all
multifamily and mixed use development.
REQUESTS TO DEVELOP AT DENSITIES BELOW THOSE PERMITTED
During the previous Housing Element cycle, the city did not approve any projects proposed at
densities lower than those proposed in the Housing Element. Three out of the five projects requested
the maximum allowable under State law at time of entitlement based on the amount of affordability
proposed (35 percent for two projects and 15 percent for one); and the 600-unit Hampton Apartment
Homes received approval to build to the maximum anticipated in the Housing Element.
It should be noted that Cupertino is built out and most new development is infill development, unlike
in communities where greenfields or large single-family tracts are still being developed. Most
development in Cupertino is either attached multifamily or townhome/row home style developments
on redeveloped property. To the extent that the City is rezoning properties, these are to accommodate
developments that are higher in density than single family developments.
To incentivize development that better implements densities planned in the Housing Element sites
inventory, the Housing Element sets forth a program (Strategy HE-1.3.2) to ensure that there are
adequate sites available throughout the planning period to accommodate the City’s regional housing
needs allocation, or RHNA.
BUILDING CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the 2022 Edition of the California Building Code, the 2022
California Electrical Code and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions, the International Association
of Plumbing Officials Uniform Plumbing Code (2022 Edition), the California Mechanical Code 2022
Edition, the 2022 California Fire Code, and the 2022 Green Building Standard Code. The City also
enforces the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, the 1998 Uniform Code for Building
Conservation, and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.
Cupertino has adopted several amendments to the California Building Code. The City requires
sprinkler systems for new and expanded one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses;
underhanging appendages enclosed with fire-resistant materials; roof coverings on new buildings and
replacement roofs complying with the standards established for Class A roofing, the most fire-resistant
type of roof covering. The amendments also establish minimum standards for building footings,
seismic reinforcing on attached multifamily dwellings, and brace wall panel construction. These
amendments apply more stringent requirements than the California Building Code. The California
Building Code and the City’s amendments to it have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous
building conditions. The City’s building codes are reasonable and do not adversely affect the ability to
construct housing in Cupertino.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐29
The City’s code enforcement program is an important tool for maintaining the housing stock and
protecting residents from unsafe or unsightly conditions. The Code Enforcement Division is
responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code and various other related
codes and policies. Code Enforcement Division staff work to achieve compliance through
intervention, education, and enforcement, partnering with the community to enforce neighborhood
property maintenance standards.
Code Enforcement staff investigate and enforce City codes and State statutes based on complaints
received. Violation of a code regulation can result in a warning, citation, fine, or legal action, if not
corrected over time. If a code violation involves a potential emergency, officers will respond
immediately; otherwise, Code Enforcement staff responds to complaints through scheduled
inspections. Since 2007, out of the approximately 21,000 total housing units in the city, Code
Enforcement has declared only three housing units unfit for human occupancy, and most residential
complaints are readily resolved. Code Enforcement activities are, therefore, not considered a
constraint to development of housing in Cupertino.
ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
Residential developers are responsible for constructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage
improvements for new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased runoff
or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expenses may be necessary to
mitigate these impacts. Accordingly, developers pass these expenses on to consumers.
Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) establishes the requirements
for new subdivisions, including the provision of on- and off-site improvements. The ordinance
requires that subdivisions comply with lot frontage requirements and stormwater runoff be collected
and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. Furthermore, each unit or lot within the subdivision
must be served by an approved sanitary sewer system, domestic water system, and gas, electric,
telephone, and cablevision facilities. All utilities within the subdivision and along peripheral streets
must be placed underground.
Typical residential streets are 40 feet wide curb-to-curb (60-foot right-of-way width) unless a project
is adjacent to arterial and/or major roadways. Street widths within private development are subject to
Fire Department requirements related to fire safety, staging, and fire truck turnaround. Typical internal
streets with no parking along the street are 20 to 22 feet wide. The City works with developers to
explore various street design options to meet their needs and satisfy public safety requirements.
Developers are typically required to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; however, there is a process
where the City Council can waive these requirements. The City prefers detached sidewalks with a
landscaped buffer in between the street and the pedestrian walk to enhance community aesthetics and
improve pedestrian safety. However, the City works with developers to explore various frontage
improvement options depending on the project objectives, taking into consideration factors such as
tree preservation, land/design constraints, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood pattern/compatibility.
This is especially true in Planned Development projects, where the City works with developers to
achieve creative and flexible street and sidewalk designs to maximize the project as well as community
benefits.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐30
The Subdivision Ordinance also includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland. The formula
for dedication of park land for residential development is based on a standard of three acres of
parkland per 1,000 persons. The developer must either dedicate parkland based on this formula or pay
an in-lieu fee based on the fair-market value of the land being developed. In addition to parkland
dedication, the City Council may require a subdivider to dedicate lands to the school district(s) as a
condition of approval of the final subdivision map. If school site dedication is required and the school
district accepts the land within 30 days, the district must repay the subdivider the original cost of the
dedicated land plus the cost of any improvements, taxes, and maintenance of the dedicated land. If
the school district does not accept the offer, the dedication is terminated.
The developer may also be required to reserve land for a park, recreational facility, fire station, library,
or other public use if such a facility is shown on an adopted specific plan or adopted general plan. The
public agency benefiting from the reserved land shall pay the developer the market value of the land
at the time of the filing of the tentative map and any other costs incurred by the developer in the
maintenance of the area. The ordinance states that the amount of land to be reserved shall not make
development of the remaining land held by the developer economically unfeasible.
The City of Cupertino’s site improvement requirements for new subdivisions are consistent with those
in surrounding jurisdictions and do not pose a significant constraint to new housing development.
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The City of Cupertino maintains development regulations that are consistent with State law and that
do not pose undo constraints on the development of affordable housing. To continue this into the
6th Cycle Housing Element, new strategies have been incorporated.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). As of February 2024, Cupertino in compliance with
State law as of submittal of this draft, though an amended ADU ordinance is pending. The City
has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure compliance
with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the City plans to take to
promote the development of ADUs and has been added to the Goal and Policy section of this
6th Cycle Housing Element to address this problem.
Residential Design Guidelines. Cupertino maintains a requirement for design review of
multifamily residential projects. These design guidelines currently contain subjective design
standards, which are inconsistent with State housing law. The City has included Strategy HE-
1.3.9 to review and revise design and development standards to ensure they are objective.
Priority Housing Sites. The City will continue to implement Housing Element Policy HE-
1.3, which states: Sites assumed to meet the City Regional Housing Needs Allocation (Tables
B4-7 and B4-9) are designated “Priority Housing Sites” in the Cupertino Zoning Code Section
19.80.030 and the maximum number of units listed for each site shall be permitted uses.3
3 Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2). “If a site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City's adopted Housing Element of the
General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a
permitted use.”
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐31
Low-Barrier Navigation Centers. AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of
low-barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. A program has been
included to allow low-barrier navigation centers by right in appropriate zoning districts (see
Strategy HE-5.1.4).
California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. SB 9, also known
as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State bill that
requires cities to allow one additional residential unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling
units.
Development Fees. Total fees in Cupertino are on the higher end of Santa Clara County
jurisdictions for all housing developments. A program has been included to review and revise
fees for housing projects (see Strategy HE-2.3.9).
Parking Standards. The requirement for two parking spaces for studios and single-room
occupancy units (SROs) in the R-3 Zoning District could be a possible constraint on the
development of affordable housing. A program has been included to review and revise all
residential parking standards and specially reduce the number of required parking spaces for
studio and SRO units (see Strategy HE-1.3.9).
B5.2 NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
In addition to governmental constraints, nongovernmental factors may constrain the production of
new housing. These could include economic and market-related conditions, such as land and
construction costs, as well as environmental hazards such as wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding.
LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Land costs in Cupertino are very high due to high demand and an extremely limited supply of available
land. Cupertino has seen a number of smaller detached infill housing projects where single-family
homes are constructed on remnant lots or lots that have previously been developed with older homes.
Multifamily development often requires lot consolidation and/or removing existing uses. A review of
available real estate listings indicated several vacant properties for sale as of September 2022. The
available properties varied in size from 1,920 square feet to 11.19 acres with prices ranging from
$825,000 to $7,000,000 depending on the size and location of the property.
Construction costs vary significantly depending on building materials and the quality of finishes.
Parking structures for multifamily developments represent another major variable in the development
cost. In general, below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other
professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an
additional 10 to 40 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have
higher soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability
insurance. Permanent debt financing, site preparation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and
developer profit add to the total development cost of a project. Construction costs run about $100
per square foot for Type 5 construction (wood and stucco over parking) for multifamily units and
$110 per square foot for single-family units. Residential developers indicate that construction costs in
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐32
the Bay Area far exceed these national averages and can reach $200 per square foot for larger (four-
to six-story) developments.
Key construction costs have risen nationally in conjunction with economic recovery and associated
gains in the residential real estate market.
AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
As a stable and affluent community, private housing mortgage financing is readily available in
Cupertino. There are no mortgage-deficient areas in the city and no identifiable underserved groups
in need of financing assistance. At the time this Housing Element was drafted, interest rates for
homebuyers were increasing from a low of 2.75 percent in 2020 to 5.75 percent in 2022 for a fixed-
rate, 30-year mortgage. The current economic climate is uncertain and still affected by the COVID-
19 pandemic, increasing inflation, and supply chain disruptions.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The majority of Cupertino’s land area has been urbanized and now supports roadways, structures,
other impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. In general, urbanized areas tend
to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation
of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. There are no significant
wetland or environmental resource issues of concern that would constrain development in the
urbanized areas designated for residential development in Cupertino.
INFRASTRUCTURE
WATER
Three water suppliers provide service to the City of Cupertino: the California Water Company serviced
through the Los Altos Suburban District, San Jose Water Company, and Cupertino Water. The San
Jose Water Company also has a lease agreement to operate and maintain the City of Cupertino’s water
system until 2022. The lease was extended for two more years and included an extension of the current
lease for up to three years. Both of these providers derive the vast majority of their water from the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SVWD). According to the 2022 Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP), SVWD has developed demand projections from 2020 to 2045 based on population growth,
land use changes, trends in per-capita water use, and considerations of upcoming mandates in water
conservation. Based on projected demand for single-family development for 2035, the demand is
17,657 mg for single-family and 11,505 mg for multifamily in the areas serviced by San Jose Water.
The projected water supply for 2035 is 44,629 mg, which meets the need for future development for
the next eight years for both single-family and multifamily water demands. Additionally, the Pacheco
Reservoir is undergoing improvements that would act as a surface bank for SVWD’s existing supplies
and diversify its reserve storage by increasing the volume of locally banked reserves. In addition, by
increasing locally available storage, SWVD’S may be better positioned to respond to future water
supply emergencies. The supply increase associated with this reservoir is to be determined and
depends on imported water assumptions, demands, permit requirements, and operational
requirements. However, there is current capacity to meet the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA on sites
identified in Appendix B4.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐33
WASTEWATER
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) serves as the main provider of wastewater collection and treatment
services for Cupertino, while the City of Sunnyvale serves a small portion of the Cupertino Urban
Service area on the east side of the city. The City of Sunnyvale Wastewater Treatment Plant has a daily
treatment capacity of 29 million gallons per day (mgd), of which, approximately 12 mgd were being
utilized in 2022. According to the Donald M. Somers Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), over
the next 30 years, almost every process and building in the WPCP will be rehabilitated or replaced.
This will be accomplished through up to 35 individual projects, each including several major elements
and some involving multiple facilities. The improvements identified include rehabilitation of existing
facilities, new primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment facilities, support facilities and upgrades to
power, automation, and heating. The projects are grouped into five phases, correlating with the timing
and types of improvements. It projects that projects in Phases 1 through 3 will be needed by 2030.
The cost for these projects is budgeted at $456 million and includes design, permitting, program
management, construction management, and construction. The estimates for future years have been
escalated to account for price inflation. These improvements are expected to ensure capacity for future
buildout for the wastewater collection demand throughout the 2023-2031 planning period on sites
identified in Appendix B4.
Priority Water and Wastewater Procedure
Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.7, the City will immediately
forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority
for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income
households (Strategy 4.1.4).
AVAILABLE DRY UTILITIES
Dry utilities, including cable, electricity, and telephone service, are available to all areas in the city.
There is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and any future need. Service providers are:
Electricity: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Telephone: AT&T and other providers available
Internet Service: Comcast and other provider available
CONTINUING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
As residential developments are approved by the City and building permits have not been obtained,
the City will make diligent efforts to contact applicants to learn why units have not been constructed
within two years after approval. If these impediments are due to nongovernmental constraints, such
as accelerating construction costs, shortages of labor or materials, or rising interest rates, to the extent
appropriate and legally possible, the City will seek to identify actions that may help to remove these
constraints. In addition, the City will aim to work with stakeholders to identify nongovernmental
constraints or other circumstances that may impede the construction of housing in Cupertino and
work collaboratively to find strategies and actions that can eliminate or reduce identified constraints
(Strategy HE-3.3.7).
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐34
B5.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Energy conservation is a major priority in Cupertino. The City prepared a climate action plan in 2015,
which provided a roadmap to actions the City will take to reduce energy consumption and lower
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The plan is entitled City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) and
was prepared by the City of Cupertino.
The City’s CAP defines Cupertino’s path toward creating a healthy, livable, and vibrant place for its
current and future residents to live, learn, work, and play. The strategies outlined in this CAP seek to
not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the City,
its community members and businesses, further improving Cupertino’s already high quality of life.
The plan also represents another example of a successful partnership between engaged community
members and City staff to jointly plan for Cupertino’s sustainable future and continue to lead by
example on important environmental issues.
The CAP identifies five objectives:
To demonstrate environmental leadership – Cupertino as a community can rise to the
difficult challenge of reducing the impact of climate change by defining measurable, reportable,
verifiable climate actions to reduce its contribution to local and global GHG emissions that
can serve as a model for small cities in the state and nationwide;
To save money and promote green jobs – Residents, businesses, and government can reduce
their utility costs through increased energy and water efficiency, and a focus on efficiency can
create job opportunities within the community that contribute to protecting our shared
environmental resources;
To comply with the letter and spirit of state environmental initiatives – California is
taking the lead in tackling climate change while driving new energy markets and fostering new
environmental services. As coordination with cities serves as the keystone to achieving
statewide greenhouse gas emissions reductions, Cupertino has a responsibility to help the state
address emissions sources that arise in our geography and meet its goals to reduce these
emissions;
To promote sustainable development – By developing this Climate Action Plan to reinforce
General Plan policies and align with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines,
a new class of sustainable development projects, such as mixed use and transit-oriented
developments, can be fast-tracked (i.e., “streamlined”) through the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review process by not requiring GHG emissions for proposed projects
consistent with the CAP; and
To support regional climate change efforts – Cupertino developed its CAP through a
county-wide effort that established consistency in the local response to climate change, and
created a framework to collaborate regionally on implementation of different CAP programs.
This partnership elevates the credibility of local climate action planning by allowing
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐35
transparency, accountability, and comparability of the plan’s actions, performance, and
commitments across all participating jurisdictions.
The City of Cupertino updated its CAP in 2022.
SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the community electricity provider for 13 communities in Santa
Clara County, including Cupertino, and is governed by local elected officials serving on the Board of
Directors. SVCE was formed with the mission to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by providing
carbon-free, affordable, and reliable electricity and innovative programs within the community.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PROGRAMMING
PG&E, which provides energy-efficiency services in Cupertino, offers public information and
technical assistance to homeowners regarding energy conservation. PG&E also provides numerous
incentives for energy efficiency in new construction and home remodeling. For example, remodeling
rebates exist for projects installing three or more upgrades from a flexible menu of options that earn
points towards incentives and rebates. This program’s incentives range between $1,000 and $4,500.
One of the more recent strategies in building energy-efficient homes is following the U.S. Green
Building Council’s guidelines for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Certification. The LEED for Homes program includes standards for new single-family and
multifamily home construction.
Additionally, PG&E provides residents with information regarding energy-saving measures, including
various incentives and programs available to developers and residential property owners. Table B5-
12, PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties, includes a description of the various
financial and energy-related assistance that PG&E offers low-income customers.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐36
Table B5-13. PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties
Energy Savings
Assistance Program
PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and
energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households. PG&E determines qualified
households through the same sliding income scale used for CARE. The program includes
measures such as attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and minor home repairs. Some
customers qualify for replacement of appliances, including refrigerators, air conditioners, and
evaporative coolers.
Energy Efficiency for
Multifamily Properties
The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers
of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program
encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving
products.
California Alternate
Rates for Energy
(Care)
PG&E offers this rate-reduction program for low-income households. PG&E determines
qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members.
The CARE program provides a discount of 20% or more on monthly energy bills.
Reach (Relief for
Energy Assistance
Through Community
Help)
The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non-profit
organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program.
Qualified low-income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen
hardships, which prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit.
Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household
members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of
the federal poverty guidelines.
Medical Baseline
Allowance
The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or
medical needs. The program allows customers to get additional quantities of energy at the
lowest or baseline price for residential customers.
Source: PG&E, 2022.
As part of this Housing Element update, the City of Cupertino will implement Program Q to continue
to promote and encourage energy conservation in residential development. This program will
encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing residential dwelling units by enforcing
State and local regulations and encouraging incentives for energy conservation “best practices,”
including:
Continuing to offer streamlining and reduced permitting fees for solar panel installations;
Continuing to implement the CALGreen building code requirements;
Continuing to require “Reach Codes” for all-electric building requirements;
Providing information regarding rebate programs and energy audits available through PG&E;
and
Providing resource materials regarding green building and conservation programs.
Program Description
Review of Previous Housing Element B.6
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐i
Table of Contents
B6 Review of Previous Housing Element ............................................................... B6-1
B6.1 Effectiveness of the Element ........................................................................................ B6-1
B6.2 Progress Toward Meeting Quantifiable Objectives ....................................................... B6-1
B6.3 Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs ................................................................... B6-2
B6.4 Preservation of “At Risk” Units ...................................................................................... B6-5
B6.5 Rehabilitation of Existing Units ..................................................................................... B6-5
B6.6 Progress in Implementation of Housing Element Programs ......................................... B6-5
B6.7 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies .................................................... B6-23
B6.8 Summary .................................................................................................................... B6-23
Tables
Table B6-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued 2015 – 2022
(5th Cycle Housing Element) ....................................................................................... B6-2
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs ................................................... B6-6
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐ii
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐1
B6 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
To effectively plan for the future, it is important to reflect back on the goals of the previous Housing
Element and to identify those areas where progress was made and those areas where continued effort
is needed. State Housing Element guidelines require communities to evaluate their previous Housing
Element according to the following criteria:
Effectiveness of the Element;
Progress in Implementation; and
Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies.
B6.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ELEMENT
The City’s 2015 Housing Element identified the following goals:
Goal HE-1: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for all Economic Segments;
Goal HE-2: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households;
Goal HE-3: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods;
Goal HE-4: Energy and Water Conservation;
Goal HE-5: Services for Extremely Low-Income Households and Special Needs
Neighborhoods;
Goal HE-6: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities; and
Goal HE-7: Coordination with Regional Organizations and Local School Districts.
To achieve these goals, the 2015 Housing Element listed a series of policies and actions. The policies
covered a range of housing concerns, including appropriate zoning for lower- and moderate-income
households, assisting in developing affordable housing, removing governmental constraints,
conserving the existing affordable housing stock, preventing the conversion of affordable units to
market rate, and promoting equal housing opportunities for all persons. The policies comply with
State Housing Law guidelines.
B6.2 PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES
The 2015–2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) prepared by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that zoning to accommodate 1,064 additional housing
units needed to be in place in Cupertino during the prior planning period to meet regional housing
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐2
needs. ABAG disaggregated this allocation into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and
above moderate. Table B6-1 compares the 5th Cycle RHNA to the building permits issued during
2015 to 2022.
Table B6-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued
2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle Housing Element)
Income Group 2015 – 2022
RHNA
Building Permits
Issued
Percentage of RHNA
Accomplished
Very Low Income 356 48 13.48%
Low Income 207 19 9.18%
Moderate Income 231 158 68.40%
Above Moderate Income 270 321 118.89%
Total 1,064 546 51.32%
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
B6.3 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness
of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing
needs. As shown in the Review of Previous 2015-2023 Housing Element Programs matrix (Table
B6-2), the City worked diligently to continuously promote housing for special-needs groups in a
variety of ways.
To ensure the housing stock has affordable housing options, the City approved 158 building
permits for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and created a pre-approved ADU program to
further incentivize the creation of ADUs as of 2021.
To help facilitate residential development, the City approved:
o Waivers for development standards and parking standards for the 48 senior affordable
living units, 123 assisted living units, and 35 memory care rooms as part of the Westport
Project.
o Waivers for development standards and parking standards for the 206 condominiums as
part of the Marina Plaza Project.
o Incentives and concessions for the development as part of the 2,402-unit mixed-use
development as part of the Vallco Town Center (The Rise) development.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐3
The City’s below-market rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funded and supported
affordable housing projects, strategies, and services, including, but not limited to:
o $305,615 to Project Sentinel for information and referral calls to 712 households.
o $339,639 to WVCS Affordable Placement Program to assist in rental and ownership
vacancies and BMR homeowner monitoring helping assist a total of 47 households.
o $36,874 to Fair Housing – ECHO Housing for investigated fair housing cases assisting 21
households.
o $399,986 to WVCS Greenwood Court Renovation for rehabilitated units assisting 3
households.
o $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted 50 households while also assisting 49
households through Rise Housing.
o $783,049 to Vista Village Repair Project to rehabilitate BMR rental units.
To help incentivize Affordable Housing Development, the City received a total of $561,482 in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley
(RTSV).
The City indirectly helped the Veranda Project obtain $999,906 through the Housing Trust
Silicon Valley, to assist with land acquisition.
The City provided a $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda to assist with the land acquisition of 19
extremely low-income units.
The City also funded The Veranda Project by $500,000 through its share of HOME funds to
assist with construction costs.
The City also funded Faith in Action Rotating Shelter by providing $7,700 for job development
programming that assisted 33 unhoused participants that were prepared to be resume and
interview ready.
The City provided $8,000 to fund United Way 211 Santa Clara for residents who called and
accessed 211 Santa Clara County.
In 2021, the City established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused
residents through resource referral and partnered with the West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park
(RSCP) program and there is a max of 30 people at a time per safe parking site.
The City provided 5 households with low-interest loans through MeriWest Credit Union
Program to put towards rental assistance in the amount of $86,872.
The City assisted 3 households with emergency rental assistance loans in the amount of $6,000.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐4
The City also funded the Rotating Safe Car Program providing $50,000 to 20 households in
rental assistance grants.
During the planning period, the City took various steps to provide supportive services for
lower-income households and persons with special needs, including:
o Establishing the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents.
o CDBG funds of $22,720.18 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care.
o CDBG funds of $164,807 to assist 274 senior households at Live Oak Adult Day Services,
a senior adult day care.
o CDBG funds of $299,156 to West Valley Community Services (WVCS) CARE Program
to provide supportive services to prevent homelessness.
o CDBG funds of $224,184 to City-wide curb installation project for Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible curb ramps installed throughout the city.
o CDBG funds of $809,802 for Cupertino Housing for the Disabled Inc. to rehabilitate
rental units.
o CDBG funds of $234,672 for 10 homeless residents who received supportive and
sanitation services.
o CDBG funds of $24,142 that assisted 36 seniors to access meal deliveries.
o CDBG funds of $185,000 providing $5,000 in grants to 37 small businesses.
o Human Services Grant Program (HSG) $195,797 to MAITRI that assist transitional
residents who receive case management.
o HSG $104,999 to SALA for seniors who received legal services.
o HSG $266,788 to WVCS Haven Home program for people who received supportive
services to prevent homelessness.
o The City developed and funded the Homeless Jobs Program to provide up to eight months
of employment for two unhoused residents in Cupertino in the amount of $222,063.
o The City also implemented the grants for De Anza students to provide $8,080 in housing
assistance grants.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐5
B6.4 PRESERVATION OF “AT RISK” UNITS
According to the 2015 Housing Element, there was one affordable project at risk of converting to
market rate within 10 years from the beginning of the 2015–2023 planning period—Beardon Drive,
which has eight affordable units. In 2019, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the City’s CDBG loan
and indicated that the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.
B6.5 REHABILITATION OF EXISTING UNITS
The City had established a goal of rehabilitating 40 total housing units between 2015 and 2023.
B6.6 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS
Table B6-2, Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs, identifies all of the actions the City
committed to in the 2015 Housing Element. The table also includes a description of the progress that
was made during the 2015–2023 planning period.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐6
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
HE-1.3.1 Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
To accommodate the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will
continue to:
Provide adequate capacity through the
Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA
of 1,064 units
Monitor development standards to
ensure they are adequate and
appropriate to facilitate a range of
housing in the community
Monitor the sites inventory and make it
available on the City website
Monitor development activity on the
Housing Opportunity Sites to ensure that
the City maintains sufficient land to
accommodate the RHNA during the
planning period. Identify alternative
site(s) as needed
The City continued to provide adequate capacity through the
Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the
RHNA allocation. As a result of flexible land use controls as of
2021, four of the five Priority Housing Element sites from the 5th
cycle used density bonuses, incentives, and/or waivers that
were approved by the City between 2016-2022.
Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.1, HE-1.3.2,
and HE-1.3.3. The City will commit to rezoning
and adding new zoning districts and land use
designations to accommodate RHNA.
HE-1.3.2 Second Dwelling Units
The City will continue to implement the
Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and
encourage the production of second units
The City annually updated the Ordinance to comply with State
law and established a program to streamline the ADU review
and production process as part of the City 2020-21 work
program. In 2021, the City created a pre-approved ADU
program to further incentivize the creation of ADUs. Since 2015,
the City has issued 158 building permits for ADUs.
Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.8. The City
will continue to address new State legislation
for ADU’s and expand on efforts to encourage
the development of these housing types.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐7
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
HE-1.3.3 Lot Consolidation
To facilitate residential and mixed-use
developments, the City will continue to:
Encourage lot consolidation
Encourage master plans for such sites
with coordinated access and circulation
Provide technical assistance
Encourage intra- and inter-agency
cooperation
The City encouraged lot consolidation and provided technical
assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to coordinate
redevelopment where appropriate. Sand Hill Property Company
filed an application with the City of Cupertino on March 27,
2018, entitled "Vallco Town Center Project Application pursuant
to SB 35." On September 21, 2018, an approval letter was
issued for the project. Vallco requested less commercial
development with only 1 bedroom and studio BMR units and
smaller 1 bedroom and studios than market rate and 1-
bedroomm studios as BMR. The coordination included intra-
and inter-agency cooperation and encouragement of master
plans for sites with coordinated access and circulation.
Continue, through Strategy HE 1.3.7.
HE-1.3.4 Flexible Development Standards
The City recognizes the need to encourage a
range of housing options in the community.
The City will continue to:
Offer flexible residential development
standards in planned residential zoning
districts
Consider granting reductions in off-
street parking on a case-by-case basis
for senior housing
In 2021, the 123 assisted living units and 35 memory care
rooms Westport Project was approved with waivers, an
incentive for development standards and a reduction in parking
standards. The Westport project is within the Heart of the City
Specific Plan and on a Housing Element site. The City had 4 of
the 5 Housing Element sites use waivers and Density Bonus
parking standards as part of their project within the Vallco,
Marina, Verandas, and Westport Projects. The City also allowed
2 of the 5 projects to use incentives as part of their project -
Westport and Vallco.
Continue for affordable units through Strategy
HE-2.3.7. The City will also commit to other
strategies like density bonus incentives to
address Affordable Housing Development.
HE-1.3.5 Heart of the City Specific Plan
The City will review revisions to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan residential density
calculation requirement to eliminate the
requirement to net the non-residential portion
of the development from the lot area.
Completed in May 2015. Delete, the action was completed.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐8
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
HE-2.3.1 Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation
Program
The City will continue to require that
developers of office, commercial, and
industrial space pay a mitigation fee for
affordable housing in the City of Cupertino.
To help offset the loss of land, the City continued to implement
the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. The City
requires developers of office, commercial, and industrial space
to pay a mitigation fee to support affordable housing. Mitigated
fees are collected and deposited into the City's BMR Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF) for the following fiscal years (FY) the
following mitigation fees were collected and deposited and in
the BMR and AFH funds:
FY19: $159,178
FY20: $39,000
FY21: $197,661
FY22: $36,000
FY23: $170,824
The Veranda project received BMR and AFH funds. This senior
housing project, now complete and occupied, is a 19-unit
affordable development on a vacant, 0.56-acre site, at 19160
Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino.
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.2. This
program has proven successful and will
continue with only minor text updates.
HE-2.3.2 Residential Housing Mitigation Program
The City will continue to implement the
Residential Housing Mitigation Program to
mitigate the need for affordable housing
created by new market-rate residential
development. This program applies to new
residential development. Mitigation includes
either the payment of the “Housing
Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below
Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units.
The City continued to implement the Residential Housing
Mitigation Program. The program applies to new residential
development and includes the provision of BMR units or the
payment of the "Housing Mitigation" fee. The BMR Linkage
Fees Update study was completed and adopted by City Council
on May 19, 2020, which included an increased requirement of
15%-20% for inclusionary ownership projects. In 2021, the BMR
AHF provided funding to the following affordable housing
projects, strategies, and services:
BMR Program Administration: 400 households sought
assistance, 12 new households were assisted.
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.3. This
program has proven successful and will expand
on efforts to prioritize, provide rental
alternatives, develop for-sale and rental units,
and develop BMR units off-site.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐9
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Fair housing services: $305,615 to Project Sentinel
City of Cupertino Housing Programs for De Anza College
Students
HE-2.3.3 Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF)
The City’s BMR AHF will continue to support
affordable housing projects, strategies and
services, including but not limited to:
BMR Program Administration
Substantial rehabilitation
Land acquisition
Acquisition of buildings for permanent
affordability, with or without
rehabilitation
New construction
Preserving “at-risk” BMR units
Rental operating subsidies
Down payment assistance
Land write-downs
Direct gap financing
Fair housing
The City provided ongoing technical assistance to
nonprofits/developers, including providing data and information
on properties for sale to nonprofit partners and developers for
their consideration. In 2017, the fund provided $175,000 to
Hello Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR
for-sale units and 15 new rental households. Additionally, a
$3,672,000 loan to The Veranda helped assist with the Land
Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units and very low-
income senior housing development. Additional financial
assistance included:
A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court
Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional
housing units that converted to BMR rental units.
$561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon
Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation
program.
$783,049 in funds to Vista Village Renovation Project, a
low-income affordable housing development.$305,615 to
Project Sentinel for fair housing services.
Emergency Assistance Funds for Cupertino Tenants
Impacted by COVID
$50,000 to Earnin
$86,872 to Meriwest Credit Union and $50,000 to West
Valley Community Services (WVCS)
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.4. This
program has proven successful and will
continue with additional focus on areas with
limited availability of rental housing and high
cost burden.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐10
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
To ensure the mitigation fees continue to be
adequate to mitigate the impacts of new
development on affordable housing needs,
the City will update its Nexus Study for the
Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2015
$8,080 to De Anza College for the City of Cupertino
Housing Program for De Anza Students
HE-2.3.4 Housing Resources
The City will continue to provide information
on housing resources and services offered
by the County and other outside agencies.
These include, but are not limited to:
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) –
Santa Clara County Housing and
Community Development Department
First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and
Developer Loans for Multi-Family
Development – Housing Trust Silicon
Valley (HTSV)
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) –
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County
(HASCC)
Affordable housing development –
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
The City will also continue to explore and
pursue various affordable housing resources
available at the local, regional, state, and
federal levels that could be used to address
housing needs in the community
The City provided information on housing resources and
services to:
County Measure A Affordable Housing Bond
County Mortgage Credit Certificate
County Developmental Disability Funding
Housing Trust Silicon Valley First-Time Homebuyer
Assistance and Developer Loans
Project Sentinel Rental Support
Housing Authority Section 8 Vouchers
Destination: HOME Community Housing Fund
West Valley Community Services
In addition, the City worked with nonprofit organizations in
providing programs and services for low-income households
and private industry, in particular financial and development
groups, to encourage the development of affordable housing
opportunities regionally and in the city (see Program HE-2.3.3).
The City provided technical assistance to the public service
agencies it funded. The City coordinated with a number of
groups to engage in discussions about grant funding
opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address
homelessness. The City participated in the following groups:
Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.5. The City,
through the new strategy, will also continue to
identify and pursue various affordable housing
resources available to address needs in the
community.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐11
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit
Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups,
including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and
share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing
helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants
with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA
Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA
funding and is currently working towards implementing the
funding for projects in Cupertino. In 2021, the City created a
pilot Homeless Jobs Program with two Cupertino unhoused
residents participating in the program. The Homeless Jobs
Program assists two people per year, plus their families by
extension. The City Council did not prioritize the Plan to End
Homelessness for the FY 2023-25 City Work Program. This
item was concluded, and no final version of the Plan was
created. Unused funds will be returned to the General Fund.
HE-2.3.5 Surplus Properties for Housing
The City will explore opportunities on surplus
properties as follows:
Work with local public agencies, school
districts and churches, to identify surplus
properties or underutilized properties
that have the potential for residential
development.
Encourage long-term land leases of
properties from churches, school
districts, and corporations for
construction of affordable units
Evaluate the feasibility of developing
special housing for teachers or other
The City worked with local public agencies, school districts, and
churches to identify surplus properties that have the potential
for residential development. There were no surplus properties
available from any school districts or churches for the City to
pursue. The City continued to support the Rotating Car-park
program on church property.
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.6. The City
will partner with local developers or
organizations to purchase surplus properties,
infill lots, and other green fields within the city
to use for the development of affordable
housing.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐12
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
employee groups on the surplus
properties
Research other jurisdictions’ housing
programs for teachers for their potential
applicability in Cupertino
HE-2.3.6 Incentive for Affordable Housing
Development
The City will continue to offer a range of
incentives to facilitate the development of
affordable housing. These include:
Financial assistance through the City’s
Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Fund (BMR AHF) and CDBG funds
Partner with CDBG and/or support the
funding application of qualified
affordable housing developers for
regional, state, and federal affordable
housing funds, including HOME funds,
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.
Density bonus incentives (see Strategy
HE-2.3.7)
Flexible development standards
Technical assistance
Waiver of park dedication fees and
construction tax
Parking ordinance waivers
The City offered a range of financial assistance through the
City’s BMR AHF, by partnering with CDBG and receiving a total
of $64,000 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon
Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation program.
To incentivize affordable housing development, the City
supported the funding application of qualified affordable
housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable
housing funds, density bonus incentives, flexible development
standards, technical assistance, waiver of park dedication fees
and construction tax, parking ordinance waivers, and expedited
permit processing. As previously mentioned, the City approved
waivers of development and parking standards for the Westport
and Marina Plaza projects. The City also approved density
bonus incentives for the Westport and Vallco Town Center (The
Rise) projects. In addition, the City allowed flexible
development standards and a reduced parking standard was
approved for the Hamptons Development under the Planned
Development zoning district. Technical assistance was
provided for the Verandas project on an ongoing basis and the
project was also provided expedited permit processing with
entitlements on the project being completed in 6-7 months. In
addition, the City provided approximately $3.7 million in funding
for this 100% affordable housing project and supported funding
applications for the project. With all residential developments,
parkland dedication in lieu of fees and construction taxes were
waived for all affordable units. The City has provided
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.7.
Development of housing for lower-income
households will be facilitated citywide, but extra
focus will be given to areas with currently low
percentages of renter-occupied households to
facilitate housing mobility and integration of
ownership and rental units.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐13
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Expedited permit processing $8,172,000 in BMR AHF and CDBG funds to facilitate the
development of affordable housing (see Program HE-2.3.4).
The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in
discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing
needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City
participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA
Consortium, Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group,
SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The
participants in these groups, including the City, work together to
pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office
of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and
provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance.
Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an
allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards
implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino.
HE-2.3.7 Density Bonus Ordinance
The City will encourage use of density
bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for
housing developments
All the sites listed in the 5th cycle table with the exception of
(APNs: 316-06-059, 316-06-060, and 316-06 -058) have been
awarded density bonuses, incentives, waivers, and/or reduction
in parking standards. They were approved by the City between
2016 and 2022.
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.8.
Development will be citywide but extra focus
will be given to areas with currently low
percentages of renter-occupied households to
facilitate housing mobility.
HE-2.3.8 Extremely Low-Income Housing and
Housing for Persons with Special Needs
The City will continue to encourage the
development of adequate housing to meet
the needs of extremely low-income
households and persons with special needs,
including the following incentives:
Provide financing assistance using the
Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Fund (BMR AHF) and Community
The City continued to provide financing assistance using the
BMR AHF and CDBG funds. A $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda
to assist with the Land Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income
units. Additional financial assistance included grant reductions
in off-street parking. The City coordinated with a number of
groups to engage in discussions about grant funding
opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address
homelessness. The City participated in the following groups:
Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional
CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit
Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups,
including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.10.
Additionally, Strategies HE-2.3.1 and HE-5.1.2
have been developed and supplement aspects
of this program.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐14
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Development Block Grant funds
(CDBG).
Allow residential developments to
exceed planned density maximums if
they provide special needs housing
Grant reductions in off-street parking on
a case-by-case basis
Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable
housing developers for regional, state,
and federal affordable housing funds
share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing
helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants
with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA
Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA
funding and is currently working towards implementing the
funding for projects in Cupertino. In addition, the City provides
technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds. The
City also participates in the Santa Clara County HOME
Consortium. The City worked with nonprofits and developers to
review the feasibility of residential uses on two potential
affordable housing sites (Mary Avenue). The City issued an
RFP (request for proposals) for the site and received interest
from one developer. Currently, the City is in the process of
drafting an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) to move the
project forward.
HE-2.3.9 Employee Housing
The City permits employee housing in
multiple zoning districts. Pursuant to the
State Employee Housing Act, any employee
housing consisting of no more than 36 beds
in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces
designed for use by a single family or
household shall be deemed an agricultural
land use. No conditional use permit, zoning
variance, or other zoning clearance shall be
required of this employee housing that is not
required of any other agricultural activity in
the same zone. The permitted occupancy in
employee housing in a zone allowing
agricultural uses shall include agricultural
employees who do not work on the property
where the employee housing is located. The
Employee Housing Act also specifies that
The City amended the zoning code in 2014 to allow employee
housing in multiple zoning districts.
Deleted.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐15
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
housing for six or fewer employees be
treated as a residential use. The City
amended the Zoning Ordinance to be
consistent with the State law in 2014 and will
continue to comply with the Employee
Housing Act where it would apply.
HE-3.3.1 Residential Rehabilitation
The City will continue to:
Utilize its Below Market-Rate Affordable
Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to support residential
rehabilitation efforts in the community.
These include:
Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental
housing
Rehabilitation of owner-occupied
housing
Provide assistance for home safety
repairs and mobility/accessibility
improvements to income-qualified
owner-occupants using CDBG funds
Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable
housing developers for regional, state,
and federal affordable housing funds
The City utilized BMR AHF and CDBG funds to
acquire/rehabilitate rental housing and rehabilitate owner-
occupied housing. In 2021, the following CDBG funds were
provided to the following rehabilitation efforts:
A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court
Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional
housing units that converted to BMR rental units.
$561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon
Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation
program.
$783,049 to the Vista Village Renovation Project for
substantial rehabilitation.
Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.1.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐16
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
HE-3.3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units
One housing project – Beardon Drive (eight
units. The City will proactively contact the
property owner regarding its intent to remain
or opt out of the affordable program. In the
event the project becomes at risk of
converting to market-rate housing, the City
will work with the property owner or other
interested nonprofit housing providers to
preserve the units. The City will also conduct
outreach to the tenants to provide
information on any potential conversion and
available affordable housing assistance
programs.
The City will continue to monitor its entire
portfolio of affordable housing for-sale and
rental inventory annually. The City will
monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by
requiring Below Market-Rate (BMR)
homeowners to submit proof of occupancy
such as utility bills, mortgage loan
documentation, homeowner’s insurance,
and property tax bills. The City will further
monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by
ordering title company lot books, reviewing
property profile reports and updating its
public database annually. The City will
monitor its affordable rental inventory by
verifying proof of occupancy and performing
annual rental income certifications for each
BMR tenant.
In the event the project becomes at risk of converting to market-
rate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other
interested nonprofit housing providers to preserve the eight
units. In 2017, the BMR AFH fund provided $175,000 to Hello
Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR for-
sale units. In 2019, as part of the BMR AHF program, the owner
of Beardon Drive paid off the City's CDBG loan and indicated
that the 8 units making up the property would continue to
operate as affordable housing.
Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.2. The City
will continue to monitor and conduct outreach
to at-risk below-market rate housing units
throughout the City and will also implement
policy that provides tenants or mission-driven
nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a
property at market price.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐17
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
HE-3.3.3 Condominium Conversion
Condominium conversions are not allowed if
the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and
certain adjacent areas is less than five
percent at the time of the application for
conversion and has averaged five percent
over the past six months. The City will
continue to monitor the effectiveness of this
ordinance in providing opportunities for
homeownership while preserving a balanced
housing stock with rental housing.
The City continued to monitor the effectiveness of this
ordinance by providing opportunities for homeownership while
preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing.
Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.3. The
ordinance has proven successful and will be
carried forward with no modification or
additional language.
HE-3.3.4 Housing Preservation Program
When a proposed development or
redevelopment of a site would cause a loss
of multi-family housing, the City will grant
approval only if:
The project will comply with the City’s
Below Market-Rate Program
The number of units provided on the site
is at least equal to the number of existing
units, and
Adverse impacts on displaced tenants,
in developments with more than four
units, are mitigated
The City will participate, as appropriate, in
studies of regional housing need and
displacement, and consider policies or
programs to address the indirect
displacement of lower income residents
The City continued to participate in studies of regional housing
need and displacement. In collaboration with the Santa Clara
County Consortium, the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) documents was completed in spring 2022.
Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.4. The
updated strategy also commits the City to
approving the redevelopment of existing
multifamily units if they are redeveloped at the
same or deeper affordability, with the
equivalent size and provides displaced tenants
with right of first refusal to rent new units at the
same rent.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐18
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
HE-3.3.5 Neighborhood and Community Clean-Up
Campaigns
The City will continue to encourage and
sponsor neighborhood and community
clean-up campaigns for both public and
private properties
The City continued to encourage and sponsor neighborhood
and community clean-up campaigns for both public and private
properties. The City promotes and staffs the following events
available to the community:
Recology provides quarterly drop-off events for bulky
items, construction waste, landscape waste, and
hazardous waste (due to COVID, the quarterly events were
cancelled and resumed in mid-2021).
The City staffs two annual creek clean ups- National River
Clean Up Day and Coastal Clean Up Day.
Deleted.
HE-4.1.1 Enforcement of Title 24
The City will continue to enforce Title 24
requirements for energy conservation and
will evaluate utilizing some of the other
suggestions as identified in the
Environmental Resources/ Sustainability
element
The City continued to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy
conservation and evaluate using some of the other suggestions
as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability
element. In 2020, the City adopted REACH codes, which were
further amended in 2022, that will assist in achieving the City's
sustainability goals. The City has Chapter 16.58, Green Building
Standards Code, that requires certain projects to achieve LEED
certification or similar.
Continue, through Strategy HE-4.1.1. The
program has proven successful and will be
carried forward with no modification or
additional language.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐19
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
HE-4.1.2 Sustainable Practices
The City will continue to implement the
Landscape Ordinance for water conservation
and the Green Building Ordinance.
To further the objectives of the Green
Building Ordinance, the City will evaluate the
potential to provide incentives, such as
waiving or reducing fees, for energy
conservation improvements at affordable
housing projects (existing or new) with fewer
than ten units to exceed the minimum
requirements of the California Green
Building Code. This City will also implement
the policies in its climate action plan to
achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas
emission reductions and further these
community energy and water conservation
goals
The City implemented the following ordinances:
Landscape Ordinance
Green Building Ordinance
The Climate Action Plan, which evaluates the potential to
provide incentives for energy conservation improvements
at affordable housing projects (e.g., waiving or reducing
fees) and continue to implement the policies in the climate
action plan.
The City also adopted energy-efficiency reach codes that
include requirements for electrification for certain types of
buildings, water efficiency, and green materials to reduce
energy use and lower greenhouse gas emissions. These reach
codes are a component of the California Energy and California
Green Building Codes and include requirements for water
efficiency, green materials, and other items designed to
encourage building electrification for certain types of buildings.
Continue, through program HE-4.1.2.
HE-5.1.1 Emergency Shelters
The City will continue to facilitate housing
opportunities for special needs persons by
allowing emergency shelters as a permitted
use in the “BQ” Quasi-Public zoning district.
The City will subject emergency shelters to
the same development standards as other
similar uses within the BQ zoning district,
except for those provisions permitted by
State law and provided in the Zoning
Ordinance for emergency shelters
The City facilitated housing opportunities for special-needs
groups by allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use in
the "BQ" Quasi-Public Building zoning district. In 2021, the City
established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the
needs of unhoused residents through resource referral and
partnered with the West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP)
program. The RSCP program is an emergency homeless
program made up of a network of local city governments,
service organizations, and volunteer faith-based host sites that
provide temporary overnight parking for homeless
individuals/families living out of their cars. The RSCP program
is still active, and there is a maximum of 30 people at a time per
safe parking site.
Continue, through Strategy HE-5.1.1. The
updated strategy amends the Zoning Code to
permit in the Quasi-Public zoning district
without discretionary review and commits the
City to review and revise managerial standards.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐20
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
The same year, the City created a pilot Homeless Jobs Program
with two Cupertino unhoused residents participating in the
program. The City Work Program is renewed on an annual basis
by the City Council, and contains a variety of different projects,
one of which being the City Plan To End Homelessness. The
City Council did not prioritize the Plan To End Homelessness
for the FY 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was
concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. Unused
funds will be returned to the General Fund. .
HE-5.1.2 Supportive Services for Lower-Income
Households and Persons with Special
Needs
The City will continue to utilize its Below
Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund,
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human
Service Grants (HSG) funds to provide for a
range of supportive services for lower-
income households and persons with special
needs
During the planning period, the City took various steps to
provide supportive services for lower-income households and
persons with special needs, including:
Establishing the City Unhoused Task Force to address the
needs of unhoused residents.
CDBG $164,807 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior
adult day care.
CDBG $299,156 to West Valley Community Services
(WVCS) CARE Program, a community access to resource
and education program.
HSG $66,189 to Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County,
a long-term care ombudsman program.
HSG $25,000 to MAITRI, a transitional housing direct client
services program.
HSG $105,999 to Senior Adult Legal Assistance, a legal
assistance to elders program.
HSG $266,778 to WVCS Haven to Home program, a
supportive services and housing resources program for the
homeless.
Continue, through Strategy HE 5.1.2. The
program has been a success and is carried
forward with added focus on areas along the
Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting at
the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens
Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard
(western edge of Creston-Pharlap
neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north
of Creekside Park.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐21
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
The City developed and funded the Homeless Jobs
Program to provide up to eight months of employment for
two unhoused residents in Cupertino.
HE-5.1.3 Rotating Homeless Shelter
The City will continue to support the
operation of a Rotating Homeless Shelter
program
The City provided Faith in Action Rotating Shelter with space at
City Hall to provide intake and registration for the community
each night until it was shut down in 2017.
In 2021, the City partnered with the West Valley RSCP program,
an emergency homeless program made up of a network of local
city governments, service organizations, and volunteer faith-
based host sites that provide temporary overnight parking for
homeless individuals/families living out of their cars. Through
$299,156 in CDBG funding, the City assisted 887 households
and provided services to prevent homelessness.
Modify, through Strategy HE-5.1.3. The
Strategy has been updated based on previous
program outcomes. The City will continue to
support the Rotating Safe Car Park program.
HE-6.1.1 Fair Housing Services
The City will continue to:
Provide fair housing services, which
include outreach, education, counseling,
and investigation of fair housing
complaints
Retain a fair housing service provider to
provide direct services for residents,
landlords, and other housing
professionals
Coordinate with efforts of the Santa
Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
to affirmatively further fair housing
In 2020, the City coordinated with the Regional CDBG/Housing
Coordinators group to begin drafting the City's Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing Plan. The City has provided a total of
$850,000 in BMR AHF funds to fair-housing services and
landlord/tenant rental mediation programs.
Continue, through program HE-6.1.1. The
strategy will also include commitments to
partner with a local fair housing service
provider.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐22
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs
No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Distribute fair housing materials
produced by various organizations at
public counters and public events
HE-7.3.1 Coordination with Outside Agencies and
Organizations
The City will meet with these
agencies/organizations periodically to
discuss the changing needs, development
trends, alternative approaches, and
partnering opportunities:
School districts
Housing providers
Neighboring jurisdictions
Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG)
Air Quality Management District
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
Santa Clara County Continuum of Care
(COC)
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County
(HASCC)
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
The City coordinated with these groups to engage in
discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing
needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City
participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA
Consortium, Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group,
SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The
participants in these groups, including the City, work together to
pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office
of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and
provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance.
Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an
allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards
implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. Housing CA,
Grounded Solutions, US Department of Housing and Urban
Development, among others. In 2021, the City provided
referrals to COVID-related funding sources and services. The
City Council did not prioritize the Plan To End Homelessness
for the Fiscal Year 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was
concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. The
unused funds will be returned to the General Fund.
Continue, through Strategy HE-7.3.1. The City
will commit to meet with these agencies and
organizations to periodically discuss the
changing needs, development trends,
alternative approaches, and partnering
opportunities.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐23
B6.7 APPROPRIATENESS IN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
The goals, objectives, and policies identified in the 2015 Housing Element were appropriate for the
2015-2023 timeframe because they directly relate to the program requirements listed by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
As for new construction, the greatest progress was made in producing housing in the Moderate
Income and Above Moderate-Income categories, where the City permitted approximately 68 percent
and 119 percent of the needed units, respectively. The City permitted only about 13.5 percent of its
needed Very Low-Income units and 9.2 percent of its Low-Income units. As was the case in prior
years, the cost of land and construction continued to be high in Cupertino, making affordable housing
difficult to develop in this market.
B6.8 SUMMARY
Like many communities, the City of Cupertino experienced less construction than expected in its
2015–2023 planning period. Of the 1,064 units it identified in its table of quantified housing objectives
(Table HE-6 on page H-19 of the 2015 Housing Element), the City was able to issue building permits
for546 units (approximately 51.3 percent), most of them for Above Moderate-Income households,
even though the City had entitled more than 3,400 units (including more than 1,201 lower income
units) during this time frame.
Nonetheless, the goals, objectives, policies, and actions in the 2015–2023 Housing Element complied
with State Housing Law that was in effect at the time and provided proper guidance for housing
development in the city. With the 2023-2031 Housing Element update, objectives for each of the goals
will be modified as appropriate to more specifically respond to the housing environment in Cupertino.
Policies will also be modified as needed to respond to current Housing Element Law and existing and
anticipated residential development conditions.
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐24
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G: General Plan 2040
and Zoning Code Amendments
Environmental Assessment
for the City of Cupertino
April 2024
Appendix G: General Plan 2040
and Zoning Code Amendments
Environmental Assessment
for the City of Cupertino
April 2024
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE
PLACEWORKS.COM
Prepared by: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Environmental Assessment Purpose............................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Environmental Assessment Scope ............................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................... 1-5
1.5 Tiered Environmental Review ....................................................................................... 1-5
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Document Organization ............................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Environmental Procedures ............................................................................................ 2-3
2.4 Type and Purpose of this EA ......................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Summary of Proposed Modified Project ..................................................................... 2-4
2.6 Summary of Project Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-6
2.7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ....................................................... 2-7
2.8 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 2-8
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Location and Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.5 Planning Process Summary ........................................................................................... 3-4
3.6 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3-7
3.7 Project Components ..................................................................................................... 3-8
3.8 Buildout Projections ..................................................................................................... 3-24
3.9 Intended Uses of the EA .............................................................................................. 3-27
3.10 Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................... 3-27
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 4.7-1
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii APRIL 2024
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................ 4.10-1
4.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Public Services and Recreation .............................................................................. 4.13-1
4.14 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.15 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.16 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 4.16-1
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT ........................................................... 5-1
5.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Selection of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives .................................................... 5-2
5.4 Alternative A: No Project .............................................................................................. 5-5
5.5 Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites ...................................................................... 5-13
5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative......................................................................... 5-24
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ........................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 6-4
6.2 Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project ................................ 6-5
6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project .................................................. 6-6
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Lead Agency ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Other Agencies and Organizations Consulted .......................................................... 7-1
7.3 Consultants ..................................................................................................................... 7-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Appendix C: Tribal Consultation Correspondence
Appendix D: Noise Data
Appendix E: Transportation Analysis
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ........................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-3 Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites ....................................................... 3-18
Figure 3-4 Housing Opportunity Sites: Land Use Designation Changes .................................. 3-21
Figure 3-5 Housing Opportunity Sites: Zoning District Changes ................................................ 3-25
Figure 4-1 Priority Development Area and Transit Priority Areas ................................................ 4-9
Figure 4.11-1 Existing Traffic Noise Contours ............................................................................... 4.11-20
Figure 4.11-2 Future Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................. 4.11-29
Figure 4.16-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones ..................................................................................... 4.16-13
Figure 4.16-2 Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas .................................................................... 4.16-15
Figure 4.16-3 Evacuation Routes .................................................................................................. 4.16-19
Figure 4.16-4 Evacuation-Constrained Residential Areas ......................................................... 4.16-20
Figure 5-1 Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites ...................................................................... 5-16
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv APRIL 2024
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 2-9
Table 3-1 Amendments to the General Plan 2040 ..................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-2 Cupertino Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 ....................................... 3-9
Table 3-3 Pipeline Projects ........................................................................................................... 3-11
Table 3-4 Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential .................................. 3-12
Table 3-5 Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential
(Mixed Use) ................................................................................................................... 3-14
Table 3-6 Housing Opportunity Site Maximum Density ............................................................ 3-19
Table 3-7 Housing Element 2023-2031 Site Inventory ................................................................ 3-19
Table 3-8 Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections ........................................................................... 3-26
Table 4.2-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary .......................................................... 4.2-1
Table 4.2-2 CARB Recommendations for Sitting New Sensitive Land Uses .............................. 4.2-5
Table 4.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ............................................. 4.2-7
Table 4.2-4 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin ........................................................................................................................... 4.2-20
Table 4.2-5 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................. 4.2-21
Table 4.2-6 BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance
Thresholds ................................................................................................................... 4.2-24
Table 4.2-7 Control Measures from the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.................................. 4.2-32
Table 4.2-8 Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the City of
Cupertino ................................................................................................................... 4.2-36
Table 4.2-9 Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast .................. 4.2-40
Table 4.5-1 Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption ................................................ 4.5-18
Table 4.5-2 Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 Consistency Matrix ....................................... 4.5-28
Table 4.7-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to
CO2 ............................................................................................................................... 4.7-2
Table 4.7-2 Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans ............................ 4.7-6
Table 4.7-3 Operational GHG Emissions – Housing Element Update ..................................... 4.7-22
Table 4.7-4 Proposed Modified Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Priority Areas ........ 4.7-29
Table 4.8-1 Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area................................................. 4.8-9
Table 4.9-1 Santa Clara County General Plan Policies Relevant to Hydrology and
Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 4.9-10
Table 4.11-1 Typical Noise Levels .................................................................................................. 4.11-5
Table 4.11-2 Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings from Typical Vibration Levels ...... 4.11-8
Table 4.11-3 Federal Aviation Administration Normally Compatible Community Sound
Levels ........................................................................................................................ 4.11-10
Table 4.11-4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ............................ 4.11-13
Table 4.11-5 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels ................................................. 4.11-14
Table 4.11-6 Baseline Roadway Noise Levels ............................................................................ 4.11-18
Table 4.11-7 Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels (50 feet from source) ......... 4.11-24
Table 4.11-8 Future (Modified Project Buildout) Roadway Noise Levels ................................ 4.11-26
Table 4.11-9 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............. 4.11-31
Table 4.11-10 Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels ...................................................................... 4.11-34
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS v
Table 4.13-1 Current Capacity and Enrollment for the CUSD ................................................. 4.13-11
Table 4.13-2 Current Capacity and Enrollment for the FUHSD ................................................ 4.13-12
Table 4.15-1 Increase in Water Demand with 2040 Buildout ................................................... 4.15-13
Table 4.15-2 Cal Water LAS Service Area with Proposed Modified Project .......................... 4.15-13
Table 4.15-3 Cal Water LAS Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2040 (AFY) ............ 4.15-14
Table 4.15-4 Increase in Water Demand in SJW Service Area with Proposed Modified
Project ...................................................................................................................... 4.15-16
Table 4.15-5 SJW Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2040 (AFY).............................. 4.15-17
Table 4.15-6 Increase in WasteWater Demand with Proposed Modified Project ................ 4.15-29
Table 4.15-7 Increase in Solid Waste Generation with Proposed Modified Project ............. 4.15-47
Table 4.15-8 Newby Island Landfill Data .................................................................................... 4.15-47
Table 5-1 Total Forecasted Growth for the Proposed Modified Project and the
Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project .......................................................... 5-4
Table 5-2 Comparison of Impacts of the Project Alternatives and the Proposed
Modified Project ............................................................................................................ 5-4
Table 5-3 Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites ...................................................................... 5-14
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank
PLACEWORKS 1-1
Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 14, California Code of
Regulations, Section 15378(a), the proposed amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan 2040
(General Plan 2040), also known as Community Vision 2015-2040, and the Zoning Code are considered a
“project” subject to environmental review. Approval of the General Plan and Zoning Code amendments is
considered “an action [undertaken by a public agency], which has the potential for resulting in either a
direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment.”
The proposed amendments include updating the 2015-2023 Housing Element, Land Use and Community
Design Element, and Mobility Element of the General Plan 2040, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and
Zoning Code. Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element is required to be updated every eight years. The
General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design Element Zoning Code, and the Heart of the City
Specific Plan include standards for residential density and residential zoning districts and are therefore
required to be updated at the same time to ensure internal consistency within the General Plan 2040 and
consistency with the Zoning Code and Heart of the City Specific Plan.
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURPOSE
On January 8, 2024, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County issued a stipulated judgement that requires
the City of Cupertino (City) to expeditiously complete and approve an update to the 2015-2023 Housing
Element. California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2) provides that when a City is ordered by a court
to bring its General Plan, which includes the Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element,
and Mobility Element, into compliance, the City shall prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), the
content of which shall substantially conform to the required content of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). With an EA, there are no formal review periods and no “response to comments” document
that would generally be prepared as part of a Final EIR.
Prior to the stipulated judgement, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and issued on March 27,
2023, to receive comments on the evaluation of topics in a Draft Subsequent EIR for the proposed
Modified Project. The comment period closed on April 25, 2023. While preparing the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the stipulated judgement was issued, and the document type was changed from an EIR to an EA.
However, because the proposed Modified Project and topics evaluated remain similar between the EIR
and EA, the original NOP issued on March 27, 2023, was used as the NOP for the EA.
The current General Plan was adopted in December 2014 and included a horizon year of 2040. Since this
time, several amendments to the General Plan have occurred. A summary of the amendments to the
General Plan 2040 is shown in Table 3-1, Amendments to the General Plan 2040, of Chapter 3, Project
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-2 APRIL 2024
Description, of this EA. The City evaluated the impacts of the General Plan 2040 and subsequent
amendments to the General Plan 2040 in the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and
associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the Cupertino City Council
in December 2014, and in the subsequent addenda to the EIR that were approved by the City Council in
October 2015, August 2019, December 2019, and October 2021, referred to together as the “General Plan
EIR.” The General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code as amended and evaluated in the General Plan EIR are
considered the “Approved Project” and the proposed amendments that are the subject of this EA are
considered the “proposed Modified Project.”
The City is the lead agency for the proposed Modified Project, which pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15367 is defined as “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving
a project.” As lead agency, the City determined that because the proposed Modified Project amends the
Approved Project, to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2),
this EA shall be prepared as a subsequent program-level analysis of the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162, Subsequent EIR, and 15168, Program EIR, respectively.
This EA has been prepared to provide public agency decision makers and the public with an analysis of the
proposed Modified Project’s potentially significant environmental effects and identify feasible alternatives
and mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects. This EA’s analysis
and findings reflect the City’s independent and impartial conclusions. This EA will be reviewed in public
session by the City Planning Commission and reviewed and adopted as part of the General Plan in public
session by the City Council.
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
If approved by the Cupertino City Council, the proposed Modified Project would replace the City’s existing
5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023) with the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031),Land Use and
Community Design Element, and Mobility Element of the General Plan 2040. It would also replace
corresponding sections of Title 19, Zoning (Zoning Code) of the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) to
ensure consistency between the General Plan land use designations and zoning districts. The proposed
Modified Project would build off the existing General Plan 2040 to provide a framework for land use and
housing decisions to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,588 dwelling
units and associated buffer of 1,423 dwelling units for the 2023-2031 planning period. See Chapter 3,
Project Description, of this EA for additional details on the proposed Modified Project. See Chapter 5,
Alternatives to the Proposed Project, for a comparison of the Approved Project and the proposed Modified
Project presented as the No Project Alternative.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65759, CEQA does not apply to any discretionary actions
necessary to bring the General Plan, including the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031), Land Use and
Community Design Element, and Mobility Element, into compliance with the court order. Therefore, this
EA serves as the environmental review document for the proposed discretionary actions detailed in
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-3
Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, which are necessary to bring the proposed Housing Element
(2023-2031), relevant mandatory General Plan 2040 elements (i.e., the Land Use and Community Design
Element and Mobility Element), Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Zoning Code into compliance with
State law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a)(3), this EA is deemed to be part of the City’s
General Plan.
Although CEQA does not apply to the proposed Modified Project, as previously stated, this EA
substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR found in State CEQA Guidelines Article 9
(Section 15120 et seq.) and the required content for a subsequent program-level analysis of the General
Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, Subsequent EIR, and 15168, Program EIR,
respectively.
1.3.1 SUBSEQUENT EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(3)(A) and (B), this EA has been prepared to evaluate
potential environmental impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project as a subsequent analysis to the General Plan EIR. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a
subsequent EIR is prepared when:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR
or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known
with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the
negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative
declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible,
and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Regarding the adequacy of a subsequent EIR, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15151:
“An [S]EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with
information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-4 APRIL 2024
not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an [S]EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably
feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an [S]EIR inadequate, but the [S]EIR should
summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts associated with an overall development capacity of 4,040,231
square feet (sf) of office uses, 1,343,679 sf of commercial uses, 1,339 hotel rooms, and 4,421 housing
units above the City’s existing (2013) conditions, over a planning horizon to 2040. The proposed 6th Cycle
Housing Element (2023-2031) has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the RHNA assigned to
Cupertino to ensure the City is meeting its fair share of regional housing over the 2023-2031 planning
period of 4,588 dwelling units plus an additional 1,423 dwelling units as a buffer. A buffer is necessary to
ensure that if one or more of the identified housing sites are developed at lower densities than projected,
or with non-housing uses, there is remaining capacity elsewhere in the city to provide an ongoing supply
of sites for housing during the eight-year planning period/cycle of the Housing Element. The RHNA
assignment of 4,588 dwelling units and the buffer of 1,423 dwelling units could not have been known at
the time of the General Plan EIR certification and is in excess of the number of dwelling units analyzed in
the General Plan EIR. In addition, the General Plan EIR did not include an evaluation of environmental
topics (energy, tribal cultural resources, vehicle miles traveled, and wildfire) that were introduced in the
CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, following the certification of the General
Plan EIR. This EA includes an evaluation of impacts associated with the additional dwelling units required
to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing as part of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 and
the potential impacts associated with energy, tribal cultural resources, vehicle miles traveled, and wildfire.
This EA also analyzes whether the changes resulting from the proposed Modified Project would result in
new significant impacts when compared to the certified General Plan EIR. This EA only includes the
information necessary to make the certified General Plan EIR adequate for the proposed Modified Project.
This EA analyzes potential impacts of the proposed Modified Project, and in doing so, describes ways in
which implementation of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 would result in impacts that would
be new or different from those identified in the General Plan EIR.
1.3.2 PROGRAM EIR
This EA is the equivalent of a program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project. This is in contrast to a project-level EIR, which is used to identify and analyze the
potential impacts of site-specific construction and operation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that
program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of
rules, regulations, and other planning criteria.
In this case, the proposed Modified Project that is the subject of this EA consists of a long-term plan and
set of regulatory changes that would be implemented over time as policy documents and regulations
guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as
part of the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, this EA presents a program-level evaluation of the
potential environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-5
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Although CEQA does not apply to the proposed actions, preparation of an “environmental assessment”
that substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR is required, if any of the proposed
actions would have a significant effect on the environment. This document constitutes the required
“environmental assessment.”
A Notice of Availability of the EA will be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area and
distributed to public agencies as part of Government Code Section 65352 and Public Utilities Code Section
21676 noticing requirements.
The EA and Appendices are available for review at the following locations:
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
City of Cupertino website: https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housingelement
Following EA release, the City will consider all comments during their deliberations of the approval of the
proposed Modified Project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) will be incorporated into this document. Such a program is intended to ensure the
implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. The City will
consider all information included in the EA when acting on the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031).
Once adopted by the City, the EA will be incorporated as an appendix to the General Plan 2040.
1.5 TIERED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As allowed by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, Program EIR, and Section 15183, Projects Consistent
with a Community Plan or Zoning, the City will review future development under the proposed Modified
Project considering the General Plan EIR and this EA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 allows a
program EIR to serve as the basis for environmental review of subsequent projects. State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183 provides additional exemptions for projects proposed in accordance with an adopted
community plan, general plan, or zoning code.
If any potential future development projects requiring discretionary approval are not eligible for “by right”
approval, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, and have potentially significant adverse
environmental effects that were not examined in this EA or in the General Plan EIR, an Initial Study would
be prepared for that project, leading to the preparation of either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration, focused EIR, or supplement to this EA or the General Plan EIR. When additional
environmental documentation for a future project is necessary, this EA or the General Plan EIR may be
incorporated by reference to address regional context, secondary effects, cumulative impacts,
alternatives, and other factors applicable to the program overall. Section 3.8, Buildout Projections, in
Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, provides additional information concerning future project
approvals and procedures.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-6 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 2-1
2. Executive Summary
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Each city and county in California is required to have an adopted comprehensive long-range general plan
that must include eight mandatory elements.1 One such element is the housing element. The housing
element of the general plan is required to be updated every eight years to comply with the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Regional councils of government across California are responsible for
allocating their region’s housing needs to individual cities and counties (i.e., RHNA). The Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the RHNA and tasked with determining each county and
city’s fair share of the regional total. This determination is made using a formula that considers population
size, employment, proximity to transit, and access to high-quality resources, such as schools, health care,
parks, and services. The total 2023 -2031 RHNA for all counties and municipalities in the Bay Area is
441,176 dwelling units. Cupertino received an allocation of 4,588 dwelling units to meet their fair share of
housing for the region.
The City of Cupertino (City) General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040), also known as Community Vision
2015-2040, includes the 5th Cycle Housing Element, which complied with the RHNA for the 2015 to 2023
planning period. Accordingly, the City is required to amend its General Plan 2040 with an updated 6th
Cycle Housing Element and any other corresponding General Plan elements and zoning code standards to
comply with the RHNA for the 2023 to 2031 planning period. The General Plan 2040 Land Use and
Community Design Element, Mobility Element, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Title 19, Zoning (Zoning
Code), of the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC), include standards for residential density and residential
zoning districts, and are therefore required to be updated at the same time to ensure internal consistency
in the General Plan 2040 and with Heart of the City Specific Plan and the Zoning Code.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 14, California Code of
Regulations, Section 15378(a), the proposed amendments to the General Plan 2040, Heart of the City
Specific Plan, and Zoning Code are considered a “project” subject to environmental review. Their
implementation is “an action [undertaken by a public agency], which has the potential for resulting in
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment.” Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65759, this Environmental
Assessment (EA) has been prepared to substantially conform to the required content for a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found in State CEQA Guidelines Article 9 (Section 15120 et seq.) to
identify the potentially significant environmental effects from the proposed amendments to the General
Plan 2040, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Zoning Code.
1 California Government Code Section 65300.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 APRIL 2024
The General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code, as amended and evaluated in the City’s certified General Plan
Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report and
the subsequent addenda to the EIR (General Plan EIR) are considered the “Approved Project” and the
proposed amendments that are the subject of this EA are considered the “proposed Modified Project.”
Because the proposed Modified Project amends the Approved Project, the City of Cupertino (City) has
determined that to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2),
this EA shall be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIR, and Section 15168,
Program EIR. Accordingly, this EA is a subsequent program-level analysis of the General Plan EIR.
This chapter describes the organization of this document, environmental procedures, type, and purpose
of this EA, summarizes the proposed Modified Project and its alternatives, identifies issues to be resolved
and areas of controversy, and summarizes impacts and mitigation from the analysis in Chapters 4.1
through 4.16 of this EA. For a complete description of the proposed Modified Project and alternatives to
the proposed Modified Project, see Chapter 3, Project Description, and Chapter 5, Alternatives to the
Proposed Modified Project, of this EA, respectively.
2.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This EA is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the EA document and process.
Chapter 2: Executive Summary. Summarizes environmental consequences that would result from
implementation of the proposed Modified Project, describes recommended mitigation measures, and
indicates the level of significance of environmental impacts with and without mitigation.
Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed Modified Project in detail, including the
characteristics, objectives, and the structural and technical elements of the proposed Modified
Project.
Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. Organized into 16 chapters corresponding to the environmental
resource categories identified in 2018 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, this
chapter provides a description of existing conditions, which provide a context that the City will use to
determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This
chapter provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project
and recommended mitigation measures, if required, to reduce the impacts to less than significant
where possible, and to reduce their magnitude or significance when impacts cannot be reduced to a
less-than-significant level. Each subchapter also includes a description of the thresholds used to
determine if a significant impact would occur, the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential
impacts of the proposed Modified Project, and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the
proposed Modified Project.
Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project. Considers alternatives to the proposed
Modified Project, including the CEQA-required “No Project Alternative” and “environmentally superior
alternative.”
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
Chapter 6: CEQA-Mandated Sections. Describes growth inducement, cumulative impacts, unavoidable
significant effects, and significant irreversible changes as a result of the proposed Modified Project.
Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were
contacted during the preparation of this EA for the proposed Modified Project.
Appendices: The appendices for this document include the following supporting documents:
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Appendix C: Tribal Consultation Correspondence
Appendix D: Noise Data
Appendix E: Transportation Analysis
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This EA has been prepared to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the
proposed Modified Project. The main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are:
To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed
activities.
To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures.
To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental
effects.
To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
To enhance public participation in the planning process.
As previously stated, this EA has been prepared to substantially conform to the required content for an EIR.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in the CEQA statute
and in the CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental
consequences of a proposed project to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective,
factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a
proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is
also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages
of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead
agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly
prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent
judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts
and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 if the proposed project would
result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. See Section 1.1, Environmental Assessment Purpose,
in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EA).
2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 APRIL 2024
2.4 TYPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS EA
According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to inform public agency
decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify
possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. As
described in the CEQA Guidelines, different types of EIRs are used for varying situations and intended
uses. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIR, and Section 15168, Program EIR, describe the
conditions for when the preparation of a subsequent EIR and program EIR are appropriate, respectively.
The RHNA for Cupertino’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and the associated buffer dwelling units could not
have been known at the time of General Plan EIR certification, and these allocations are in excess of the
number of dwelling units analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Further, the General Plan EIR did not evaluate
environmental topics added to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, for energy,
tribal cultural resources, vehicle miles traveled, and wildfire, after the certification of the General Plan EIR.
Accordingly, this EA has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(3)(A) and (B). Further,
because of the long-term planning horizon of the proposed Modified Project and the permitting,
planning, and development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of
contemplated actions for implementation, this EA has been prepared as a program-level evaluation of the
proposed Modified Project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. See Section 1.3, Environmental
Assessment Scope, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EA. Following the approval of the EA and the
proposed Modified Project, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine
whether additional CEQA review needs to be prepared. However, if the program evaluation addresses the
effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, subsequent activities could be found to be in the
program’s scope, and additional environmental review may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section
15168[c]). When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate
feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into the subsequent actions
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the
scope of a program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative
Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. For these subsequent environmental review
documents, this program EA and General Plan EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis. See
Section 1.5, Tiered Environmental Review, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EA.
2.5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project would replace the City’s existing 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023)
with the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031). It would also replace the corresponding Land Use and
Community Design Element, Mobility Element, sections of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and sections
of the Zoning Code to ensure consistency between the General Plan land use designations and zoning
districts. The 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) provides direction for implementation of various
programs to meet existing and projected future housing needs for all income levels in Cupertino. It
provides policies, programs, and strategies that support and create the framework for production,
preservation, and maintenance of the City’s housing stock for all income levels. In addition, the Housing
Element identifies specific sites appropriate for the development of multifamily housing. The proposed
Housing Element 2023-2031 has been prepared to ensure adequate, safe, and affordable housing
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
conditions and accommodate housing needs based on a comprehensive analysis of the City’s current and
projected demographic, economic, and housing characteristics and needs, including its identified RHNA
requirement. The City’s projected regional housing need for the 6th Cycle RHNA planning period (2023-
2031), as assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in accordance with State law, is
4,588 dwelling units.
The proposed Land Use and Community Design Element update would assign new levels of increased
housing density in Cupertino neighborhoods to be consistent with the updated Housing Element. The
update also includes minor policy language changes for consistency with the proposed Housing Element
update. The proposed Zoning Code update would replace corresponding sections of CMC Title 19, Zoning,
to ensure consistency between the General Plan land use designations to accommodate the required
RHNA and zoning districts. The proposed Zoning Code update includes site development standards to
ensure neighborhood compatibility and the provision of important amenities for current and new city
residents. Changes to City standards and regulations necessary to implement the actions of the proposed
Housing Element 2023-2031 are anticipated to include parcel-specific rezoning and may include targeted
updates to one or more City-adopted Specific Plans.
The proposed Mobility Element update would ensure consistency between the proposed Housing
Element and Zoning Code Amendments, including updates in State law guidance, by reducing vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) at both the city level and project level scales. This update would include policies and
strategies to mitigate transportation impacts associated with the implementation of the Housing Element,
including evaluation of new development pursuant to the City’s adopted Transportation Analysis
Guidelines, establishing VMT reduction frameworks for the city and future potential development
projects, and promoting existing transit and car share programs throughout the city.
The proposed Modified Project would update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to ensure consistency
between the proposed Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Zoning Code
amendments, including the Zoning Map. This would not include updates to design guidelines.
The City’s assigned RHNA of 4,588 dwelling units plus the 1,423 dwelling units for the buffer, which are
“back-up” sites that are identified for housing in the event an identified Housing Element site becomes
unavailable, total 6,016 dwelling units. The proposed Modified Project land use redesignations and
rezonings are only needed to meet a portion of the City’s assigned RHNA and buffer dwelling units. In
other words, under existing conditions (i.e., no changes to land use designations or zoning standards are
required), the City can currently accommodate 2,704 dwelling units. Therefore, this EA only evaluates the
proposed changes to the land use designation and zoning districts required to accommodate the
remainder of the dwelling units necessary to meet the RHNA and buffer dwelling units, which is 3,312 net
new dwelling units. Furthermore, because the buffer dwelling units are technically “back-up” sites, the
evaluation of these sites presents a conservative evaluation of impacts in this EA. See Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this EA for a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 APRIL 2024
2.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This EA analyzes alternatives to the proposed Modified Project that are designed to reduce the significant
environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project and feasibly attain most of the proposed
Modified Project objectives. There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining
the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior
alternative involves weighing and balancing all of the environmental resource areas by the City. The
following alternatives, which present a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, were
considered and the comparative merits of the alternatives were analyzed in detail.
Alternative A: No Project. Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, Alternative A
presents the No Project scenario. This alternative assumes the current General Plan 2040 and Zoning
Code requirements remain in effect and are not replaced by the proposed amendments to the
General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code would not be adopted. Under Alternative A, the City would not
implement the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 required to comply with State law, to
accommodate the lower-income RHNA units, including amendments to existing land use designations
and zoning districts. The City would also not update the Land Use and Community Design Element or
the Zoning Code.
Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with vehicle miles travelled as evaluated in the Chapter 4.14,
Transportation, of this EA. Alternative B would demonstrate increased compliance with Plan Bay Area
2050, the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) that
identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area, than the proposed Modified Project. Alternative B
assumes all the proposed amendments to the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code would occur. The
housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project would remain, but there would be
additional housing sites. These sites would include those that comply with the Affordable Housing and
High Road Jobs Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number, Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011), that
was adopted in August 2020. The intent of AB 2011 is to make affordable housing by right on
commercially zoned lands, and mixed-income housing by right along commercial corridors. This
alternative would focus increased residential density along Stevens Creek Boulevard and South De
Anza Boulevard, which are Priority Development Areas (PDA) and Transit Priority Areas (TPA) of Plan
Bay Area 2050. This would include an additional 18 sites totaling 987 additional units. As shown on
Figure 5-1, the majority of the additional housing sites would be within the boundaries of the high-
transit corridor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (922 additional dwelling units) and two additional sites
would be on South De Anza Boulevard (65 additional dwelling units). The alternatives analysis
assumes that all applicable mitigation measures and General Plan goals, policies, and strategies
recommended for the proposed Modified Project would apply to Alternative B. The potential
environmental impacts associated with Alternative B when compared to the proposed Modified
Project are described herein.
Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project, of this EA, includes a complete description of
these alternatives. As described in Chapter 5, Alternative B is the Environmentally Superior Alternative
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7
2.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The CEQA Guidelines require a summary that identifies areas of controversy known to the lead agency,
including issues raised by agencies and the public (CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2)); and issues to be
resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(3)).
2.7.1 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Based on the City’s review of available information and comments received from the public and public
agencies during the EIR scoping meeting and NOP public review period for the proposed Housing Element
(2023-2031), the following issues may either be controversial or require resolution. Though every concern
applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in this EA, this list is not necessarily exhaustive, but rather
attempts to capture concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received
during the planning and environmental review process.
Location of potential housing sites and those
on contaminated sites
Street traffic and congestion
Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution
Impacts to public services and recreation
Noise impacts
Nighttime lighting and aesthetic resources
Adequacy of electricity grid, water supply,
and other utilities
Consultation with Native American tribes
As stated, these issues have been considered in this EA, where applicable, in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16.
With respect to the proposed Modified Project, this EA evaluates the locations and potential impacts
associated with the additional dwelling units required to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing as
part of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031. The decision-making body (i.e., the City Council) will be
asked to select housing strategies for the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 that consider the values
and character of the Cupertino community while meeting the various State mandates that apply for the
City to meet its objective to gain certification of the Housing Element 2023-2031 in accordance with State
housing laws.
2.7.2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(3) requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the
choice among alternatives, and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the
Modified Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City, as lead agency, related to:
Whether this EA adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project.
Whether the benefits of the proposed project override environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly
avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.
Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the proposed project besides
those goals, policies, strategies, or mitigation measures identified in the EA.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-8 APRIL 2024
Whether there are any alternatives to the proposed project that would substantially lessen any of the
significant impacts of the proposed Modified Project and achieve most of the basic objectives.
2.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2 -1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the conclusions of the
environmental analysis in this EA and presents a summary of the identified significant impacts and the
proposed General Plan 2040 policies and strategies and the CEQA-required mitigation measures that
reduce impacts. As summarized in Table 2-1, and as required by CEQA, some impacts remain significant
and unavoidable after implementation of General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and consideration of
feasible mitigation. Table 2-1 is organized to correspond with the environmental issues in Chapters 4.1
through 4.16. Table 2-1 is arranged in four columns: (1) standard of significance question or impact
statement, (2) General Plan 2040 policies and strategies and required mitigation measures, (3) proposed
project policies and strategies and required mitigation measures, and (4) level of significance. For a
complete description of potential impacts, please refer to the specific descriptions in Chapters 4.1
through 4.16.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-9
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
AESTHETICS (AES)
AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic
vista.
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, LU-12.4, LU-13.7, and
RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
LTS
N/A N/A
AES-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a State
scenic highway.
Policies LU-6.1 and ES-5.3
Policies LU-6.1 and ES-5.3
Strategy LU-19.3.10.
LTS
N/A N/A
AES-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project in an urbanized area could conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
N/A Policies LU-3.5, LU-20.6 and LU-27.8
Strategy LU-3.5.1
LTS
N/A N/A
AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to aesthetic resources.
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, and ES-5.3
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, LU-12.4, LU-
13.7, LU-20.6, LU-27.8, ES-5.3, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, LU-13.7.5, and LU-
19.3.10
LTS
N/A N/A
AIR QUALITY (AIR)
AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would conflict with the growth assumptions
under Plan Bay Area 2040 that are applied to the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed Modified Project
would therefore conflict with the air quality emissions
forecast in the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Policy M-1.1
Strategy ES-4.1.3
Policy M-1.1
Strategies ES-4.1.1, ES- 4.1.3, and ES- 4.2.1
SU
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a: As part
of the City’s development approval process, the City
shall require applicants for future development
projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s basic control measures
for reducing construction emissions of PM10.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2b: As part
of the City’s development approval process the City
shall require applicants for future development
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-
2b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(A), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements Air Quality Permit Requirements,
therefore, compliance with the CMC is required to
mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-10 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
projects that could generate emissions in excess of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during
construction, as determined by project-level
environmental review, when applicable, to implement
the current BAAQMD construction mitigation
measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines) or any construction mitigation measures
subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD.
AIR-2: Operation of development projects that could
occur from implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would generate emissions that would exceed
Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s regional
significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable
particulate matter (PM2.5).
Policies ES-4.2 and ES- 4.3
Strategy ES-4.1.3
Policies ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, and ES-4.3
Strategies ES-4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES-
4.2.2, ES- 4.2.23, ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES-
4.3.2
SU
N/A N/A
AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, and M-9.3.2
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU-
24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and
ES- 4.1.1
SU
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4a:
Applicants for future non-residential land uses within
the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or
more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more
trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are
within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as
measured from the property line of the proposed
Project to the property line of the nearest sensitive
use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the
City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project
approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA
shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4a has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04.040(A), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Air Quality
Technical Requirements, therefore, compliance with
the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-11
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3
µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index
exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify
and demonstrate that Best Available Control
Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of
reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an
acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited
to:
Restricting idling on-site.
Electrifying warehousing docks.
Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation
of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as
mitigation measures in the environmental document
and/or incorporated into the site development plan as
a component of the proposed Project.
AIR-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.
Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3,
ES-4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5
Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-
4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5
LTS
N/A N/A
AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout
horizon of the proposed Modified Project could
generate a substantial increase in emissions that
exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s significance thresholds and cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations and
health risk in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, ES-
4.3and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES-
4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-4.2.4, and ES-
4.2.5
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU-
24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, ES-
4.3and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES-
4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES-4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3,
ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES-4.3.2
SU
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-
2a, AQ-2b, and AQ-4a
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-
2b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(A), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Air Quality Permit Requirements, and
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4a has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04.040(A), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Air Quality
Technical Requirements, therefore, compliance with
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-12 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO)
BIO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plan, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-
7.8
Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1: Nests of
raptors and other birds shall be protected when in
active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and
Game Code. If construction activities and any required
tree removal occur during the breeding season
(February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall
be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal
or construction activities. Preconstruction surveys are
not required for tree removal or construction
activities outside the nesting period. If construction
would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to
August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be
conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of
tree removal or construction. Preconstruction surveys
shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until
construction has been initiated in the area after which
surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests
containing viable eggs or young birds shall be
documented and protective measures implemented
under the direction of the qualified biologist until the
nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.
Protective measures shall include establishment of
clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e. demarcated by
identifiable fencing, such as orange construction
fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as
determined by a qualified biologist, taking into
account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance
for disturbance and proximity to existing
development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a
minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04050(D), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Biological
Resources Permit Requirements, therefore, compliance
with the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-13
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
passerines and other birds. The active nest within an
exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis
throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of
an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be
adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones
may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in
consultation with California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in
effect until the young have left the nest and are
foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
BIO-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
BIO-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
BIO-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
Strategy ES-5.3.1 Strategy ES-5.3.1 LTS
N/A N/A
BIO-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-
7.8
Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-14 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
BIO-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to biological resources.
Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-
7.8
Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04050(D), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Biological
Resources Permit Requirements, therefore, compliance
with the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)
CUL-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6
Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6
LTS
N/A N/A
CUL-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
CUL-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined
in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American Tribe, and that is: (i) Listed
or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-15
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). In applying
the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section
5024.1(c) for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance to a California
Native American tribe.
CUL-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to cultural and tribal cultural
resources.
Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6
Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6
LTS
N/A N/A
ENERGY (ENE)
ENE-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation.
N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M-
8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-
6.2, and INF-6.3
Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE-
4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10,
ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF-
6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
ENE-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
ENE-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a substantial increase in
natural gas and electrical service demands, and would
not require new energy supply facilities and
distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing
alterations to existing facilities.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-16 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
ENE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to energy resources.
N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M-
8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-
6.2, and INF-6.3
Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE-
4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10,
ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF-
6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (GEO)
GEO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
i) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
ii) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.
Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-
5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-
5.2.5
Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-
5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-
5.2.5
LTS
N/A N/A
GEO-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil.
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, and ES-7.5
Strategy ES-7.2.3,
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, and ES-7.5
Strategies LU-12.3.1 and ES-7.2.3
LTS
N/A
GEO-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-17
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
GEO-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on expansive soil, as
defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property.
Policies HS-1.1, HS-5.1, and HS-5.2 Policies HS-1.1, HS-5.1, and HS-5.2 LTS
N/A N/A
GEO-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
GEO-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GEO-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact to geology and soils.
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS-
5.2
Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-
5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3,
HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS-
5.2
Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-
5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3,
HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
LTS
N/A N/A
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (GHG)
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would exceed the net zero greenhouse gas
emission threshold under Executive Order B-55-18.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M-
1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2,
ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-
1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4,
ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M-
1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-4.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1,
ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-
8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1,
ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6,
ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
SU
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-18 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
GHG-2: The proposed Modified Project would not meet
California Green Building Standards Code
nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle parking
standards and would exceed the City of Cupertino’s
vehicle miles traveled reduction threshold, and
therefore be inconsistent with the California Air
Resources Board Scoping Plan.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE-
4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, ES-1.1, ES-1.2,
ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-
1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.6,
ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE-
4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, ES-1.1, ES-1.2,
ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-
8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1,
ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6,
ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
SU
N/A EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Future development
projects in the City of Cupertino shall comply with the
voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards
under the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications and shall illustrate compliance with
Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards on
the site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department. Additionally, the City of
Cupertino shall amend the Chapter 17.04, Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) to require that new
parking amenities included in individual development
projects install electric vehicle spaces in compliance
with the voluntary Tier 2 standards under the
CALGreen version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications. The amended CMC shall require
that all site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department shall illustrate compliance with
Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards.
GHG-3: The proposed Modified Project would result in
vehicle miles traveled that would exceed the City of
Cupertino’s reduction target, and therefore conflict
with the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
and Executive Order B-55-18.
N/A N/A SU
N/A Implement EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-19
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (HAZ)
HAZ-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25
miles of an existing or proposed school.
N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-
4a and HAZ-4b.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz-
4b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section
17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.
HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on a site that is included
on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a:
Construction at the sites with known contamination
shall be conducted under a project-specific
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is
prepared in consultation with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The purpose of the
ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general
public, the environment, and future site occupants
from subsurface hazardous materials previously
identified at the site and to address the possibility of
encountering unknown contamination or hazards in
the subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and
groundwater analytical data collected on the project
site during past investigations; identify management
options for excavated soil and groundwater, if
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz-
4b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section
17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-20 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
contaminated media are encountered during deep
excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or
other wells requiring proper abandonment in
compliance with local, State, and federal laws,
policies, and regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying,
testing, and managing soil and groundwater
suspected of or known to contain hazardous
materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of
soil and groundwater during project excavation and
dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe
required worker health and safety provisions for all
workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and federal worker safety
regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible
for implementation of the ESMP.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b: For
those sites with potential residual contamination in
soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for
redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a
vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a
licensed environmental professional. If the results of
the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential
for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied
building, project design shall include vapor controls or
source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with
regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor
mitigations or controls could include passive venting,
and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment
and associated vapor controls or source removal can
be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure
HAZ-4a).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-21
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HAZ-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, for a project within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-7.1, and
HS-7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-7.1, and HS-
7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, and HS-3.5 Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, and HS-3.5 LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-8: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4,
HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS-
7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4,
HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS-
7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
LTS
Implement General Plan Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a:
and HAZ-4b.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz-
4b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section
17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (HYD)
HYD-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-5.3.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.3.2, and ES-7.4.1
Policies ES-5.1, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-
7.4, ES-7.5, ES-7.6, and ES-7.8
Strategies ES-5.1.1, ES-5.1.2, ES-5.2.1, ES-5.3.2, ES-
5.6.1, ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-7.3.1,
ES-7.3.2, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-22 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HYD-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.
N/A Policies ES-7.5 and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-7.2.3
LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows
Policies INF-1.2 and INF-4.1
Strategy INF-1.1.3
Policies INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-4.1, and
INF-4.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-4.1.1, INF-4.1.2, INF-4.1.3, and
INF-4.2.1
LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation.
Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, and HS-7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS-1.2.2, and HS-7.2.2
Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, HS-7.1, HS-7.2, HS-7.3, and HS-
7.4
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS-
1.2.2, HS-7.2.1, HS-7.2.2, HS-7.4.1, HS-7.4.2, HS-7.4.3
LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to hydrology and water quality.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-23
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
LAND USE AND PLANNING (LU)
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not physically divide an established
community.
Policies LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU-27.1, LU-27.7,
M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU-
27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2
Policies LU-4.1, LU-13.1, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU-
27.1, LU-27.7, M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU-
27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2
LTS
N/A N/A
LU-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
Policies LU-1.6 and ES-1.2 Policies LU-1.6 and ES-1.2 LTS
N/A N/A
LU-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to land use and planning.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
NOISE (NOI)
NOI-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not generate a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other
applicable local, state, or federal standard.
Policies LU-27.8, HS-8.1, HS-8.3, HS-8.4, HS-8.5, HS-
8.6, and HS-8.7
Strategies HS-8.2.2, HS-8.2.3, and HS-8.6.1
Policies LU-27.8, HS-8.1, HS-8.3, HS-8.4, HS-8.5, HS-8.6,
and HS-8.7
Strategies HS-8.2.2, HS-8.2.3, and HS-8.6.1
LTS
N/A N/A
NOI-2: Generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
N/A Policies LU-27.8 and HS-8.1 LTS
N/A N/A
NOI-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not for a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan,
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
NOI-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to noise.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-24 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
POPULATION AND HOUSING (POP)
POP-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not induce substantial unplanned
population growth or growth for which inadequate
planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure.
Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-
27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1,
HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1,
M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC-
2.4
Strategies LU-1.4.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU-
27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF-
1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2
Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-
27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1,
HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1,
M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC-
2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU-
27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF-
1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2
LTS
N/A N/A
POP-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
POP-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to population and housing.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION (PS)
PS-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered fire protection and emergency medical
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives.
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7,
and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7,
and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with
respect to fire protection services.?
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7,
and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7,
and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered police protection facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives.
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-25
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with
respect to police protection services.
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered public school facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives.
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulatively
considerable impact with respect to public school
services.
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered public libraries, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives.
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with
respect to the construction of other public libraries.
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-9: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered park facilities or other recreational facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, or other performance
objectives.
Policies RPC-1.2 and RPC-2.4
Strategy HE-3.3.5
Policies RPC-1.2 and RPC-2.4
Strategy HE-2.3.9 and HE-3.3.5
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-10: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur, or be accelerated.
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, and RPC-5.1
Strategies RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, and RPC-5.1
Strategies RPC-1.1.1 and RPC-2.5.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-26 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to parks.
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, RPC-1.2, RPC-2.4, and RPC-
5.1
Strategies HE-3.3.5, RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, RPC-1.2, RPC-2.4, and RPC-5.1
Strategies HE-3.3.5, RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
LTS
N/A N/A
TRANSPORTATION (TRANS)
TRANS-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-
3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, and M-9.2
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and ES-2.1.9
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.1, M-3.2, M-3.3, M3-
4, M-3.5, M-3.6, M3.7, M-3.8, M-4.1, M-4.2, M-4.3, M-
4.4, M-4.5, M-4.6, M-4.7, M-4.8, M-5.1, M-7.1, M-8.1,
M-8.2, M-9.2, M-10.1, M-10.3, and ES-1.2.
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1,
M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, M-8.2.4, M-9.3.2, ES-1.2.1, and ES-
2.1.9
LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was
required for impacts related to level of service (LOS),
which is no longer a threshold under CEQA.
N/A
TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would exceed the adopted Cupertino vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) threshold per service population
of 31.30 VMT by 3.5 VMT per service population, due
to forecasted growth through 2040.
N/A Policies M-8.1, M-8.2, and M-8.3
Strategies M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2,
M-8.2.3, and M-8.2.4
SU
N/A N/A
TRANS-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).
Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M-
3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M-
3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
LTS
N/A N/A
TRANS-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in inadequate emergency
access.
Policies HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5,
HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Strategies HS-3.3.2 and HS-3.3.3
Policies HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5,
HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Strategies HS-3.3.2 and HS-3.3.3
LTS
N/A N/A
TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would cumulatively contribute to regional
vehicle miles traveled.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-
3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-9.2, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-
3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-3.6, M-
4.4, M-4.8, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-8.2, M-9.2, ES-1.2, HS-2.2,
HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-
SU
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-27
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3, HS-
8.7.2, and ES-2.1.9
7.1
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1,
M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, M-8.2.4 M-9.3.2, HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3,
HS-8.7.2, ES-1.2.1, and ES-2.1.9
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was
required for impacts related to level of service (LOS),
which is no longer a threshold under CEQA.
N/A
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (UTIL)
UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would have insufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years.
Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11,
INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and
INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES-
3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2,
ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF-
2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction
of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects.
Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11,
INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and
INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES-
3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2,
ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF-
2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to water services.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction
of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-
5.1, and INF-5.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-5.1.1, and INF-5.1.2
LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-28 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
cause significant environmental effects. N/A N/A
UTIL-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in the determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-
5.1, and INF-5.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-5.1.1, and INF-5.1.2
LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a: The City
shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to
increase the available citywide treatment and
transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per
day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying
reduced wastewater generation rates are approved
by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b: The City
shall work to establish a system in which a
development monitoring and tracking system to
tabulate cumulative increases in projected
wastewater generation from approved projects for
comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District’s
treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and
implemented. If it is anticipated that with approval of
a development project the actual system discharge
would exceed the contractual treatment threshold, no
building permits for such project shall be issued prior
to increasing the available citywide contractual
treatment and transmission capacity as described in
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c: The City
shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to
prepare a study to determine a more current estimate
of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the
actual development to be constructed as part of
Project implementation. The study could include
determining how the green/LEED certified buildings in
the City reduce wastewater demands.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b,
and UTIL-6c, have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(I)(1), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Manage Wastewater Inflow and
Infiltration to Sewer System, therefore, compliance the
CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-29
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to wastewater services.
N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a,
UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b,
and UTIL-6c, have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(I)(1), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Manage Wastewater Inflow and
Infiltration to Sewer System, therefore, compliance
with this section of the CMC is required to mitigate
impacts.
UTIL-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction
of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects.
Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-
7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-8 : Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to stormwater.
Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-
7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals.
N/A Policies INF-7.1, INF-7.2, INF-7.3, INF-7.4, and INF-8.1
Strategies INF-7.3.1, INF-8.1.1, INF-8.1.2, INF-8.1.3,
INF-8.1.4, INF-8.1.5, INF-8.1.6, and INF-8.1.7
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-10: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would comply with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
N/A N/A LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures UTIL-8: The City
shall continue its current recycling ordinances and
zero-waste policies in an effort to further increase its
diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate. In
addition, the City shall monitor solid waste generation
volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill
sites to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to
accommodate future growth. The City shall seek new
landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby
Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are
closed.
N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-30 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to solid waste.
N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-
8.
N/A
UTIL-12: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which would cause
significant environmental effects.
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES-
2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF-
6.3
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1,
ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF-
6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-13: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a
cumulatively considerable impact to electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES-
2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF-
6.3
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1,
ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF-
6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
WILDFIRE (FIRE)
FIRE-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
N/A Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.4, HS-3.5,
and HS-3.6
Strategies HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3, HS-3.3.4, and HS-3.4.2
LTS
N/A N/A
FIRE-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire.
N/A Policies HS-1.1, HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.5, and HS-3.7
Strategies HS-1.1.1 and HS-1.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
FIRE-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) but would not exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 2-31
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
FIRE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes.
N/A Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.5, and HS-7.5
Strategies ES-7.3.1 and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
FIRE-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to wildfire.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
2-32 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 3-1
3. Project Description
This chapter describes the proposed amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan 2040 (General
Plan 2040), also known as Community Vision 2015-2040, and the Zoning Code. As described in Chapter 1,
Introduction, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code, as amended
and evaluated in the City’s certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated
Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) and the subsequent addenda are
considered the “Approved Project” and the proposed amendments that are the subject of this EA are
considered the proposed “Modified Project.” Accordingly, the City of Cupertino (City) has determined that
to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2), this EA shall be
prepared as a subsequent program-level analysis General Plan EIR pursuant to pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIR, and Section 15168, Program
EIR.
The proposed Modified Project specifically addresses the changes that have occurred to the Housing
Element as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 -2031) and the associated amendments to
the Land Use and Community Design Element and Mobility Element for internal (or horizontal)
consistency 1 and the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Title 19, Zoning, for consistency with the General
Plan, known as vertical consistency.2 This EA provides a program-level analysis of whether the changes
resulting from the approval and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in new
significant impacts when compared to the certified General Plan EIR. The potential buildout of the city of
Cupertino evaluated in this EA is described in Section 3.8, Buildout Projections.
This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project, including the location,
setting, and characteristics of the environmental study area, as well as the project objectives, the project
components, and required permits and approvals. The City is the lead agency for the environmental
review of the proposed Modified Project.
3.1 BACKGROUND
Every city and county in California is required to have an adopted comprehensive long-range general plan
for the physical development of the county or city and, in some cases, land outside the city or county
boundaries.3 It is the community’s overarching policy document that defines a vision for future change
and sets the “ground rules” for locating and designing new projects that enhance the character of the
community, expanding the local economy, conserving and preserving environmental resources, improving
public services and safety, minimizing hazards, and fostering community health. The General Plan, which
includes a vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and strategies, functions as the City’s primary land use
1 Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal consistency).
2 Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency).
3 California Government Code Section 65300.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2
regulatory tool. It provides a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects
are in harmony with General Plan policies. It is the constitution for future change in Cupertino.
Pursuant to State law, a general plan must contain eight mandated elements: land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, environmental justice, and safety. Typically, general plans cover
a time frame or forecast of 15 to 20 years. However, general plan housing elements are required to be
updated every eight years to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
State law requires consistency between and within general plan elements.4 The City’s General Plan Land
Use Map is integrated with the City’s Zoning Map, which shows the parcel-specific delineation of the
zoning districts throughout the city and depicts permitted and conditionally permitted uses. A parcel’s
zoning district stems directly from its General Plan land use designation, with the zoning district acting to
implement the General Plan by refining the specific uses and development standards for that parcel. State
law requires that the zoning ordinance be consistent with the General Plan.5
The General Plan 2040 was adopted in December 2014 and included a horizon year of 2040. Since 2015,
several amendments to the General Plan have occurred. These are shown in Table 3-1, Amendments to
the General Plan 2040.
TABLE 3-1 AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN 2040
Date Changes
October 20, 2015 a
Minor editorial changes and figure revisions were made to Chapter 1, Introduction, Chapter 2, Planning
Areas, Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design, Chapter 5, Mobility, Chapter 6, Environmental
Resources and Sustainability, Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Chapter 8, Infrastructure, and Chapter 9,
Recreation Parks and Community Service, Appendix A, Land Use Definitions, and Appendix D,
Community Noise Fundamentals. The General Plan Land Use Map was changed to designate a property
at 10950 North Blaney Avenue from Industrial/Residential to Industrial/Commercial/Residential. In
addition, the name of the General Plan, “Community Vision 2040,” was changed to “General Plan
(Community Vision 2015–2040).”
July 16, 2019 b
General Plan Table LU-1, Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, was updated to
increase the buildout of hotel rooms in the North Vallco Special Area from 123 to 308 and citywide
from 1,429 to 1,614. Table LU-1 was also updated to show an additional 185 hotel rooms available in
North Vallco Special Area and 498 hotel rooms available citywide.
August 20, 2019 a
The General Plan was updated to remove Office land use as a permitted use from the Vallco Shopping
District Special Area and remove associated Office land use allocations. This amendment also included
changes to the General Plan Land Use Map (Appendix A) to establish a height limit of 60 feet, a
minimum residential density of 29.7 dwelling units per acre on approximately 13 acres, and prohibit
residential uses as a permitted use in the Regional Shopping land use designation.
March 3, 2020 c
General Plan Table LU-1, Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, was updated to
increase the buildout of hotel rooms in the Homestead Special Area from 126 to 281 and citywide from
1,614 to 1,769 to accommodate a hotel in the North Vallco Special Area. Table LU-1 was also updated
to show an additional 155 hotel rooms available in the Homestead Special Area and 653 hotel rooms
available citywide. Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, was updated to increase the maximum
height for the De Anza Hotel project site from 45 to 85 feet and allow a change to the required setback
to height ratio (slope line) along North De Anza Boulevard for the De Anza Hotel project site from the
required 1:1 (Figure LU-4, Vallco Shopping District Allowable Land Uses, of the General Plan).
4 California Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal consistency).
5 California Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 3-1 AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN 2040
Date Changes
October 22, 2021 a
General Plan Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Figure LU-2, Community Form
Diagram, were modified for clarification, and text edits to Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and
Sustainability Element, were made for emphasis. Changes were made to Policy LU-1.1, Land Use and
Transportation, to clarify that Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, indicates the maximum
residential densities for sites that allow residential land uses. The Heart of the City Special Area
description was changed to clarify that Goal LU-13 will apply throughout the entire Special Area; while
more specific goals, policies, and strategies for each subarea are designed to address their individual
settings and characteristics and are identified in Goals LU-14 through LU-18. In addition, Figure LU-2
included text clarifications and corrections. Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability
Element, included a revision to Strategy ES-6.1.1, Public Participation, to change “encourage” to
“strongly encourage” Santa Clara County to engage with the affected neighborhoods when considering
changes to restoration plans and mineral extraction activity.
Notes:
a. An addendum to the General Plan EIR was approved for the General Plan Amendment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
b. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2018112025, was approved for the Village Hotel project.
c. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2019079010, was approved for the De Anza Hotel project.
Source: City of Cupertino. “Archived General Plans.” https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/general-
plan/general-plan/archived-general-plans.
3.2 OVERVIEW
The General Plan’s Housing Element provides direction for implementation of various programs to meet
existing and projected future housing needs for all income levels within Cupertino. It provides policies,
programs, and strategies that support and create the framework for production, preservation, and
maintenance of the City’s housing stock for all income levels. The Housing Element is based on the RHNA
for that planning period. The current Housing Element was prepared for the 5th Cycle planning period,
which is 2015 to 2023, and included a RHNA of 1,064 dwelling units. The proposed update to the Housing
Element is being prepared for the 6th Cycle planning period, which is 2023 to 2031 and includes a RHNA
of 4,588 dwelling units.
In updating the Housing Element, some policies in the Land Use and Community Design Element,
Cupertino Land Use Map, and Mobility Element, also need to be updated to ensure General Plan internal
consistency.
As required by State Housing Law, the City must specify the number of dwelling units that can realistically
be accommodated on each housing site and identify whether the housing site is adequate to
accommodate lower-income housing in accordance with existing regulations or if future implementation
actions could accommodate these lower-income dwelling units by amending the General Plan land use
designation and applicable zoning for selected housing sites. Therefore, in conjunction with these General
Plan amendments, Title 19, Zoning, of the CMC would be amended to be consistent with the proposed
changes to the General Plan.
The proposed Modified Project is described in detail in Section 3.7.1, General Plan 2040 Amendments,
Section 3.7.3, Zoning Code Amendments, and Section 3.8, Buildout Projections.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4
3.3 LOCATION AND SETTING
Cupertino is a suburban city of 10.9 square miles on the southern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula,
in Santa Clara County. The city is approximately 36 miles southeast of downtown San Francisco and 8
miles west of downtown San José. As shown on Figure 3-1, Regional and Vicinity Map, the cities of Los
Altos and Sunnyvale are adjacent to the northern city limit, while the cities of Santa Clara and San José lie
to the east, and Saratoga lies to the south of Cupertino. Unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County form
the western and portions of the southern limit of the city.
The city is accessed by Interstate 280 (I-280), which functions as a major east to west regional connector
and State Route 85 (SR-85), which functions as the main north to south regional connector. Cupertino is
served by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and has eight bus routes that include
frequent, local, and express routes operating throughout various locations in the city, including several
stops along De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard.6 The VTA bus system provides local and
regional transportation to the greater Silicon Valley, including San José and Sunnyvale. In addition, VTA has
built a Bus Rapid Transit line along Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is a major east to west arterial
connector in the city.7 Cupertino is also served by the Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-based ride-
sharing program that provides transportation anywhere inside the city and also connects to the Sunnyvale
Caltrain station.8 Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years.
3.4 STUDY AREA
The environmental study area for this EA is the same as that of the General Plan EIR and includes all the
lands within the city’s urban service area, the sphere of influence (SOI), and the city limit. The urban
service area is predominantly coterminous with the current city limit; however, the SOI area extends
beyond these boundaries. These locations are shown on Figure 3-2, Study Area.
3.5 PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY
The proposed updates to the Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, Mobility
Element, and the Zoning Code involved public outreach efforts. The planning process began in October
2021 with the proposed Housing Element when the first community workshop was held to inform the
public about the update and collect input from the community and the location and type of housing that
is best suited for Cupertino. Throughout the preparation for the public draft of the Housing Element, nine
community workshops and meetings were held both in person and virtually. These events were given in a
variety of formats, some centered around a panel of individuals while others were informal “pop-up”
events.
6 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2023, February 17 (accessed). Bus Routes, https://www.vta.org/go/routes.
7 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2023, February 17 (accessed). Route 523,
https://www.vta.org/go/routes/rapid-523.
8 Via-Cupertino Shuttle, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/transportation-
mobility/community-shuttle, accessed on February 17, 2023.
Stevens Creek
County Park
Rancho San
Antonio OSP
Fremont
Older OSP
Picchetti
Ranch
OSP
Monte
Bello OSP
Saratoga
Gap OSP
StevensCreekReservoir
M
i
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
H
o
l
l
e
n
b
e
c
k
A
v
e
Payne Ave
S
Bernardo
Ave
W Campbell A v e
Doyle Rd
Pie r c eRd
JohnsonAve
S
Mary
Av
e
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mccoy Ave
Q
u
i
t
o
R
d
E Homestead Rd
S
Blaney
Ave
Bollinger Rd
S
De
Anza
Blvd
Home
s
t
e
a
d
R
d
Cox Ave
Hamilton Ave
Pomeroy
Ave
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
Expy
N
S
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
R
d
Prospect Rd
W Homestead Rd
Williams Rd
Benton S t
K
i
e
l
y
B
l
v
d
Lawrence
Ex
p
y
Mcclellan Rd
S
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
Pruneridge Ave
N
De
Anza
Blvd
B
u
b
b
R
d
N
Wolfe
Rd
N
Blaney
A
ve
Moorpark Ave
S arato g a A ve
S
S
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
R
d
San
Tomas
E
x
p
y
Stevens C a nyonRd
280
85
Saratoga
Los Altos
Hills Los Altos
Cupertino
Loyola
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Campbell
San Jose
Figure 3-1
Regional and Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SanFranciscoBay
PacificOcean
(/101
880
680280
9
87
237
114
17
85
236
13082
35
84
1
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SAN MATEO
COUNTY SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
County Boundaries
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
Stevens Creek
County Park
Rancho San
Antonio OSP
Fremont
Older OSP
Picchetti
Ranch
OSP
Monte
Bello OSP
Saratoga
Gap OSP
StevensCreekReservoir
M
i
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
Homestea d R d
H
o
l
l
e
n
b
e
c
k
A
v
e
Payne Ave
S
Bernardo
Ave
Doyle Rd
JohnsonAve
S
S
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
R
d
S
Mary
Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mccoy Ave
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
A
v
e
E Homestead Rd
Bollinger Rd
S
De
Anza
Blvd
Pruneridge Ave
Cox Ave
Williams Rd
Benton St
Moorpark Ave
H a m i lton Ave
Pomeroy
Ave
F
o
othill
E
x
p
y
N
S
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
R
d
Prospect Rd
W Homestead Rd
Lawrence
E
x
p
y
Kiely
Blvd
S
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
Q
u
i
t
o
R
d
Mcclellan Rd
N
Fo
ot
h
i
l
l
Blvd
P i e rce
Rd
N
De
Anza
Blvd
B
u
b
b
R
d
N
Wolfe
Rd
N
Bla
n
ey
Ave
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Rd
M
ountE d e
nRd
Stevens C a n yonRd
280
85
HOMESTEAD VILLA
NEIGHBORHOOD
JOLLYMAN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GARDEN GATE
NEIGHBORHOOD
NORTH BLANEY
NEIGHBORHOOD
RANCHO
RINCONADA
NEIGHBORHOOD
SOUTH BLANEY
NEIGHBORHOOD
FAIR GROVE
NEIGHBORHOOD
CRESTON-PHARLAP
NEIGHBORHOOD
OAK VALLEY
NEIGHBORHOOD
MONTA VISTA
SOUTH
NEIGHBORHOOD
INSPIRATION
HEIGHTS
NEIGHBORHOOD
MONTA VISTA
NORTH
NEIGHBORHOOD
Figure 3-2
Study Area
Source: ESRI, 2022; ABAG, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
City Limit
Study Area
Sphere of Influence
Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
In addition to public outreach events, there were 14 Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City
Council meetings. Meetings were also held with Project Sentinel Executive Director, Carole Conn, and Fair
Housing director, Molly Current, to describe fair housing and rental housing issues in Cupertino and
countywide. A dedicated affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) outreach was also done as part of
this process. The City released two sets of e-newsletters, the first set was to 685 email subscribers, and
the second was sent to 1,856 subscribers with a 58 percent open rate and a 5 percent click rate. Social
media outreach included Facebook, Nextdoor, Twitter, and electronic notification. The two posts that
were made for the proposed Housing Element had a combined reach of 20,758 people and a combined
engagement of 742 people. Mailed outreach through The Cupertino Scene, which is the City’s official
newsletter, was used twice and went out to 23,351 addresses each time. Surveys were also conducted
multiple times throughout the process. The City maintains a website for the proposed Housing Element
at: https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housingelement
The website offers opportunities for the public to weigh in on key issues and download information about
the project. A complete description of the public outreach process for the proposed Housing Element
2021-2031 is available on this website.
Following the preparation of the public draft Housing Element, the City engaged in additional outreach
efforts for the Zoning Code updates. These activities included an in-person community open house on
September 9, 2023, and a virtual community open house on September 14, 2023.
3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary purpose of the proposed Modified Project is to update the State-mandated Housing Element
of the 2040 General Plan for the 6th Cycle planning period (2023-2031) to ensure adequate, safe, and
affordable housing conditions in Cupertino and to update the other relevant General Plan elements and
Zoning Code for consistency with the updated Housing Element. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15124, the following project objectives support the proposed Modified Project ’s purpose and assist the
City, as the lead agency, in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EA.
Update the General Plan’s Housing Element to comply with State-mandated housing requirements
and to address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing in the city
between 2023 and 2031.
Include an adequate inventory of housing sites and rezone the sites as necessary to meet the required
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and to provide an appropriate buffer.
To affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).
Incentivize the development of housing, particularly affordable housing, suited to special needs and
all income levels.
Promote a healthy and sustainable Cupertino through support of housing at all income levels that
minimizes reliance on natural resources and automobile use.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8
Update the City’s Zoning Code and Land Use and Community Design General Plan Element to be
consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal
consistency) and Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency), respectively.
Update the City’s General Plan Mobility Element to minimize environmental impacts associated with
implementation of the Housing Element and be consistent with updated State law and guidance for
vehicle miles traveled.
Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to be consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to
Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency).
3.7 PROJECT COMPONENTS
3.7.1 GENERAL PLAN 2040 AMENDMENTS
The proposed Modified Project includes amendments to the General Plan 2040 Housing Element, Land
Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element. Chapter 2, Planning Areas, would also be
updated for internal consistency. Each element contains background information and a series of goals,
policies, and strategies, which would address, among other things, the maintenance, preservation,
improvement, and development of housing in the city. The following provides a description of goals,
policies, and strategies and explains the relationship between them:
A goal is a broad statement of values or aspirations needed to achieve the vision of the General Plan.
It is a description of the general desired result that the City seeks to create through the
implementation of its General Plan.
A policy is a more precise statement that guides the actions of City staff, developers, and policy
makers necessary to achieve the goal. A policy is ongoing and requires no further implementation.
Policies regulate activities in the city and set out the standards that will be used by City staff and the
other decision makers in their review of land development projects and in decision making about City
actions.
A strategy is a specific task that the City will undertake to implement the policy and work toward
achieving the goals. Implementation of the strategies is intended to help reach a specified goal. The
City must take additional steps to implement each strategy in the General Plan. A strategy is
something that can and will be completed.
Policies and strategies are at the same level of importance and are both intended to support goals. In
most cases, goals have both policies and strategies. The following describes the changes to the Housing
Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element.
3.7.1.1 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
State law requires that all cities and counties in California have a compliant housing element. The housing
element must analyze housing needs, evaluate factors that could potentially constrain housing production,
and identify sites for new residential development. Each city and county must submit their housing
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and
certification to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements under State law. Cupertino’s current
Housing Element was adopted in 2015. The planning period covered by that Housing Element was 2015
through 2023. State law requires that the City’s next Housing Element be adopted in 2023 and cover the
period from 2023 through 2031. State requirements for housing elements have expanded considerably in
the last eight years. The focus of prior housing elements was on housing conservation and the creation of
new housing opportunities. While housing production is still the central focus, there is a much greater
emphasis on equity, fair housing, and meeting the needs of lower-income households and people with
special needs. Cities and counties have been asked to plan for much larger quantities of housing and
provide substantially more detail on potential housing sites. Requirements for community engagement
and outreach to under-represented populations have also been expanded. Cities and counties must
demonstrate that their policies and strategies are affirmatively furthering fair housing and directly
addressing the factors that have resulted in segregation and concentrated poverty around the state.
The proposed Modified Project includes a housing sites inventory with sufficient existing and new housing
sites at appropriate densities to meet the City’s fair share of housing for the region (i.e., required RHNA)
plus an ample buffer (backup sites for housing).
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 process started with the State determining the total need for
housing in each region of California over an eight-year period. These estimates are broken down by
income categories, with households categorized as very low-income, low-income, moderate-income, or
above moderate-income. Regional councils of government across California are responsible for allocating
their region’s housing needs to individual cities and counties (i.e., RHNA). In the nine-county San Francisco
Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the RHNA and tasked with
determining each county and city’s fair share of the regional total. This determination is made using a
formula that considers population size, employment, proximity to transit, and access to high-quality
resources, such as schools, health care, parks, and services. The total 2023 -2031 RHNA for all counties
and municipalities in the Bay Area is 441,176 dwelling units. Cupertino received an allocation of 4,588
dwelling units to meet their fair share of housing for the region. The breakdown of dwelling units pursuant
to income category is shown in Table 3-2, Cupertino Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031. To
have a substantially compliant 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City is required to demonstrate that it has
the realistic capacity to produce 4,588 dwelling units by 2031.
TABLE 3-2 CUPERTINO REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION 2023-2031
Income Category Income Range a Dwelling Units
Very Low b <$93,200 1,193
Low $93,200 to $149,100 687
Moderate $149,100 to $199,200 755
Above Moderate >$199,200 1,953
Total Units 4,588
Notes:
a. Income range is for a household of four residents.
b. It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income category (596 units) is allocated to the extremely low-income category.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2021; California Department of Housing and Community Development Income Levels, 2022.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10
In addition to the required RHNA, the City is required to identify a buffer of dwelling units because of the
Housing Accountability Act’s “no net loss” provisions. California State Senate Bill 166 (adopted in 2017)
enacted Government Code Section 65589.5 requires that the land inventory and site identification
programs in the Housing Element always include sufficient sites to accommodate unmet RHNA. The buffer
is necessary to ensure that if one or more of the identified housing sites are developed at lower densities
than projected, or with non-housing uses, there is remaining capacity elsewhere in the city to provide an
ongoing supply of sites for housing at the remaining income levels during the eight-year planning
period/cycle of the Housing Element. While there is no specific number of buffer dwelling units, HCD
recommends a buffer of 10 to 30 percent of the assigned RHNA.
While State law requires the Housing Element to include an inventory of housing sites and requires the
City to appropriately zone sites to meet its RHNA, the City is not responsible for sponsoring projects or
generating the housing itself. Future development would be at the discretion of individual property
owners, would largely be dependent on market forces, and in the case of affordable housing, available
funding and/or other incentives. However, the number of dwelling units permitted annually (by income
category) will be used as a metric to evaluate the success of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031
and the need for additional City-led programs to come closer to the targets.
Housing Site Inventory
To comply with Housing Law,9 the City must specify the number of dwelling units that can be
accommodated on each housing opportunity site and identify whether the site is adequate to
accommodate lower-income housing in accordance with existing regulations or if future implementation
actions are needed. To assess options to meet the RHNA for Cupertino, the City compiled an inventory of
pipeline projects, estimated a reasonably foreseeable amount of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and
identified housing opportunity sites that when combined would have the potential to accommodate the
City’s RHNA plus the HCD-recommended buffer (“back-up” sites). Collectively, pipeline projects, estimated
ADUs, and housing opportunity sites, would be used to meet the City’s RHNA plus the buffer. The housing
inventory sites for the proposed Housing Element are described in the following sections.
Pipeline Projects
The City identified nine sites, listed in Table 3-3, Pipeline Projects, that are currently in the permitting or
construction process and account for 2,119 dwelling units to meet the RHNA. Pipeline projects are those
that have the highest likelihood of being constructed within the eight-year Housing Element cycle. These
projects have received planning entitlements, so that the primary permit needed prior to construction is a
building permit.10 Some of these sites have already received building permits. These sites count towards
the RHNA but are not evaluated as net new housing in this EA.
9 California Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8
10 Engage Cupertino, 2023, February 23 (accessed). Housing Site Information, https://engagecupertino.org/available-
housing-sites.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 3-3 PIPELINE PROJECTS
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres)
Project
Name
General Plan
Land Use Designation
Zoning
Designation
Current Maximum
Allowed Density
(units/acre) a
Total New
Dwelling
Units
31620120,
31620121 50.8 Vallco
(The Rise)
Regional Shopping/
Residential CG 35 1,569 b
32627043 7.9 Westport Commercial/Residential P (CG, Res) 25 259
34216087,
35907021,
35920030
1.57 Canyon Crossing Commercial/Residential P(CG) 15 18
36610061,
36610126 1.68 Coach House
(1655 South De Anza)
Commercial/Office/
Residential
P(CG,Res 5-
15) 15 34
32634043,
32634066 5.1 Marina Plaza Commercial/Office/
Residential P (CG, Res) 25 206
34214066,
34214104,
34214105
0.78 Bateh Brothers Commercial/Residential P(CG) 15 10c
35907021 0.34 Leon Townhomes Residential P (CG, Res) 25 7
35920030 1.35 McClellan LLC Residential R1-10 5 12 c
36231003 0.23 Cleo Subdivision Residential P(R3) 20 4
TOTAL 71.33 2,119
Notes:
a. Dwelling unit density is expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre.
b. Because it is anticipated that the Vallco/Rise project will extend beyond the year 2031, the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031) and this EA
evaluates only the units for Phases 1 and 2 of the Vallco (The Rise) project as indicated in the projects phasing plan, totaling 1,569 dwelling units
instead of the total project 2,402 dwelling units.
c. Includes Accessory Dwelling Units
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
Accessory Dwelling Units
The City developed a projection of ADUs that would be built within the 2023-2031 planning period based
on the average annual production of 24 ADUs per year between 2018 and 2022. Accordingly, the City
estimates construction of 192 ADUs during the 2023-2031 planning period.
Housing Opportunity Sites
The City identified 63 parcels (approximately 67 acres) as housing opportunity sites to accommodate
residential only or commercial/residential (mixed-use) development. The proposed housing opportunity
sites are listed in Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table 3-5,
Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), and shown on
Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites. Table 3 -4 and Table 3-5 show the existing and
proposed General Plan land use designations and zoning districts, and the maximum density for each
housing opportunity site for the existing, proposed, and net new maximum density for each housing
opportunity site. The proposed Modified Project would revise the General Plan land use designations and
zoning districts on each site shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 to accommodate higher density and create
consistencies between the General Plan and Zoning Code. As shown on Tables 3-4 and 3-5, many of the
sites have existing residential General Plan land use designations and zoning districts; therefore, the total
number of additional dwelling units is described as “net new.”
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-12 APRIL 2024
TABLE 3-4 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: RESIDENTIAL
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
1 31623027 0.64 Heart of the City
- Central
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 16 42 26
2 36903005 0.47 Heart of the City
- Central
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 12 31 19
3 32634047 1.09 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 27 71 44
4 35907006 0.32 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 8 21 13
5 37506006 1.71 Heart of the City
- East
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 80 43 137 94
6 37506007 0.96 Heart of the City
- East
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 80 24 77 53
7 31621031 1.81 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 45 118 72
8 31623026 1.78 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 45 116 71
9 32632050 0.83 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 21 54 33
10 32627053 0.75 Heart of the City
- West Transportation High/Very High
Density T R4 0 65 0 49 49
11 32336018 0.42 Homestead Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG) R4 35 65 15 27 13
12 31604064 0.44 Homestead
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium
Density A1-43 R3/TH 5 20 2 9 7
13 32607022 1.64
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density P(CG) R4 15 80 25 131 107
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-13
TABLE 3-4 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: RESIDENTIAL
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
14 32607030 0.92
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density BQ R4 15 80 14 74 60
15 32607031 0.24
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density P(CG) R4 15 80 4 19 16
16 32607036 1.74
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density P(CG) R4 15 80 26 139 113
17 36937022 0.39 South Blaney
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Very High
Density R3 R4 20 65 8 25 18
18 36937023 0.22 South Blaney
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R3 R3/TH 20 35 4 8 4
19 36937024 0.17 South Blaney
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R3 R3/TH 20 35 3 6 3
20 36934053 0.54 South Blaney Commercial /
Residential
Medium High
Density P(CG) R3/TH 15 35 8 19 11
21 35918044 0.26 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG) R4 25 65 7 17 10
22 36610121 1.34 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R3/TH 15 35 20 47 27
23 36610137 0.92 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R3TH 15 35 14 32 18
24 36619047 2.33 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R4 15 65 35 151 117
25 36619078 0.08 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R4 15 65 1 5 4
26 35909017 1.00 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 25 65 40
27 31620088 5.16 Vallco Shopping
District
Regional
Shopping
Very High
Density CG R4 0 80 0 413 413
28 35913019 0.99 Jollyman
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium
Density R1-10 R3 5 20 5 20 15
29 c 35606001 0.73 Monta Vista Residential Medium High R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 4 26 22
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-14 APRIL 2024
TABLE 3-4 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: RESIDENTIAL
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
North Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Density
30 c 35606002 0.69 Monta Vista
North
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 3 24 21
31 c 35606003 0.25 Monta Vista
North
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 1 9 8
32 c 35606004 0.87 Monta Vista
North
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 4 30 26
33 36231001 0.25 Monta Vista
South
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density P(R3) R3/TH 20 35 5 9 4
34 36231030 0.23 Monta Vista
South
Residential
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density P(R3) R3/TH 20 35 5 8 3
35 32720034 1.34 Creston-Pharlap
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Low Medium
Density R1-10 R3/TH 5 10 7 13 7
Total 34 484 2,040 1,556
Notes:
a. Dwelling unit density is expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre.
b. The net new is the proposed maximum density minus the existing maximum density.
c. The land use and rezoning of this parcel assumes the approximately 0.42-acre parcel currently shown as the “cul-de-sac road” would also redesignate the land use to MHD – Medium High Density and rezone to R3/TH. This
approximately 0.42-acre property could be developed with up to 15 units.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE)
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
36 31623093 1.35 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 25
88 58
37 31623036 0.24 Heart of the City Commercial/
Office/
Commercial/
Residential – P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 5
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-15
TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE)
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
Residential High/Very High
Density
38 36906002 0.9 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 17 72 55
39 36906003 0.53 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 10 42 32
40 36906004 1.29 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 24 103 79
41 35910015 1.18 Heart of the City Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 25 65 22 77 55
42 35910060 0.98 Heart of the City Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 25 65 18 64 45
43 35910044 0.18 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P(CG/R4) 25 65 3 12 8
44 35908025 0.83 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
High/ Very
High Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 16 54 38
45 35908026 0.45 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 8 29 21
46 35908027 0.87 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 16 57 40
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-16 APRIL 2024
TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE)
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
47 35908028 0.85 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 16 55 39
48 35908029 0.92 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 17 60 43
49 32609052 0.74
Homestead
Special Area –
Stelling Gateway
Commercial
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 35 80 19 59 40
50 32609060 2.75
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(Rec/
Enter) P (CG/R4) 0 80 0 220 220
51 32609061 1.12
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 35 80 29 90 60
52 36934052 2.70 South Blaney Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 15 65 30 176 145
53 36937028 0.56 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 25 65 11 36 26
54 36619055 0.40 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15)
P
(CG/R3/TH) 15 35 5 14 10
55 36619053 0.56 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15)
P
(CG/R3/TH) 15 35 6 20 13
56 36619054 1.75 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
P(CG, Res
5-15)
P
(CG/R3/TH) 15 35 20 61 42
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-17
TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE)
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
Medium High
Density
57 31605050 1.02 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 19 82 62
58 31605051 0.62 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 12 50 38
59 31605052 0.73 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 14 58 45
60 31605053 0.92 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 17 74 56
61 31605056 6.94 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 130 555 425
62 31605072 0.54 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 10 43 33
63 35920028 0.75 Jollyman Quasi-Public
Commercial/
Residential –
Medium High
Density
BQ P (CG/R3) 0 35 0 26 26
Total 33 520 2,276 1,756
Notes:
a. Dwelling unit density is expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre.
b. The net new is the proposed maximum density minus the existing maximum density.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
Table 3 -6, Housing Opportunity Site Maximum Density, when considering the “maximum density” from
the proposed changes to the General Plan land use designation and zoning district on 63 parcels in the
city would generate an additional 3,312 dwelling units.
TABLE 3-6 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE MAXIMUM DENSITY
Housing Inventory
Category
Dwelling Units per
Existing
Residential Density a
Dwelling Units per
Proposed
Residential Density b
Net New Dwelling Units per
Proposed
Residential Density c
Housing Element Sites (2023-2031)
Residential 485 2,041 1,556
Commercial/Residential
(Mixed Use) 520 2,276 1,756
Total 1,005 4,317 3,312
Notes:
a. The existing dwelling units represent the buildout of the Housing Element Sites at the maximum density under existing conditions for residential sites, 75
percent of the maximum residential density for the commercial/residential sites, and assumes 25 percent of the commercial/residential sites would be
commercial.
b. The proposed dwelling units represent the buildout of the Housing Element Sites at the maximum density under the proposed Modified Project.
c. The net new dwelling units represent the projected new growth evaluated in this EA.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2023.
Housing Element Site Summary
The housing sites identified in the housing site inventory that count towards Cupertino’s RHNA plus a
buffer inventory for the 2023 -2031 planning period are shown in Table 3-7, Housing Element 2023-2031
Site Inventory. The proposed Housing Element applies a “realistic capacity” to ensure that enough
opportunity sites are identified in the Housing Element that is less than the “maximum capacity” applied
to the analysis in this EA, which is applied to ensure a conservative evaluation of environmental impacts.
As shown in Table 3-7, the proposed Housing Element site inventory includes a total of 6,011 dwelling
units from the pipeline projects, the estimated ADUs, and a realistic capacity of each housing opportunity
site. As stated, the realistic capacity identified in the proposed Housing Element is less than the maximum
density on each housing opportunity site shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 of this EA. As shown in Table 3-7,
the proposed Housing Element site inventory adequately meets the City’s RHNA fair share of 4,588
dwelling units, plus a 31 percent buffer of 1,423 dwelling units.
TABLE 3-7 HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITE INVENTORY
Housing Inventory Category Regional Housing Needs Allocation with Buffer
Pipeline Projects 2,119
ADUs 192
Residential Only 1,928
Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use) 1,772
Total 6,011
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20
3.7.1.2 PLANNING AREAS
Chapter 2, Planning Areas, of the General Plan provides a description of the distinct Planning Areas that
make up Cupertino. The Planning Areas are divided into two categories: Special Areas and Neighborhoods.
The Planning Areas chapter provides an overview of each Planning Area, including its current context and
future vision. Specific goals, policies and strategies for each Planning Area are included in the various
topical elements of the General Plan (i.e., Chapters 3 through 9). The proposed Modified Project would
include updates to this chapter, including the figures, to ensure internal General Plan consistency.
Including updating the map figures.
3.7.1.3 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT UPDATE
The Land Use and Community Design Element provides direction on land use and design principles to
shape development in Cupertino, consistent with California Government Code Section 65302(a). This
element contains Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, which provides residential dwelling unit
densities and height limits for each of the City’s eight special areas, as well as neighborhoods in the city
limits. This element also describes the City’s development allocations that establish the amount of
commercial and office square footage, hotel rooms, and dwelling units by special area, other locations,
and major employers that the City anticipates over the General Plan 2040 buildout horizon.
The Land Use and Community Design Element is divided into a background section providing context, a
citywide set of goals, policies, and strategies for land use development, and specific planning area goals
and policies for each of the special areas, neighborhoods, and subareas.
The proposed Modified Project would update the Land Use and Community Design Element to ensure
consistency between the proposed Housing Element and Zoning Code amendments, including the Land
Use Map and Zoning Map. This would include an updated Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram;
Appendix A, Land Use Definitions; and revised goals, policies, and strategies to streamline housing
development on housing opportunity sites. Figure 3-4, Housing Opportunity Sites: Land Use Designation
Changes, shows the proposed Land Use Map changes to the housing opportunity sites. Appendix A, Land
Use Definitions, of the General Plan 2040 would include updates to the Residential and
Commercial/Residential land use designations as listed:
Residential
High Density would be changed from greater than 35 dwelling units per acre to 35.01 to 50
dwelling units per acre.
A new High/Very High Density category would be added, which would include 50.01 to 65
dwelling units per acre.
A new Very High Density category would be added, which would include 65.01 to 80 dwelling
units per acre.
A new Highest Density category would be added, which would include 80.1 to 95 dwelling units
per acre.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-22
Commercial/Residential. This land use designation would be updated to include six sub-categories
based on residential densities.
Commercial/Residential Low/Medium Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with
5.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
Commercial/Residential Medium Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with 10.01 to
20 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
Commercial/Residential Medium High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with
20.01 to 35 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
Commercial/Residential High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with 35.01 to 50
dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
Commercial/Residential High/Very High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with
50.01 to 65 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
Commercial/Residential Very High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with 65.01
to 80 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
Due to changes in State housing law to address the statewide housing crisis, the proposed Modified
Project would update Table LU-1, Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, of the Land Use
and Community Design Element to remove the residential development allocation. No changes to the
development allocation for commercial and office square footage, nor the number of hotel rooms are
proposed.
3.7.1.4 MOBILITY ELEMENT UPDATE
The Mobility Element provides and overview of the transportation and transit network in Cupertino and
goals, policies, and strategies to guide decision making regarding transportation network improvements
needed to accommodate the City’s anticipated growth, consistent with California Government Code
Section 65302(b). One of the primary purposes of this element is to reduce the strain on the automobile
network by improving bicycling, pedestrian, and transit access throughout the city.
The proposed Modified Project would include updates to Mobility Element to ensure internal General
Plan consistency, as well as updates in State law guidance, by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at
both the city level and project level scales. This update would include policies and strategies to mitigate
transportation impacts associated with the implementation of the Housing Element, including evaluation
of new development pursuant to the City’s adopted Transportation Analysis Guidelines, establishing VMT
reduction frameworks for the city and future potential development projects, and promoting existing
transit and car share programs throughout the city.
3.7.2 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides the development standards and design guidelines for the
Heart of the City area. The proposed Modified Project would update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to
ensure consistency between the proposed Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element,
and Zoning Code amendments, including the Zoning Map. This would not include updates to design
guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
3.7.3 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
The Zoning Code is the City’s primary tool for implementing the objectives, policies, and programs of the
General Plan. The Zoning Code aims to protect the character and social and economic stability of different
zoning districts within the city, while mitigating negative impacts to public safety. The Zoning Code
contains various chapters, including definitions, administration, and regulations for the use of land and
the placement of buildings for each zoning district, density bonus, signs, wireless communications
facilities, public art, and parking.
The Zoning Map establishes and delineates the different zoning districts within the study area. Together,
the Zoning Code and Zoning Map govern the use of land, including the construction, alteration,
movement, replacement, or maintenance of buildings; the height, bulk, and placement of buildings and
uses on each site; the provision of open space, amenities, off-street parking, and loading; the
relationships between buildings and uses on adjoining sites or within adjoining classes of districts; and
other aspects of land use and development.
The proposed Modified Project would include updates to the Zoning Code and map to ensure consistency
between the proposed Housing Element and the proposed Land Use and Community Design Element.
This would include text updates, the creation of a new zoning district and combining district, and an
updated Zoning Map. Tables 3 -4 and 3-5 show the proposed changes to zoning for the housing
opportunity sites.
The proposed Modified Project would include revisions to the following sections of the Zoning Code:
Section 19.08: Definitions. This section would be revised and updated to include additional
appropriate definitions for the revised content listed below.
Section 19.12: Administration. Updates to this section would include adding references to the new
zoning and combining districts and establishing a by-right process.
Section 19.16: Designations and Establishment of Districts. Updates to this section would incorporate
reference to new zoning and combining districts.
Section 19.20: Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones.
Updates to this section would incorporate reference to new zoning and combining districts and revise
the land use table with the new zoning districts.
Section 19.28: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones. Revisions to this section would include revising
Table 19.28.040 to allow missing-middle housing.
Section 19.36: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zones. Updates to this section would include
establishing density levels as medium, medium/high, and high density, as well as revising the site and
building development regulations. Densities would range from 20.01 to 50 dwelling units per acre.
Section 19.38: Multiple-Family Residential (R-4) Zones. This would be a new section that includes
establishing a new zoning district and regulations for high/very high and very high density multiple-
family residential. This district would correlate to the High/Very High and Very High land use
designations with residential densities ranging from 50.01 to 80 dwelling units per acre.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-24
Section 19.46: Townhome (TH) Combining District. This would be a new section that establishes a new
combining district and regulations for townhome development in combination with the R-3 and R-4
zoning districts.
Section 19.48: Fences. Revisions to this section would incorporate reference to new zoning and
combining districts.
Section 19.76: Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ), and Transportation (T) Zones. This
section would be updated to revise requirements for rotating homeless shelters and permanent
emergency shelters.
Section 19.80: Planned Development (P) Zones. Revisions to this section would include incorporating
reference to new zoning and combing districts, and establishing low-barrier navigation centers and
supportive housing as allowed uses in mixed-use zones where residential is an allowed use.
Section 19.100: Accessory Buildings/Structures. Updates to this section would include incorporating
references to new zoning and combining districts.
Section 19.124: Parking Regulations. Revisions to this section would include establishing parking
standards for new zoning and combining districts, which includes revising parking standards for the R-
3 zoning district and for emergency shelters, as well as clarifying parking standards for the R1-C zoning
district.
Figure 3-5, Housing Opportunity Sites: Zoning District Changes, shows the proposed zoning map changes.
3.8 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS
As shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, the proposed changes to the maximum
density on the housing opportunity sites would add a total net new 3,312 dwelling units to Cupertino over
the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040. These additional dwelling units would accommodate an
increase in population of approximately 9,737 people, and a proposed 2040 buildout population of 81,037
people, which is an increase from what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed Modified
Project does not include an increase in commercial, office, or hotel space in the city, and therefore would
not increase the number of jobs in the city. Buildout projections for office and commercial square feet, or
hotel rooms would occur as part of the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
;-_ -_ -� Sphere of Influence
, _ -_, Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space 0.25 0.5 Mies PROJECT DESCRIPTION
oposed Zoning P (CG/R3) -Planned
esignations -Develop�ent (G�ner�I
R3 _ Residential Medium Commerc1al/Res1dent1al
Density Medium Density)
R3/TH -Residential -Medium to High
Density /Town home
-R4 -Residential Very
High Density
R4/TH -ResidentialD Very High Density/
Townhome
P (CG/R3/TH) -Planned
Development (General
Commercial/Residential
Medium Density/
Townhome)
P (CG/R4) -Planned
Development (General
Commercial/Residential
Very High Density)
Note: This map is intended to show general locations of identified housing opportunity sites by Assessor Parcel Numbers or APNs, and is not intended to be used to identify project specific development boundaries.
Project-specific development boundaries will be determined on a project-by-project basis as future development is proposed.
Source: ESRI, 2022; ABAG, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023. Figure 3-5
Housing Opportunity Sites: Zoning District Changes
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-26
TABLE 3-8 PROPOSED 2040 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS
Category
Existing Conditions Net New 2040 Buildout
2013
General Plan
EIR
2023
2013 Existing +
Pipeline
General Plan
EIR a
Proposed
Modified
Project
General Plan
EIR
Proposed
Modified
Project
Office
(square feet) 8,929,774 11,019,774 b 4,040,231 0 12,970,005 12,970,005
Commercial
(square feet) 3,729,569 4,040,201 c 1,343,679 0 5,073,248 5,073,248
Hotel rooms 1,090 1,430 d 1,339 0 2,429 2,429
Housing units 21,399 24,351 e 4,421 3,312 f 25,820 29,132
Population 58,302 65,922 g 12,998 9,737 h 71,300 81,037
Jobs 21,399 29,158 i 16,855 0 44,242 44,242
Notes:
a. The General Plan EIR evaluated the impacts from the addition of new development that is different than the Development Allocation limits shown
in the General Plan 2040 at the time of adoption (2015) and the current General Plan 2040 that has since been amended (2023).
b. Additional office square footage includes the Vallco (The Rise) 1,810,000 square feet and 19191 Vallco Parkway (Apple) 280,000 square feet.
c. Additional commercial square footage includes the Public Storage 209,458 square feet; Scandinavian Design 2,235 square feet; Loc-N-Stor 96432
square feet; and 19191 Vallco Way (Apple) 2,300 square feet.
d. Additional hotel rooms include the Village Hotel 185 hotel rooms and De Anza Hotel 155 hotel rooms.
e. Includes the pipeline projects shown in Table 3-3 (2,119 dwelling units currently in the permitting or construction process) plus full buildout of the
Vallco (The Rise) project (2,402 dwelling units) for an additional 883 dwelling units, for a total of 2,952 dwelling units.
f. Proposed housing units include the net new dwelling units from the housing opportunity sites. See Table 3-6, Housing Opportunity Site Maximum
Density
g. Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household (2,952 dwelling units x
2.94 persons per unit = 7,620 additional population)
h. Proposed population is the 3,312 net new dwelling units x 2.94 persons per household.
i. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates used in the General Plan EIR as follows; 300 square feet office = 1 job; 450 square feet
commercial = 1 job; 1 hotel room = .3 jobs. (2,090,000 sf office total / 300 sf per job = 6,967 additional jobs) + (310,632 sf commercial total / 450 sf
per job = 690 additional jobs) + (340 rooms total x 0.3 jobs per room = 102 new jobs) = 7,759 total new jobs
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2023.
As previously described, the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031) identifies a total of 6,011 units to
meet the required RHNA (4,588 dwelling units) and buffer (1,423 dwelling units) and the proposed
changes to the land use designations and zoning districts result in a total net new 3,312 dwelling units.
Accordingly, the proposed changes are only needed to meet a portion of the City’s assigned RHNA and
buffer dwelling units. In other words, under existing conditions (i.e., no changes to land use designations
or zoning standards are required), the City can currently accommodate 2,704 dwelling units toward the
RHNA. Therefore, this EA only evaluates the proposed changes to the land use designation and zoning
districts required to accommodate the remainder of the dwelling units necessary to meet the RHNA and
buffer dwelling units, which is 3,312 net new dwelling units. Furthermore, because the buffer dwelling
units are technically “back-up” sites, the evaluation of these sites presents a conservative evaluation of
impacts in this EA.
While the proposed Housing Element, a policy-level document, has a planning horizon of 2031, the exact
timing of development under the Housing Element 2023-2031 is unknown and will ultimately be market
driven. Individual projects would occur incrementally over time, largely based on economic conditions,
market demand, and other planning considerations. Therefore, as a subsequent analysis to the General
Plan EIR, this analysis assumes that the projected cumulative growth will occur by the year 2040, which
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
was the horizon year used in the General Plan EIR. This EA will provide an update to that analysis
necessitated by the net new housing growth that was not anticipated in the General Plan EIR. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064(d) states that “In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a
project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused
by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be
caused by the project.” The 2040 buildout projections represent the City’s projection of “reasonably
foreseeable” development that could occur over the next 17 years and are used as the basis for the
cumulative analysis in this EA. Although the General Plan EIR assumed a buildout horizon of 2040, it is
possible that the maximum development potential may be reached sooner than anticipated. However, the
General Plan EIR evaluated the maximum development potential that could occur at any given time and
did not consider the phased buildout of the development potential; therefore, the evaluation of impacts
as a result of any expedited buildout that might occur are not included as part of this analysis. See
Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EA, for additional discussion on the setting for the cumulative
impact analysis.
3.9 INTENDED USES OF THE EA
This EA is intended to review potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project and determine corresponding mitigation measures, as
necessary. This EA is a program-level evaluation and does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual
developments that may be allowed under the proposed Modified Project. Each specific future project will
conduct separate approval and environmental review processes pursuant to City procedures and CEQA, if
required, to secure the necessary discretionary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent
environmental review may be tiered off the analysis provided in this EA, this EA is not intended to address
impacts of individual projects. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the
proposed Modified Project and this EA, which will be appended to the General Plan 2040 pursuant to
Government Code Section 65759. Projects successive to this EA include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Updates to utility infrastructure master plans, such as the water, wastewater, and stormwater master
plans.
Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed Modified
Project.
Development plan approvals, such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other
land use permits.
Development of hazard mitigation or adaptation programs.
Permit issuance and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects.
Development agreement processes and approvals.
3.10 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 is subject to review and certification by HCD, and the
proposed Health and Safety Element is subject to review by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-28
Protection, California Geological Survey, and California Office of Emergency Services. Following these
reviews, the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments would be adopted solely by the City of
Cupertino City Council, without permitting by other agencies. The Planning Commission and other
decision-making bodies will review the proposed Modified Project and make recommendations to the City
Council. Subsequent development under the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code, as amended, may
require approval by responsible and trustee agencies that may rely on the analysis for this EA for decisions
in their areas of permitting. Responsible and trustee agencies that may rely on the analysis for this EA
include, but are not limited to:
California Geological Survey (CGS)
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco RWQCB)
PLACEWORKS 4-1
Environmental Analysis
This chapter describes the organization of the environmental analysis of this Environmental Assessment
(EA) and the assumptions and methodology of the impact analysis and the cumulative impact setting.
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
The EA is made up of 16 subchapters that evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with Appendix F, Energy Conservation, and Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist Form, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the potential
environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed for potential significant impacts in the
following 16 environmental issue areas, which are organized with the listed abbreviations:
4.1 Aesthetics (AES)
4.2 Air Quality (AIR)
4.3 Biological Resources (BIO)
4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (CUL)
4.5 Energy (ENE)
4.6 Geology and Soils (GEO)
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)
4.10 Land Use and Planning (LU)
4.11 Noise (NOI)
4.12 Population and Housing (POP)
4.13 Public Services and Recreation (PS)
4.14 Transportation (TRANS)
4.15 Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)
4.16 Wildfire (FIRE)
Each subchapter is organized into the following sections:
Environmental Setting offers a description of the existing environmental conditions, providing a
baseline against which the impacts of the proposed Modified Project can be compared, and an
overview of federal, State, regional, and local laws and regulations relevant to each environmental
issue.
Standards of Significance refer to the quantitative or qualitative standards, performance levels, or
criteria used to evaluate the existing setting with and without the proposed Modified Project to
determine whether the impact is significant. These thresholds are based primarily on the CEQA
Guidelines, and also may reflect established health standards, ecological tolerance standards, public
service capacity standards, or guidelines established by agencies or experts.
Impact Discussion gives an overview of the potential impacts of the proposed Modified Project
compared to the Approved Project and explains why impacts are found to result or not result in new
or more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. This section also includes
a discussion of cumulative impacts related to the proposed Modified Project. Impacts and mitigation
measures are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronym or
abbreviated reference to the impact section.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 APRIL 2024
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As stated, significance criteria are identified before the impact discussion subsection in each chapter. For
each impact identified, a level of significance is determined using the following classifications:
Significant. A significant impact includes a description of the circumstances where an established or
defined threshold would be exceeded.
Less than Significant. A less-than-significant impact includes effects that are noticeable, but do not
exceed established or defined thresholds, or can be mitigated below such thresholds.
No Impact. A no impact conclusion describes circumstances where there is no adverse effect on the
environment.
Significant and Unavoidable. For each impact identified as being significant, the EA identifies
mitigation measures to reduce, eliminate, or avoid the adverse effect. If one or more mitigation
measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level successfully, this is stated in the EA.
Significant and unavoidable impacts are described where mitigation measures would not diminish
these effects to less-than-significant levels. The identification of a program-level significant and
unavoidable impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent
projects that comply with the applicable regulations and meet applicable thresholds of significance.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an environmental effect should be considered significant is
reserved to the discretion of the City of Cupertino, acting as the lead agency, based on substantial
evidence in the record as a whole, including views held by members of the public. An ironclad definition
of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary based on the
setting. The analysis in the EA is based on scientific and factual data that has been reviewed by the lead
agency and represents the lead agency’s independent judgment and conclusions.1 This section describes
the methodology for the program-level evaluation in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 with respect to the
horizon year, the baseline, the application of the proposed City of Cupertino General Plan 2040 (General
Plan 2040) policies, effects of the environment on the project, parking impacts, and cumulative impacts.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EA are cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148 or
have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which
encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length of
environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference. Information in
these documents is used for various sections of this EA.
1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064(b).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3
CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Adopted in December 2014, the City’s General Plan serves as a blueprint for the community through the
year 2040. Since this time, several amendments to the General Plan have occurred. The General Plan
provides a roadmap for new housing and job growth, while protecting those characteristics and values
that make Cupertino a desirable and distinctive place to live, work, and visit. The City’s General Plan
consists of seven elements: Land Use and Community Character; Housing; Mobility; Environmental
Resources and Sustainability; Health and Safety; Infrastructure; and Recreation, Parks, and Community
Services. Each General Plan Element includes goals, policies, and strategies that create a roadmap for new
housing and job growth, provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources, and describe the
use, management, and conservation of natural resources, public services, and infrastructure. This
document is available for viewing on the City’s website at: https://www.cupertino.org/gp. The General
Plan is used in this EA as a source for existing City policy.
GENERAL PLAN EIR
The General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental
Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007) and the subsequent addenda to the EIR (General
Plan EIR) assessed the potentially significant environmental effects of the General Plan 2040. The General
Plan EIR was used in this EA as a source for existing environmental setting data, buildout impact analyses,
and City mitigation measures. This document is available for viewing on the City’s website at:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=697928&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) regulates land use and activities in the City’s jurisdiction, including
the Environmental Regulations and Zoning Code (codified in CMC Titles 17 and 19, respectively). The
Municipal Code is organized by title, chapter, and section. The Environmental Regulations and Zoning
Code are the primary tools for implementing the City’s General Plan policies. Title 17, Environmental
Regulations, contains Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which codify
several of the project-level mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR. Every project in the Study Area
must comply with these standards for environmental compliance. This section includes standards for the
following:
Air Quality Technical Requirements
Hazardous Materials
Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Report
Requirements
Vibration Technical Report Requirements
Air Quality Permit Requirements
Hazardous Materials Permit Requirements
Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Permit
Requirements
Biological Resources Permit Requirements
Cultural Resources Permit Requirements
Hydrology and Water Quality Permit
Requirements
Noise and Vibration Permit Requirements
Paleontological Resources Permit
Requirements
Utilities and Service Systems Permit
Requirements
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-4
Additional details regarding each of the Standards Environmental Protection Requirements is described in
Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA, where relevant. In addition, CMC Title 16, Buildings and
Construction, and CMC Title 18, Subdivisions, contain regulatory provisions that apply to residential
development. The CMC was used throughout this EA to establish the proposed Modified Project baseline
requirements for City regulatory compliance. The CMC can be accessed online at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-78624.
2040 HORIZON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
As described in Section 3.7.1.1, Housing Element Update, this EA evaluates the conservative possibility
that all housing opportunity sites would be developed to 100 percent of their allowed density. For
purposes of this EA, only sites that require a change in the General Plan Land Use Designation, Zoning
District, or increase density will be evaluated, and the net new increase in density is the focus of the
analysis. This EA considers potential impacts of potential future development that may result from
adoption of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031, including rezoning of potential housing sites to
allow housing and/or mixed-use developments, and related actions to encourage housing production,
including, but not limited to, changes in allowable densities and changes in development standards.
The Housing Element is a policy-level document that presents the City’s proposed policies and strategies
to achieve the City’s housing objectives in the 2023-2031 planning period. Growth assumptions in the
Housing Element 2023-2031 represent a theoretical development capacity (based on the City’s Regional
Housing Needs Allocation [RHNA] as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]),
which, consistent with the Housing Element planning period, is estimated to occur by 2031. The Housing
Element 2023-2031 does not propose development, but rather is intended to accommodate and
encourage housing development to accommodate projected housing needs at all income levels in
Cupertino. The amendments to the Land Use and Community Character Element, Mobility Element, Heart
of the City Specific Plan, and the Zoning Code support the implementation of the Housing Element
through land use designation and site development standard changes. The 6,011 dwelling unit
development capacity, inclusive of the development at 100 percent of the proposed density, potential
accessory dwelling units, and pipeline projects, which would include the buffer needed to meet the
remaining unmet RHNA of 4,588 dwelling units, is based on theoretical conditions used to conduct a
thorough and conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts that would result from future
potential development accommodated by the Housing Element 2023-2031 and corresponding updates to
the Land Use and Community Character Element, Mobility Element, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and
Zoning Code.
The development capacity and planning period do not consider factors that influence the timing of
development, such as economics and market forces, among others. Individual projects would occur
incrementally over time, largely based on economic conditions, market demand, and other planning
considerations. The actual rate of housing development would be outside of the City’s control and would
be dictated by factors that influence development, as described previously. Therefore, while the City’s
remaining unmet RHNA is 4,588 dwelling units, it is unlikely that the anticipated development would
occur in the Housing Element’s 2031 planning horizon. The intent of the Housing Element 2023-2031 is to
provide the capacity (i.e., through modifications to existing land use designations and zoning
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-5
classifications) for the housing market to adequately address housing needs for all income groups, rather
than generating the full development capacity within the planning cycle. The Housing Element 2023-2031
further directs the development capacity to occur where planned growth is best suited to occur.
Therefore, to provide a conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the
Housing Element 2023-2031 implementation (i.e., a “worst-case” scenario environmentally) and
corresponding updates to the Land Use and Community Character Element and Zoning Code, this EA
assumes project buildout of all 6,011 dwelling units on any combination of the housing sites by 2031.
To assess the increase in housing units with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project,
this EA will use an updated baseline and updated projections for 2040. The updated baseline and
projections are shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, of Chapter 3, Projection
Description, of this EA, and are explained briefly here.
Existing Conditions: 2013 General Plan EIR column is included for informational purposes. Comparison
with the 2023 Existing Conditions allows readers to understand changes since the General Plan EIR
was prepared.
Existing Conditions: 2023, 2013 Existing + Pipeline column reflects conditions on the ground in
Cupertino when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published in 2023 and also includes the pipeline
commercial, residential, and office projects that have been approved and are either under
construction or expected to commence construction shortly. As described in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this EA, this data is used as the baseline for the analysis of the proposed Modified
Project impacts.
Net New: General Plan EIR column reflects the addition of new development that is different than the
Development Allocation limits shown in the General Plan 2040 at the time of adoption (2015) and the
current General Plan 2040 that has since been amended (2023).
Net New: Proposed Modified Project column shows the net new units and population growth
proposed by the Housing Element 2023-2031. The proposed housing units include the net new
dwelling units from the housing opportunity sites maximum density, which is shown in Table 3-6,
Housing Opportunity Site Maximum Density. Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation
rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household.
2040 Buildout: General Plan EIR column is included for informational purposes and allows readers to
understand the maximum buildout of the General Plan that was anticipated in the General Plan EIR.
2040 Buildout: Proposed Modified Project column provides a summary of the maximum buildout of
the General Plan as a result of the proposed Modified Project plus other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable development projects that were not reflected in the General Plan EIR projections. The
data reflects the 2040 Buildout General Plan EIR projections plus the 3,312 additional units
anticipated as a result of the Housing Element 2023-2031.
The environmental analysis in this EA describes the potential for adverse impacts to occur from increasing
the buildout potential in the Study Area, as well as new and modified General Plan 2040 goals, policies,
and strategies. The 2040 horizon development potential under the proposed Modified Project includes
the net increase of maximum development potential for the city. As shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040
Buildout Projections, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, this combined projected new growth in
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-6 APRIL 2024
the entire Study Area for the 2040 horizon year includes approximately 3,312 new residential units and
9,737 new residents.
Because the proposed Modified Project consists of a long-term policy document (i.e., the General Plan
2040) that is intended to guide future development activities and City actions, and because no specific
development projects are proposed as part of the project, it is reasonable to assume that future
development would occur incrementally or gradually over the buildout horizon. However, while this
assumption describes the long-range nature of the proposed Modified Project, it does not prohibit or
restrict when development can occur over the horizon period.
BASELINE
As a subsequent analysis to the General Plan EIR, this analysis assumes that the projected cumulative
growth would occur by the year 2040, which was the horizon year used in the General Plan EIR. The 2040
buildout projections represent the City’s projection of “reasonably foreseeable” development that could
occur over the next 17 years and are used as the basis for the cumulative analysis in this EA. Therefore,
this EA, which is in the format of a subsequent Draft EIR, provides an update to that analysis necessitated
by the net new housing growth that was not anticipated in the General Plan EIR. As shown in Table 3-8,
Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the baseline conditions in
2040 include approximately 25,820 residential units and 71,300 residents.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 POLICIES
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed goals, policies, and strategies in the proposed
Housing Element 2023-2031 aim to maintain, preserve, improve, and develop housing; affirmatively
further fair housing; incentivize the development of housing for special needs and all income levels; and
promote healthy and sustainable housing throughout the Study Area. Housing Element 2023-2031 and
associated Land Use and Community Design Element policies aim to avoid hazardous conditions and
facilitate a healthy and safe environment for residents and visitors to Cupertino.
In October 2015, the adopted policies and strategies in the General Plan 2040 document were revised.2
Therefore, the numbering of policies and strategies may be different between the Approved Project and
proposed Modified Project. The amended General Plan 2040 is the primary reference document for the
current list of goals and strategies referenced in this EA.
This EA includes substantive General Plan 2040 policy and strategy changes, which includes the addition,
removal, or functional revisions (i.e., not purely semantic) to the text in ways that have the potential to
result in a physical impact on the environment. Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA include an analysis of
how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes to the environment. Amended
and new policies collectively reflect the changes to the current General Plan 2040. The proposed goals,
policies, and strategies were reviewed for their adequacy in reducing and/or avoiding impacts to the
environment that could occur from future development in the city. The proposed Modified Project goals,
2 Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015 – 2040, adopted by council on May 19, 2015, per Resolution No. 15-042
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-7
policies, and strategies are listed in the impact discussions of Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 to illustrate where
they would reduce impacts from potential future development in Cupertino.
The content of the General Plan 2040 policies and strategies are directly integrated with and reflective of
the proposed Modified Project as a whole. Therefore, impact discussions for the effects of the proposed
project necessarily encompass analysis of the effects of these policies as a whole, and policies with
relevance to CEQA topics are described in the appropriate chapters. Non-substantive changes include but
are not limited to, the renumbering of policies or minor text revisions, which do not have the potential to
result in a physical change to the environment.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS
Plan Bay Area is the San Francisco Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS), prepared by ABAG in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050, adopted October 21, 2021, is the current version.3 Plan Bay Area 2050
is a limited and focused update to the Plan Bay Area 2040, with updated planning assumptions that
incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years. Although
recently updated, Plan Bay Area 2040 provides information not available in Plan Bay Area 2050, such as
population projections at a City scale, and is used as the basis for other regional planning documents,
such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, this EA references
both Plan Bay Area 2040 and Plan Bay Area 2050 in the analysis. Also note that, Plan Bay Area 2050+, a
limited and focused update that builds upon the foundation of Plan Bay Area 2050, is being prepared.
Plan Bay Area provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional
transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals of Senate Bill (SB) 375. Under the Plan Bay
Area strategies, just under half of all Bay Area households would live within one half-mile of frequent
transit by 2050, with this share increasing to over 70 percent for households with low incomes.
Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a
transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to
work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG emissions from transportation
would decrease significantly as a result of these transportation and land use changes, and the Bay Area
would meet the State mandate of a 19 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035 — but only if all
strategies are implemented.4 Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include focusing housing and
commercial construction in walkable, transit-accessible places; investing in transit and active
transportation; and shifting the location of jobs to encourage shorter commutes. As part of the
implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas
(TPAs) are identified as areas where concentrated development can have beneficial environmental effects
and reduce adverse environmental impacts. The Study Area includes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
3 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October, Plan Bay Area 2050,
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed May 25, 2023.
4 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October, Plan Bay Area 2050,
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed June 21, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-8 APRIL 2024
Authority City Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas PDA and an unnamed TPA, which are shown on Figure
4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas. Additional details about PDAs and TPAs are
provided in the sections that follow.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
A PDA is a place that has convenient public transit service, often referred to as “transit-oriented,” that is
prioritized by local governments, such as Cupertino, for housing, jobs, and services in existing
communities. PDAs are created and planned by local governments, which nominate eligible areas to ABAG
for adoption.5 The PDAs identified throughout the Bay Area in Plan Bay Area 2050 were projected to
accommodate 72 percent (or 985,000 units) of new housing and 48 percent (or 679,000) of new jobs in
the region from the 2015 baseline.6 Development in PDAs leverage existing infrastructure and therefore
can minimize development in greenfield (undeveloped) areas and maximize growth in transit-rich
communities to help lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and consequently reduce GHG emissions, air
quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on fossil fuels and
reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Additionally, due to the
location, infill development in PDAs results in fewer impacts related to agricultural, forestry, mineral,
archaeological, and biological resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and
wildfire. Impacts related to concentrated development in the PDAs is described throughout this EA and
specific quantified impacts are described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality; Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; and Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. Certain potential future residential or mixed-use
residential projects and projects in PDAs that meet defined criteria in the CEQA Guidelines may be eligible
for CEQA streamlining. For example, while not exclusive to PDAs, due to their urban setting, development
in a PDA is more likely to qualify for a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, Class 32
Categorical Exemption.
5 Cupertino’s PDA was designated by VTA as part of their Cores, Corridors and Station Areas program. The PDA was affirmed
by the City in June 2012, and again in 2019, since the PDA boundaries align, for the most part, with the City’s Heart of the City
Specific Plan area, which was envisioned as the core of the city where much of the City’s growth/change is anticipated to occur.
6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050,
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 23,
2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 APRIL 2024
TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS
Plan Bay Area 2050 also identifies TPAs, referred to as Transit-Rich PDAs.7 These are areas within a half-
mile of a major transit stop (i.e., a stop with service frequency of 15 minutes or less) that is existing or
planned to be completed in the planning horizon of a Transportation Improvement Program adopted
pursuant to Section 450.216 or Section 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In
Cupertino, there are five major transit stops identified in the Regional Transportation Plan.8 TPAs generally
include existing neighborhoods served by transit and opportunities for housing and jobs, high performing
schools, and amenities. Certain potential future residential or mixed-use residential projects and projects 9
in TPAs that meet defined criteria in the CEQA Guidelines may be eligible for CEQA streamlining. Like
development in PDAs, developing in TPAs also minimizes development in greenfield (undeveloped) areas
and maximizes growth in transit-rich communities to help lower VMT and consequently reduce GHG
emissions, air quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on
fossil fuels and reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
With respect to potential future development in a TPA, SB 743, which became effective on January 1,
2014, amended CEQA by adding Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099 regarding analysis of
transportation, aesthetics, and parking impacts for urban infill projects, among other provisions. SB 743,
which became effective on January 1, 2014, amended CEQA by adding PRC Section 21099 regarding
analysis of transportation, aesthetics, and parking impacts for urban infill projects, among other
provisions.
Transportation Impacts. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research—the entity
charged with drafting guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA—to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts under CEQA, shifting from a congestion-based
standard (level of service or LOS) to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) standard. CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3 was added in December 2018 pursuant to SB 743 and describes specific considerations for
evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) states that
projects within half a mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-
quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.
Accordingly, transportation impacts related to VMT from potential future development in the TPA that
meets the specific criteria, are presumed to be less than significant. Transportation impacts consistent
with the required VMT standard are described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA.
Aesthetic and Parking Impacts. PRC Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a
residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a TPA
shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, these topics are no
7 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth
Framework Update – Overview of Existing and Updated Geographies,
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdfs_referenced/2019_Regional_Growth_Framework_Update_-
_Whats_Changed_1.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
8 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-stops-major-2021/explore?location=37.323167%2C-122.009494%2C14.00
accessed on March 5, 2024.
9 A project in a transit priority area is referred to as a transit priority project (TPP).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-11
longer considered in determining significant environmental effects for a project that meets all three of
the following criteria:
Is located on an infill site which is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been
previously developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site
adjoins or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed
with qualified urban uses.”
Is a residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment-center project.
Is in a TPA , which is defined as “an area within one-half-mile of a major transit stop that is existing
or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included
in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or Section
450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
Accordingly, in compliance with SB 743, no significant aesthetic or parking impacts can be made in the
environmental analysis for potential future qualifying development in the TPAs in the Study Area as they
exist today or are modified over the buildout horizon.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT
The California Supreme Court concluded in the California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (CBIA vs. BAAQMD) case that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis
of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents.” The CBIA vs.
BAAQMD ruling provided for several exceptions to the general rule where an analysis of the project on the
environment is warranted: (1) if the project would exacerbate existing environmental hazards (such as
exposing hazardous waste that is currently buried); (2) if the project qualifies for certain specific specified
exemptions (certain housing projects and transportation priority projects per PRC Sections 21159.21
(f)(h), 21159.22 (a),(b)(3), 21159.23 (a)(2)(A), 21159.24 (a)(1),(3), or 21155.1 (a)(4),(6)); (3) if the project
is exposed to potential noise and safety impacts on projects due to proximity to an airport (per PRC
Section 21096); and (4) school projects require specific assessment of certain environmental hazards (per
PRC Section 21151.8). Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA focuses
on the potential impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including whether the proposed
project may exacerbate any existing environmental hazards. Existing potential environmental hazards in
Cupertino include seismic hazards, flooding, and wildfire. Therefore, while the effects of these hazards on
the proposed project are not subject to CEQA review following the CBIA vs. BAAQMD case,10 the City
recognizes that seismic, flooding, and wildfire hazards are issues of local concern. Therefore, a discussion
of the project’s potential to exacerbate these hazardous conditions is provided in Chapter 4.6, Geology
and Soils; Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Chapter
4.16, Wildfire, of this EA.
10 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-12 APRIL 2024
PARKING IMPACTS
Effective in 2010, parking inadequacy as a significant environmental impact was eliminated from the CEQA
Guidelines by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which is the entity charged with drafting
guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA. Accordingly, parking adequacy in the Study Area is not
discussed further in this EA.
DENSITY BONUS LAW
On January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 2345 amended the California Density Bonus Law (Government Code
Section 65915 et seq.) to expand development incentives for projects with affordable and/or senior
housing units. Under this amended law, future potential development with 15 percent of total units for
very low income, 24 percent of total units for low income, or 44 percent of total units for moderate
income, can receive a density bonus of up to 50 percent. Future potential development under both the
Approved Project and proposed Modified Project could exceed site development standards. However, the
density bonus and concessions would be approved on a project-by-project basis, and therefore it would
be speculative to evaluate increases in density under this law for a plan level analysis.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated
in the EA, together with other reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts. Section 15130 of
the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s
incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Used in this context, cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
In the case of a long-range plan such as the General Plan 2040 and proposed Modified Project, cumulative
effects occur when future development under the long-range plan is combined with development in the
surrounding areas, or in some instances, in the entire region.
Where the incremental effect of a project is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not
consider that effect significant but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental
effect is not cumulatively considerable. The CEQA Guidelines state that a lead agency has discretion to
determine if a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable.
The cumulative discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA explain the geographic scope of the
area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g., immediate project vicinity, county, watershed, or air basin).
The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends on the impact that is being analyzed.
For example, in assessing macro-scale air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes
to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin-wide projections of emissions are the best tool for
determining the cumulative impact. In assessing aesthetic impacts, on the other hand, only development
in the local area of change would contribute to a cumulative visual effect since the area of change is only
visible in its vicinity.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-13
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 permits two different methodologies for the cumulative impact analysis:
The “list” approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts, including projects both in and outside the city.
The “projections” approach allows the use of a summary of projections in an adopted plan or related
planning document, such as an RTP, or in an EIR prepared for such a plan. The projections may be
supplemented with additional information such as regional modeling.
The cumulative impact analysis in this EA relies on a projections approach and considers growth from the
proposed Modified Project in the Study Area in combination with impacts from projected growth in the
rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by ABAG’s Metropolitan Transportation
Plan and the Sustainable Communities Strategy, also known as Plan Bay Area. The following provides a
summary of the cumulative impact setting for each impact area:
Aesthetics: The cumulative setting for visual/aesthetic impacts includes potential future development
under the proposed Modified Project combined with effects of development on lands adjacent to the
city in Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Saratoga, and the unincorporated areas of Santa
Clara to the west of the Study Area.
Air Quality: Cumulative air quality impacts could occur from a combination of the proposed project
with regional growth in the San Francisco Air Basin.
Biological Resources: The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for biological resources
considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands and the region.
Cultural and Tribal Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural and tribal resources could occur from
projected growth in the surrounding region.
Energy: Cumulative impacts to energy resources could occur from the estimated growth in the energy
provider’s (i.e., Silicon Valley Clean Energy and Pacific Gas and Electric Company) service area.
Geology and Soils: Potentially cumulative geological impacts could arise from combination of the
development of the proposed Modified Project together with future development in the immediate
vicinity of the adjoining jurisdictions.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The cumulative impact analyses for GHG emissions are related to the
entire region. Because GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed
worldwide, the cumulative impact analysis focuses on the global impacts and thus, is by nature
cumulative.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The cumulative analysis considers the effects of the proposed
Modified Project in combination with growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and surrounding
region.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of
hydrology and water quality impacts, including the potential to exacerbate the potential for flooding,
considers the watersheds that encompass Cupertino.
Land Use and Planning: The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning effects
considers impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding
region, as forecast in Plan Bay Area.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-14 APRIL 2024
Noise: The geographic context for cumulative construction noise and vibration considers development
that could occur with implementation of the proposed Modified Project and cumulative development
in adjacent cities. The vehicle traffic noise levels are based on cumulative traffic conditions that
consider cumulative development in the Study Area.
Population and Housing: Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of their
consistency with regional planning efforts in the Santa Clara County region.
Public Services and Recreation: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of projected growth
in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by Plan Bay Area and
contiguous with the service area boundaries of the service providers evaluated in this section.
Transportation: The analysis of the proposed Modified Project addresses cumulative impacts to the
transportation network and VMT in the Study Area and surrounding region.
Utilities and Service Systems: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the estimated
growth in each utility’s service area.
Wildfire: The geographic context for the cumulative wildfire analysis includes impacts of the proposed
Modified Project plus cumulative development in Cupertino and the surrounding region.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-1
4.1 AESTHETICS
This chapter describes the potential impacts to aesthetics associated with the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and
existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the
potential aesthetics impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and strategies that could minimize
any potentially significant impacts.
4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
California State Scenic Highway Program
California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the State legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to protect
and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special
conservation treatment. The State laws governing the Scenic Highways Program are found in the Streets
and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. The California Scenic Highway Program is maintained by
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is in Part
2 of Title 24. The CBC is updated on a three-year cycle. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may
adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by
the State Building Standards Commission. The CBC includes standards for outdoor lighting that are intended
to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls.
The City of Cupertino (City) regularly adopts each new CBC update under the Cupertino Municipal Code
(CMC) Chapter 16.02, Administrative Code.
California Building Code: CALGreen
The California Building Standards Commission provides the California Green Building Standards Code, also
known as CALGreen, as part of CCR Title 24. As part of the CBC, CALGreen is in Part 11 of Title 24.
CALGreen establishes building standards aimed at enhancing the design and construction of buildings
using building concepts that reduce negative impacts and increase positive environmental impacts by
encouraging sustainable construction practices. Specifically, CALGreen Section 5.106.8, Light Pollution
Reduction, establishes backlight, uplight, and glare ratings to minimize the effects of light pollution for
nonresidential development. The local building permit process enforces the mandatory provisions of
CALGreen. The City regularly adopts each new CALGreen update under CMC Chapter 16.58, Green
Building Standards Code Adopted.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-2 APRIL 2024
Senate Bill 743
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), Senate Bill (SB)
743, which became effective on January 1, 2014, amended the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) by adding California Public Resources Code Section 21099 regarding analysis of aesthetics impacts
for urban infill projects, among other provisions. CEQA Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking
impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located
within a transit priority area (TPA) shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.”
Accordingly, these topics are no longer to be considered in determining significant environmental effects
for projects that meet all three of the following criteria:
1. Is on an infill site, which is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously
developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is
separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified
urban uses.”
2. Is a residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment-center project.
3. Is in a transit priority area (TPA), which is defined as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit
stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning
horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or
Section 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
Accordingly, in compliance with SB 743, no significant aesthetic impact findings can be made in any
environmental analysis for potential future development in the Cupertino TPA (see Figure 4-1, Priority
Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EA). Aesthetic
impacts are not discussed further in this EA with respect to potential future development in the TPA. As
appropriate, aesthetic impacts are only considered for potential future development outside of these
areas.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Recreation Parks and Community Services (RPC) Elements
of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts to aesthetic resources. Applicable policies and strategies that
would minimize potential adverse impacts on aesthetic resources are identified in Section 4.1.3, Impact
Discussion.
Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to visual resources in Cupertino. The
CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to aesthetics and visual character
are included in Title 1, General Provisions; Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping; Title 18, Subdivision
Regulations; and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-3
Title 1, General Provisions. This title establishes the adoption and general terms of the CMC.
Chapter 1.09, Nuisance Abatement. This chapter addresses nuisance abatement and includes
provisions aimed at protecting the visual quality of the community. This chapter defines aspects that
constitute a nuisance, including “a condition that diminishes property values and degrades the quality
of life within the city.” This chapter requires proper maintenance of buildings and property and the
abatement of visual nuisances to ensure the protection of public health and safety.
Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping. This title provides development standards related to
aesthetics, such as street improvements, encroachments, and use of the rights-of-way, landscaping,
and undergrounding utilities in the city.
Chapter 14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance. This ordinance outlines the importance of protected trees to
the community, and measures to preserve these trees. Actions that are prohibited through this
ordinance are deliberately causing damage to any protected trees and removing any protected trees
in any zoning district without first obtaining a tree removal permit as required by Section 14.18.110
unless a permit is not required per Section 14.18.150. This ordinance also outlines Heritage Tree
Designations and how this designation can only be initiated by the owner of property on which the
tree is located unless the tree is on public or quasi-public property. After designation, the heritage
tree shall be added to the heritage tree list and a heritage tree identification tag will be added and
placed by the City. Removals of heritage trees is also addressed in this chapter.
Title 18, Subdivision Regulations. This title establishes the standards that regulate and control the
division of land in Cupertino for the preservation of public safety and general welfare. The ordinance
provides standards to support orderly growth and development, ensure appropriate design and
construction, promote and protect open space, offer adequate traffic circulation, and install necessary
infrastructure.
Title 19, Zoning . The zoning code is the primary tool that shapes the form and character of physical
development in Cupertino. This title establishes comprehensive zoning regulations for the city and
ensures the orderly and beneficial development of the city, attains a desirable balance of residential
and employment opportunities, and promotes efficient urban design and arrangement. The zoning
code sets forth the standards requiring architectural and site review and stipulating aesthetic criteria
for new development.
Chapter 19.48, Fences. This chapter regulates the location and height of fences and vegetation in all
zoning districts.
Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards. This chapter regulates the design and construction of
structures and accessory elements in all zoning districts to protect the natural environment,
particularly enhancing bird-safety and reducing light pollution. Section 19.102.030, Bird-safe
Development Requirements, provides guidelines on glazing and indoor and outdoor light to help
protect birds. Section 19.102.040, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, describes outdoor lighting
regulations and requirements to minimize light pollution and impact on the dark sky.
Chapter 19.104, Signs. This chapter regulates the appearance and placement of signs to maintain the
aesthetic of the city while providing information to the public.
Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review. This chapter provides an orderly process to review
architectural and site designs of buildings, structures, signs, lighting, and landscaping for prescribed
types of land development within the city to promote the goals and objectives contained in the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-4 APRIL 2024
General Plan, to protect and stabilize property values, and to maintain the character and integrity of
neighborhoods.
Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan (Specific Plan) provides guidance for development along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, a major commercial corridor in Cupertino. The General Plan 2040 identifies the Specific Plan
area as the Heart of the City Special Area. The primary aim of the Specific Plan is to create a greater sense
of place and community identity for Cupertino. To accomplish this goal, the Specific Plan provides design
guidelines that promote buildings that create visual interest. In addition, the Specific Plan focuses on
aesthetics to ensure the corridor maintains appropriate character and form.
South Vallco Master Plan
The South Vallco Master Plan (SVMP) is a coordinated framework for the development of commercial
properties in the South Vallco area, or as described in the General Plan 2040, the South Vallco Gateway
East and South Vallco Gateway West, within the Heart of the City Special Area. As development under the
SVMP occurs, the City envisions achievement of the following benefits: area revitalization, aesthetic
coordination, property connectivity, roadway infrastructure optimization, and identity recognition. The
SVMP also establishes the following policies to ensure that the community character and aesthetics of the
SVMP area are realized.
Policy 4.1. Establish consistent, pedestrian friendly landscape and streetscape to promote a
downtown and Main Street style setting.
Policy 4.2. Identify the style and design features for lighting, street furniture, and wayfinding to
promote a consistent aesthetic.
Policy 4.3. Enhance and supplement current landscaped areas with quality landscaping.
Policy 4.4. Support a variety of architectural styles, heights, massing, and uses to create an eclectic
Main Street style character.
Policy 4.5. Support gateway features, signage, and/or monuments.
Policy 4.6. Include native vegetation and drought tolerant landscaping.
Monta Vista Design Guidelines
The Monta Vista Design Guidelines (MV Guidelines) refine and implement the policies of General Plan
2040 by outlining building design details, landscaping treatment, signage, and public improvement details
for the Monta Vista Commercial Area and is located in the area between the urban transition and the
hillside transition,1 historically the rural part of the city. The Monta Vista Commercial Area portion of the
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood is considered “Downtown Monta Vista” and is to the north and south
of Stevens Creek Boulevard between State Route 85 (SR-85) on the east and Byrne Avenue to the west.
Future potential development in this area would be required to comply with the applicable design
1 See Figure LU-2 of Chapter 3 of the General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-5
standards outlined in the MV Guidelines. The MV Guidelines outline the activities that trigger
improvement requirements or conformance with the design standards. In some cases, changes in land use
activity may trigger one or more of the other improvements, including, but not limited to, landscaping,
public improvements, and signage improvements.
Conceptual Plans
The North De Anza Boulevard, South De Anza Boulevard, and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Plans
delineate the guidelines for development, redevelopment, and change of use for properties and
businesses in these areas of Cupertino. These Conceptual Plans set forth conditions implementing all the
relevant policies of the Cupertino General Plan relating to development and establish limits to ensure
future potential development blends with and enhances the existing development pattern in these areas.
EXISTING CONDTIONS
Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), addresses the impacts to
visual resources associated with buildout of the Approved Project at a program level. The setting for
aesthetic resources is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since the
certification of the General Plan EIR, the approval and construction of the following new projects have
contributed to the visual character of Cupertino:
Apple Park (formally Apple Campus 2), completed in 2017, included the construction of a corporate
campus on a 175-acre site in the northeastern portion of the city. The campus is made up of a ring-
shaped four-story building that has 60-foot-tall panels of curved glass and solar panels along the
exterior of the building. The overall campus and building are surrounded by mature trees ranging
from 15 to 60 feet tall.
Westport Cupertino, currently under construction on an 8.1-acre parcel, is a senior and family living
project along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue, adjacent to SR-85. This project adds two six-
story buildings and 88 three-story townhomes where a single-story town and country shopping center
was previously located.
The Rise (Formerly Vallco) is the area known as Study Area 6 of the General Plan EIR. This area
includes the Vallco Mall, which is mostly demolished and slated for new development of a mix of uses,
including over 2,650 housing units, approximately 1.95 million square feet of office space, and
approximately 226,000 square feet of retail uses.
4.1.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant
aesthetics impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
AES-1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LTS LTS
AES-2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? LTS LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-6 APRIL 2024
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant
aesthetics impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
AES-3. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
LTS LTS
AES-4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area? LTS LTS
AES-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to aesthetic
resources? LTS LTS
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of
the General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different
chapters of this EA. AES-3 was revised to differentiate between urban and nonurbanized areas when it comes to evaluating visual character.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
With respect to AES-3, CEQA Section 21071, Urbanized Area; Definition, has several metrics by which an
incorporated city can be defined as an “urbanized” area. CEQA Section 21071(a)(2) states that an
incorporated city can be classified as an urbanized area if the city has a population of less than 100,000
persons and if the population of that city, and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities
combined, equals at least 100,000 persons. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the
population estimate in 2023 for Cupertino was 65,922 residents.2 According to the U.S. Census, the two
contiguous cities, Sunnyvale to the north and San Jose to the east, have 153,091 and 971,233 residents,
respectively. This brings the total population of the three contiguous cities to 1,190,246. Therefore,
Cupertino is considered an urbanized area under CEQA Section 21071(a)(2) and impacts of potential
future development projects in Cupertino are based on part two of the standard regarding whether the
proposed Modified Project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
4.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
AES-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
As described in the General Plan EIR, scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views, while
scenic corridors are made up of short-, middle-, and long-range views. The General Plan EIR considered
the westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains as scenic vistas and the
Caltrans-designated segment of Interstate 280 (I-280) from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880
on the east as an eligible State Scenic Highway “scenic corridor.” Please note that the impacts to the State-
designated scenic corridor are described under impact discussion AES-2.
2 Population is calculated applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household
(2,952 dwelling units x 2.94 persons per unit = 7,620 additional population).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-7
The General Plan EIR found that potential future development over the buildout horizon of the General
Plan 2040 with heights ranging from 30 to 160 feet would not block views of scenic vistas/corridors from
specific publicly accessible vantage points or alter the overall scenic vista/corridor itself. However, as
described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, due to the expanded California Density Bonus law
(Assembly Bill 2345), future potential development under both the Approved Project and proposed
Modified Project could exceed this height limit. The density would be approved on a project-by-project
basis, and therefore would be speculative to evaluate increases in height that may be granted.
As described in the General Plan EIR, because the topography of Cupertino is essentially flat, the views
from street-level public viewing to the scenic resources are already inhibited by existing conditions such as
buildings, structures, and mature trees/vegetation. In addition, the maximum heights currently permitted
also limit the opportunity for views of scenic vistas/corridors from street-level public viewing.
Furthermore, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, in Chapter 3,
Project Description, of this EA, the location of potential future development under the proposed Modified
Project, as with the Approved Project, would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the
form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close
proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where future development would
have a lesser impact on scenic vistas. Additionally, the areas of potential development identified in the
proposed Modified Project are not considered destination public viewing points.
Development at these locations support the goal of a more sustainable, less auto-oriented city.
Specifically, areas of concentrated growth would occur in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas Priority Development Area (PDA) and the TPA that covers much
of Cupertino, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4
of this EA. As described in the General Plan EIR, even with more intense development on the sites being
analyzed as a result of the proposed Modified Project, similar views would continue to be visible between
elements of the built environment and over lower-intensity areas, and no new or greater impacts to views
of the existing scenic resources would occur. Additionally, as described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory
Framework, under subheading “Senate Bill 743,” there is the potential for future qualifying development
located within the TPA surrounding Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road to be exempt from
aesthetics evaluation.
The General Plan EIR also found that the General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design (LU),
Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Recreation, Parks, and Community Service (RPC)
Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts to scenic vistas/corridors from potential new development. Like the Approved Project,
the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as
part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on scenic
vistas/corridors:
Policy LU-3.3. Building Design. Ensure that building layouts and design are compatible with the
surrounding environment and enhance the streetscape and pedestrian activity. (General Plan EIR
Policy 2-18)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-8 APRIL 2024
Strategy LU-3.3.1. Attractive Design. Emphasize attractive building and site design by paying careful
attention to building scale, mass, placement, architecture, materials, landscaping, screening of
equipment, loading areas, signage, and other design considerations. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-16)
Policy LU- 6.7. Heritage Trees. Protect and maintain the city’s heritage trees in a healthy state.
(General Plan EIR Policy 2-74)
Policy LU-12.3. Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas. Require rural improvement standards
in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Improvement standards should
balance the need to furnish adequate utility and emergency services against the need to protect the
hillside, vegetation, and animals. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-51)
Policy LU-12.4. Hillside Views. The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundary of the valley
floor provide a scenic backdrop, adding to the City’s scale and variety. While it is not possible to
guarantee an unobstructed view of the hulls from every vantage point, an attempt should be made to
preserve views of the foothills.
Strategy LU-12.4.1. Views from Public Facilities. Design public facilities, particularly open spaces, so
they include views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and plan hillside developments to
minimize visual and other impacts on adjacent public open space. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-52)
Policy LU -13.7. Streetscape and Connectivity. Create a walkable and bikeable boulevard with active
uses and a distinct image for each subarea.
Strategy LU-13.7.5. Neighborhood Buffers. Consider buffers such as setbacks. Landscaping and/or
building transitions to buffer abutting single-family residential areas from visual and noise impacts.
Policy RPC- 3.1. Preservation of Natural Areas. Design parks to utilize natural features and the
topography of the site in order to protect natural features and keep maintenance costs low. (General
Plan EIR Policy 2-88)
In summary, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would not further
obstruct public views of scenic vistas from within the city. Similar views would continue to be visible
between projects and over lower-density areas. Considering this and the fact that the proposed housing
locations are not considered destination public viewing points and are in similar locations as those
evaluated under the Approved Project, overall impacts from the proposed Modified Project would not
result in new or more severe impacts to scenic vistas beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-9
AES-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic
Highway.
As described in the General Plan EIR, Caltrans designated the segment of I-280 from Santa Clara County
line on the west to I-880 on the east as an eligible State Scenic Highway.3 The status of a proposed State
Scenic Highway changes from “eligible” to officially “designated” when the local governing body applies to
Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that
the highway has been officially designated a Scenic Highway. The City of Cupertino has not applied to
Caltrans for Scenic Highway approval at the time of drafting this EA. As described in Section 4.1.1.1,
Regulatory Framework, under subheading “Senate Bill 743,” there is the potential for future qualifying
development located within the TPA surrounding Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road would
be exempt from aesthetics evaluation. The General Plan EIR found that potential future development over
the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040 with heights ranging from 30 to 160 feet would not
represent a substantial change in the character of the areas in the viewshed of this segment of I-280,
because the existing viewshed in this area is largely urbanized and built out.
As with the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would primarily involve gradual changes in
development intensity along the I-280 viewshed, similar to existing buildings, albeit with increased
building height potential. Like the Approved Project, new and/or intensified uses in the I-280 viewshed, as
a result of the proposed Modified Project, would be dispersed within the Heart of the City Special Area,
North De Anza Special Area, North Vallco Park Special Area, South De Anza Special Area, and Homestead
Special Area, and would not fully obstruct views of far-field scenic resources (e.g., Santa Cruz Mountains),
trees, or historic buildings from the eligible State Scenic Highway (I-280).
As described under impact discussion AES-1, the General Plan EIR found that the Land Use and
Community Design (LU); Recreation, Parks, and Community Service (RPC); and Environmental Resources
and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts to scenic vistas/corridors, including I-280, from potential new
development. Additional policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts to scenic resources include:
Policy LU- 6.1. Historic Preservation. Maintain and update an inventory of historically significant
structures and sites in order to protect resources and promote awareness of the city’s history in the
following four categories: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks and Historic
Mention Sites (General Plan Figure LU-3). (General Plan EIR Policy 2-71)
Strategy LU-19.3.10. Trees. Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road, and Stevens Creek
Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new developments are proposed.
3 California Department of Transportation website, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways,
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed
September 6, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-10 APRIL 2024
Policy ES-5.3. Development Near Sensitive Areas. Encourage the clustering of new development away
from sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space
preserves and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have harmonious landscaping plan
approved prior to development. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-9)
Like the Approved Project, these policies and strategies would continue to serve to minimize potential
adverse impacts along the I-280 viewshed. Accordingly, overall impacts to scenic resources in the I-280
viewshed under the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond
what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project in an urbanized area
could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.
The General Plan EIR identified sites, shown on Figure 3-40, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Conformance Sites, of the General Plan EIR, where there were inconsistencies between the Approved
Project and existing land use for the location. However, under the Approved Project, the General Plan Map
was amended to bring consistency between the existing use and the General Plan land use for the
location. Additionally, future potential projects under the Approved Project would be reviewed for
compliance with applicable regulations as part of the entitlement process. Given the existing commercial,
industrial, and residential uses surrounding the locations for future potential development under the
Approved Project, gradual development of those future projects would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the Study Area and their surroundings. General Plan 2040 is the
primary planning document for Cupertino and is implemented by the zoning code. The proposed
amendments to the General Plan 2040 and zoning code are intended to ensure consistency between the
General Plan 2040, zoning code, and State law. All potential future development under the proposed
Modified Project, like the Approved Project, would be required to be consistent with the General Plan
2040, zoning code, and other City regulations governing visual character, as described in Section 4.1.1.1,
Environmental Setting. Because the proposed Modified Project includes updates to the overriding
planning documents for the City, and because the proposed Modified Project involves amending the
General Plan 2040 and the zoning code to improve consistency, adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would have no impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or
regulations governing scenic quality. With respect to State regulations, as described in impact discussion
AES-2, impacts associated with State regulations governing designated State Scenic Highways would not
result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. However, it
should also be noted, as described in Section 4.1.1.1., Regulatory Framework, under subheading “Senate
Bill 743,” there is the potential for future qualifying development located within the TPA surrounding
Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road to be exempt from aesthetics evaluation.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-11
AES-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not create a
new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area.
Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass, sky
glow, and over-lighting. Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment. Excessive
light and glare can be visually disruptive to humans and nocturnal animal species. Although there is
considerable development in Cupertino, commercial development is concentrated near highways, in the
Heart of the City Special Area, and along major arterials. Generally, light pollution takes form through
street lighting along major streets and highways and nighttime illumination of commercial buildings,
shopping centers, and industrial buildings. Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a
development ’s exterior lighting on adjoining uses and areas. Light and glare impacts are determined
through a comparison of the existing light sources with the proposed lighting plan or policies.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Study Area currently contains many existing sources of nighttime
illumination, including street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing
residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, as well as traffic on SR-85 and I-280. As stated in the
General Plan EIR, despite the new and expanded sources of nighttime illumination and glare from the
Approved Project, potential future development over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040 with
heights ranging from 30 to 160 feet was not expected to generate a substantial increase in light and glare.
The General Plan EIR found that besides general guidelines that require lighting that is context-sensitive in
style and intensity, all potential new development in Cupertino would also have to comply with the
General Plan 2040 policies and CMC provisions that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light
levels.
After the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City adopted the Bird Safe and Dark Sky Ordinance into
CMC Chapter 19.102. The ordinance regulates the design and construction of structures and accessory
components in all zoning districts to protect the natural environment, particularly enhancing bird-
safety and reducing light pollution by establishing regulations to reduce light pollution. Potential future
development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to follow these standards.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) Element contains policies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts from light and glare. Like the
Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategy, and updated policies and
strategy as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts
from light and glare.
Policy LU-3.5. Light Pollution. Reduce light pollution and other adverse effects associated with night
lighting from street and urban uses.
Strategy LU-3.5.1. Dark Sky Ordinance. New development and other applicable projects shall comply
with the City’s Glass and Lighting Standards Ordinance, which provides Dark Sky regulations to reduce
light pollution.
Policy LU-20.6. Neighborhood Buffers. Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential uses.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-12 APRIL 2024
Policy LU-27.8. Protection. Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare, odors,
and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building
design, setbacks, and other appropriate measures.
Additionally, the preservation of mature trees with substantial tree canopies, as described in CMC Chapter
14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance, would diffuse the overall amount of light generated by new development
and glare generated by windows of multistory buildings. Furthermore, because the areas of potential
growth are largely developed, the lighting associated with the proposed Modified Project would not
substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the Study Area or its surroundings compared to the
Approved Project.
Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project, same as the Approved Project, would
occur on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already
developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving
development, where future development would have lesser light and glare impacts. Potential future
development under the proposed Modified Project would be subject to the same regulatory setting as
that of the Approved Project, including the City’s General Plan policies that require reducing light and
glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses by buffering new development with
landscaping and trees and CMC Section 19.102.040, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, to minimize impact
on the dark sky. Accordingly, overall impacts related to light and glare would not result in new or more
severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to aesthetic resources.
The General Plan EIR considers growth projected by the General Plan in the Cupertino city limit and
Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara
County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG)
and found that because of the developed nature of the Study Area, future development would not
negatively impact the visual character of the city. Because of the developed nature of the projected areas
of growth in Cupertino, future development under the proposed Modified Project, in combination with
other new development, would not negatively impact the visual character of the city or the surrounding
communities. Furthermore, the proposed Modified Project would not constitute a significant adverse
impact, when compared to the Approved Project, because future potential development and
redevelopment within the Study Area is anticipated to occur as growth occurs.
The General Plan 2040 policies and strategies listed in impact discussions AES-1, AES-2, and AES-4 would
not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in Cupertino. Individual potential
future developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and strategies and the CMC
provisions related to aesthetics, including potential project-level design review requirements. Additionally,
similar to the Approved Project, as part of the approval process, potential future development as a result
of implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be subject to architectural, environmental,
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-13
and site design review, as applicable, to ensure that the development is aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with adjoining land uses. With the development review mechanisms in place, approved future
potential development under the proposed Modified Project would not create substantial impacts to
visual resources in Cupertino or the surrounding communities, when compared to the Approved Project.
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to
aesthetic resources and cumulative impacts would continue to be less than significant. Overall cumulative
aesthetics impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts to aesthetics resources beyond what
was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-14 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This chapter describes the potential impacts to air quality associated with the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and
baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the
potential air quality impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could
minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary
and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide
(CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air
pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that Ambient
Air Quality Standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and NOX are criteria pollutant
precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in
the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Table
4.2-1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated
with the criteria air pollutants.
TABLE 4.2-1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY
Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Chest pain in heart patients, Headaches,
nausea, Reduced mental alertness
Death at very high levels
Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks,
construction and farming equipment, and
residential heaters and stoves
Ozone (O3)
Cough, chest tightness, Difficulty taking a deep
breath, Worsened asthma symptoms
Lung inflammation
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Increased response to allergens, Aggravation
of respiratory illness
Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Hospitalizations for worsened heart diseases,
Emergency room visits for asthma, Premature
death
Cars and trucks (particularly diesels),
Fireplaces and woodstoves, Windblown dust
from overlays, agriculture, and construction
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Aggravation of respiratory disease
(e.g., asthma and emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels,
smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores, and
industrial processes
Lead (Pb) Behavioral and learning disabilities in children,
Nervous system impairment
Contaminated soil
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2024, Common Air Pollutants: Air Pollution and Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air-
pollutants, accessed January 29, 2024; South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 6, 2005, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues
in General Plans and Local Planning, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf,
accessed January 29, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-2 APRIL 2024
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is
presented below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon
substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO
concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when
surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO
concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. When
inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces its
oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body
tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung
disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations
can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of
ground-level O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when
combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NOX
produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the
mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO
in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially
irritating. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when
combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 acts as an acute
irritant and in equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations,
however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2
and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has
also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm).
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous
fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal
and chemical processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur
content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4)
in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is
both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may
irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2,
ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including
bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly adverse for
asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing) at lower concentrations
and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue.
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as
soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. In the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air
Basin), most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading,
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-3
demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Two forms of fine particulates are now
recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less.
Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e.,
2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also classified as a
carcinogen. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory
disease. PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and
can lodge deep in the lungs. The EPA scientific review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more
deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at concentrations
well below current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with
heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased
lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the
SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates.
Ozone (O3) is a key ingredient of “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOX, both by-
products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3
is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer
months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for
its formation. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as
well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest
pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and
asthma; reduce lung function; and inflame the linings of the lungs. Besides causing shortness of
breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O3 can also damage
plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics.
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are compounds composed
primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle
usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions from
paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer
products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but
rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O3. There are no AAQS
established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the BAAQMD has
established a significance threshold for this pollutant.
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The
major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result
of the phasing out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead
emissions. The highest levels of lead in the air are generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Because
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-4 APRIL 2024
emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by the BAAQMD, lead is not an air
quality of concern for the Approved Project or proposed Modified Project.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Health and Safety Code defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may
cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or
potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to
Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 US Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. People
exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of
getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to
the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental,
respiratory, and other health problems.1 CARB has identified over 200 substances and groups of
substances as TACs.2 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for several compounds that
pose high risks and show potential for effective control measures. Most of the estimated health risks from
TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds. The most important compounds are particulate
matter from diesel-fueled engines.
In 1998, CARB identified Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical
compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or
less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually
trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs. According to the BAAQMD, PM emitted from
diesel engines contributes to more than 85 percent of the cancer risk in the SFBAAB. Cancer risk from
TACs is highest near major DPM sources.3
Because placement of sensitive land uses falls outside CARB’s jurisdiction, CARB developed and approved
the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) to address the siting of
sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-
plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed
to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution
sources. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses identified in Table 4.2-2, CARB
Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses, are based on a compilation of recent studies that
evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources.
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, updated November 2023, Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous
Air Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants, accessed January 29,
2024.
2 California Air Resources Board, 2022, CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants, accessed January 29, 2024.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community
Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013),
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri
l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-5
TABLE 4.2-2 CARB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITTING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source/Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-Traffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with
100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that
accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating
transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed
300 hours per week).
Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and
maintenance rail yard.
Ports
Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most
heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the CARB on the status of
pending analyses of health risks.
Refineries
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.
Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate
separation.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation.
For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3
or more machines, consult with the local air district. Do not site new sensitive land
uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as
a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot
separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
Source: California Air Resources Board, April 2005, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective,
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/221458-6/attachment/UNr-g159CW-r0G4DR8q6daNdAKT3RJTd8gGQCfz4wqFfl-
eNdZNQEqjf8tfls1x6Gsae7YqpXwtFIZBd0, accessed January 29, 2024.
The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both
exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic TACs that constitute
the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic: DPM from trucks, benzene, and 1,3-
butadiene from passenger vehicles.
In 2017, CARB provided a supplemental technical advisory to the handbook for near-roadway air pollution
exposure, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways. Strategies include
practices and technologies that reduce traffic emissions, increase dispersion of traffic pollution (or the
dilution of pollution in the air), or remove pollution from the air.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal, State, and local air districts have passed laws and regulations intended to control and enhance air
quality. Land use in the Study Area is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ), California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
AAQS have been adopted at federal and state levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the federal
and state governments regulate the release of TACs. Cupertino is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
(SFBAAB) and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by BAAQMD, the national AAQS adopted by
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-6 APRIL 2024
the EPA, and the California AAQS adopted by CARB. The regulatory framework applicable to future
potential development under the proposed Modified Project is summarized below.
Federal and State Regulations
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 by the United States Congress and has been amended several times.
The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the
regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including
nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to
regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The Clean Air Act allows states to adopt more
stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in
1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical
date. The California AAQS tends to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater
health and welfare concerns.
Both California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for seven air pollutants,
which are shown in Table 4.2-3, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants. These National AAQS
and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection
of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to
further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened
by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate
occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before
adverse effects are observed. California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria
pollutant emissions, including:4
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards.
Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation.
Advanced Clean Cars Regulation.
Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation.
Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and SB 107: Renewables Portfolio Standards.
Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards.
Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code.
4 See Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EA for a description of regulations that reduce emissions
including Assembly Bill 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, Senate Bill 375, also known as the Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act. See Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this Draft EIR for a description on Senate Bill 743,
and how it relates to reducing vehicle miles traveled or “VMT.”
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-7
TABLE 4.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3) c 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-
powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations,
industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean * 0.030 ppm
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery
plants, and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial,
and agricultural operations, combustion,
atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Respirable Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5) d
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial,
and agricultural operations, combustion,
atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb)
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 *
Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source:
combustion of leaded gasoline.
Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average * 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) e 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.
Visibility Reducing
Particles 8 hours
ExCo =0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of
tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments,
solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size
and chemical composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals, soot, soil,
dust, and salt.
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the
odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial
decomposition of sulfur-containing organic
substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas
and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the
result of geothermal energy exploitation.
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated
hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet
odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-8 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl
chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial
breakdown of chlorinated solvents.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; *Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity.
a. California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing
particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the
Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
b. National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is
attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For
PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is
equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or
less than the standard.
c. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
d. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5
standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards
(primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3
years.
e. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national
standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to
the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
Source: California Air Resources Board, March 2017, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act
Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California
Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to these
contaminants to protect public health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to
Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air
contaminant. Under State law, CalEPA, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC
if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may
pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588
(Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). AB 1807 sets up a formal procedure for
CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control
measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point
below which there is no toxic effect), the airborne toxics control measure must reduce exposure to below
that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the airborne toxics control measure must incorporate toxics
best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control
measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe threshold.
Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality
management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities 5 are required to perform a
5 Each district is responsible for establishing the prioritization score threshold at which facilities are required to prepare a
health risk assessment. In the Bay Area, facilities that generate a cancer risk of greater or equal to 10 in a million and a non-
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-9
health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results
to the public through notices and public meetings. CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to
limit TAC emissions:
13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial
Motor Vehicle Idling. Restricts on-road diesel-powered commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of greater than 10,000 pounds from idling more than five minutes.
13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2480: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling
at Schools. Restricts a school bus or transit bus from idling for more than five minutes when within
100 feet of a school.
13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. Regulations
established to control emissions associated with diesel-powered TRUs.
Regional Regulations
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is the agency responsible for ensuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and
maintained in the SFBAAB. Air quality conditions in the SFBAAB have improved significantly since
BAAQMD was created in 1955.6 BAAQMD prepares air quality management plans (AQMP) to attain
ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the
National O3 standard and clean air plans for the California O3 standard BAAQMD prepares these air quality
management plans in coordination with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to ensure consistent assumptions about regional growth.
2017 Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April
19, 2017, making it the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan incorporates
significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient
measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2017 Clean Air Plan
serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues to provide the framework
for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates
the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based on the “all feasible measures” approach to meet the
requirements of the California Clean Air Act. Additionally, it sets a goal of reducing health risk impacts to
local communities by 20 percent between 2015 and 2020. Furthermore the 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays
the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction
cancer chronic or acute risk greater or equal to 10 in a million are high priority facilities. Types of facilities that have the potential
to generate risks of this level include refineries, other heavy industrial manufacturing/industrial processes, and fueling stations.
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed
January 29, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-10 APRIL 2024
target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050
that encompasses the following: 7
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.
Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous
public transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and
putting organic waste to productive use.
A multipollutant control strategy was developed to be implemented in the next three to five years to
address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control
strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and GHG
from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary
(industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) waste
management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. The control strategy includes these key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.
Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.
Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).
Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.
Reduce demand for vehicle travel and high-carbon goods and services.
Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program
The BAAQMD Community Air Risk Evaluation program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health
risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area, primarily DPM. The last update to this
program was conducted in 2014. Based on findings of the 2014 report, DPM was found to account for
approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics. Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline-
powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant cancer risks: 1,3-butadiene
contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions and benzene contributed 3 percent.
Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—were
found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to emissions. All these
compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The most important sources
of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM, including on-road mobile
sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and harbor craft (13 percent).
Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2015, when emissions
inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions.8
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 19, 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A
Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community
Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013),
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-11
The major contributor to acute and chronic noncancer health effects in the SFBAAB is acrolein (C3H4O).
Major sources of acrolein are on-road mobile sources and aircraft near freeways and commercial and
military airports.9 Currently CARB does not have certified emission factors or an analytical test method for
acrolein. Since the appropriate tools needed to implement and enforce acrolein emission limits are not
available, BAAQMD does not conduct health risk screening analyses for acrolein emissions.10
Air District Rules and Regulations
Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the Study Area. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous
Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain
odorous compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance,
which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business
or property.” Under BAAQMD ’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a
30-day period can be declared a public nuisance.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program
To reduce public exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, BAAQMD places Airborne Toxic Control
Measures to regulate all construction, maintenance, grading, and mining activities that could potentially
produce dust containing naturally occurring asbestos.11 The Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program also
requires the best available dust mitigation measures to be followed to reduce exposure to airborne
asbestos.12
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri
l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community
Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013),
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri
l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, January 2010, Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HSRA)
Guidelines, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Air%20Toxics%20Programs/hrsa_guidelines.ashx, accessed
January 29, 2024.
11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2023, Naturally Occurring Asbestos.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/permits/asbestos/naturally-occuring-asbestos, accessed January 29, 2024.
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2018, Compliance Advisory, Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program Fee Change.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/compliance-and-enforcement/advisories/asbestos-atcm/noa-compliance-advisory-
2019_final-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed May 25, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-12 APRIL 2024
Other Air District Regulations
In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers several specific regulations
on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to potential future development constructed,
including:
Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing
Regulation 11, Rule 18, Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities
Valley Transportation Authority
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County.
VTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local
jurisdictions to reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision making and air quality plans. VTA ’s
latest congestion management program (CMP) is the Congestion Management Program Document,
adopted December 2021.13 VTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional
transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data. The countywide transportation model is
used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system.
Plan Bay Area
MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area on October 21, 2021.14 Plan Bay Area provides transportation and
environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation related GHG reduction goals of
SB 375. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include focusing housing and commercial construction in
walkable, transit-accessible places; investing in transit and active transportation; and shifting the location
of jobs to encourage shorter commutes. As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local
governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) to focus
growth. As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EA, PDAs are transit-oriented, infill
development opportunity areas within existing communities. TPAs are half-mile buffers surrounding major
transit stops or terminals. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Area and Transit Priority Areas, of
13 Valley Transportation Authority, December 2021, Congestion Management Program (CMP) Document,
https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021CMPDocumentV2_Reduced.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.
14 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050,
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 29,
2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-13
this EA, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores,
Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza.15,16
Nitrogen Oxides from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces, Boilers, and Water Heaters
BAAQMD adopted amendments to Regulation 9, Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants, Rule 4, Nitrogen Oxides
from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces (Rule 9-4) and Rule 6, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired
Boilers and Water Heaters (Rule 9-6). Space- and water-heating appliances generate a large portion of
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from sources in the Bay Area. NOX are a key criteria pollutant as a
precursor to ozone and secondary particulate matter (PM) formation. The amendments would require
more stringent NOX emission standards for space- and water-heating appliances within BAAQMD’s
jurisdiction starting in year 2023 and would substantially reduce NOX emissions from these appliances
commonly found in single-family homes and commercial applications. The amendments to Rules 9-4 and
9-6 include the following elements:
Sales and installation of smaller water heaters and boilers (below 75,000 BTU/hour) must be zero
emission, starting in 2027.
Sales and installation of furnaces (heat input rate less than 175,000 BTU/hour) must be zero emission
starting in 2029.
Sales of larger water heaters and boilers (between 75,000 and 2 million BTU/hour) must be zero
emission starting in 2031.
Existing appliances can remain in operation, but the rule would apply once they need replacement.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Mobility (M), Environmental Resources (ES), and Health and Safety (HS) Elements of the General Plan
2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider air quality impacts. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse
impacts to air quality are identified in Section 4.2.3, Impact Discussion.
Climate Action Plan
Adopted in August 2022, the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) is an updated roadmap of
specific actions to reduce GHG emissions, achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040, and
increase community resilience, and capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change.17 The CAP 2.0
allows City decision-makers and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG
15 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transit Priority Areas (2021), 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.328339%2C-
122.044206%2C14.00, accessed on January 20, 2024
16 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Priority Development Areas – Plan Bay Area 2050, 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/explore?location=37.319615%2C-
122.033008%2C14.71, accessed on January 20, 2024.
17 City of Cupertino, August 2022, Climate Action 2.0,
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on January 29, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-14 APRIL 2024
emissions and identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the City will use to
achieve targets consistent with State recommendations of 4.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e) per person by 2030 and 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. The CAP 2.0 adopted in 2022 updated
and expanded the City’s goals from the 2015 CAP, including strategies for Cupertino to prepare for and
mitigate approaching risks from climate change.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to local and
regional air quality. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to air
quality are included in Title 6, Franchises, Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Title 16, Buildings
and Construction, Title 17, Environmental Regulations, and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
Chapter 6.24, Garbage, Non-Organic Recycling and Organic Waste Recycling Collection and Disposal.
This chapter includes Section 6.24.037, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, which includes
a list of requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, and state
organic recycling laws.
Chapter 14.02, Transportation Impact Fee Program. This chapter recognizes that there will be
additional demand on the City’s existing transportation infrastructure and therefore created the
Transportation Impact Fee Program to generate revenue that the City can use as a funding source for
the costs of the transportation improvements required to serve new development.
Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees . This chapter protects, preserves, and replenishes healthy and
valuable trees in the city for the health and welfare of residents and to counteract air pollutants and
maintain climatic balances, among reasons.
Chapter 16.32, Energy Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Energy Code and each and all
the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code and requires newly constructed
buildings in the City to be all-electric, with varying exceptions for non-residential occupancies.
Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Salvaging of Construction and Demolition Debris. This chapter requires
projects to recycle or divert at least sixty-five percent (65 percent), or meet the amounts, criteria and
requirements specified in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, whichever is more
restrictive, of all materials generated for discard by the project. This helps the City reduce landfill
waste, foster resource conservation, and meet and exceed an overall waste diversion rate of 50
percent.
Section 17.04.040, Standard Environmental Protection Technical Report Submittal Requirements. This
section requires project applicants to submit technical reports for air quality and hazardous materials
which are subject to review and approval prior to the approval of the project.
Air Quality Technical Report Requirements
1. Control Diesel Particulate Matter from Non-Residential Projects During Operation. Applicants for
new non-residential land uses within the city that either have the potential to generate 100 or
more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered
Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.,
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-15
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project
to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall:
a. Prepare and submit an operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for approval by the City
prior to approval of the project.
b. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD).
c. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06),
PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the project applicant shall be required to identify and
demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of
reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate
enforcement mechanisms.
d. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be indicated in the appropriate applicable construction
document prior to approval of the project. T-BACTs may include the following measures from
BAAQMD’s Planning Healthy Places Guidebook but are not limited to:
i. Restricting nonessential idling on-site to no more than two minutes.
ii. Providing electric charging capable truck trailer spaces to accommodate Zero Emissions
(ZE) Trucks.
iii. Providing electric charging capable warehousing docks to accommodate ZE Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRUs).
iv. Requiring use of Near Zero Emissions (NZE) or ZE equipment (e.g., yard trucks and
forklifts) and/or vehicles.
v. Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
2. Manage Indoor Air Pollution.
a. Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes,
day care centers) in areas identified on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMD) “Conduct Further Study” on the Planning Healthy Places Map shall:
i. Prepare and submit an operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City prior to
approval of the project.
ii. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD. The latest OEHHA
guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates,
and body weights appropriate for children ages 0 to 16 years.
iii. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06),
PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the project applicant shall identify and demonstrate
measures that are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-16 APRIL 2024
acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including
appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
iv. Measures to reduce risk may include, but are not limited to:
1. Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.
2. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with
appropriately sized Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters.
b. Applicants for residential and/or other sensitive land use projects (e.g., hospitals, nursing
homes, day care centers) must state in the applicable construction document where the site
is located on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Planning Healthy
Places Map, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced. If the site is located in an
area identified as “Implement Best Practices,” the project applicant shall implement, and
include in applicable construction documents, the following best practices identified in the
BAAQMD Planning Healthy Places Guidebook:
i. Install air filters rated at a MERV 13 or higher.
ii. Locate operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes as far away from any
emission source as is feasible.
iii. Incorporate solid barriers or dense rows of trees in a minimum planter width of 5 feet per
row of trees between the residential and/or sensitive land use, and the emissions source
into site design.
iv. Do not locate residential and/or sensitive land use on the ground floor units of buildings
near non-elevated sources (e.g., ground level heavily traveled roadways and freeways).
c. The project applicant shall include the applicable measures identified in subsections (a) and
(b) above in the applicable construction documents prior to approval of the project.
Specifically, the air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be included on all
applicable construction documents submitted to the City and verified by the City’s Planning
Division.
Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements. This
section requires project applicants to control construction exhaust and describes the procedures
to be implemented.
1. Control Fugitive Dust During Construction. Projects shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Basic Control Measures included in the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust
(i.e., particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) during demolition, ground disturbing activities and/or
construction. The project applicant shall include these measures in the applicable construction
documents, prior to issuance of the first permit.
2. Control Construction Exhaust. Projects that disturb more than one-acre and are more than two
months in duration, shall implement the following measures and the project applicant shall
include them in the applicable construction document, prior to issuance of the first permit:
a. Utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that is rated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Tier 4 or higher for equipment more than 25
horsepower. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-17
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Tier 4 interim emissions
standard for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB)
regulations. Applicable construction documents shall clearly show the selected emission
reduction strategy for construction equipment over 25 horsepower.
b. Ensure that the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use
on the project site for verification by the City. The construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
c. Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
3. Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Paint. Projects shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50
grams per liter [g/L] or less) for interior and exterior wall architectural coatings. The project
applicant shall include the use of low-VOC paint in the applicable construction documents prior to
issuance of the first permit.
Chapter 19.72, Light Industrial (ML) and Industrial Park (MP) Zones. This chapter includes
regulation for smoke and odor in Section 19.72.050, Restrictions Related to Emissions. No visible
grey smoke of a shade equal to or darker than No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart shall be
permitted at any point. No emission of detectable odorous gases is permitted without a
secondary safeguard system so that control will be maintained if the primary safeguard system
should fail.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to air quality associated with
buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for air quality is described in the General
Plan EIR Section 4.2.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has
codified regulations equivalent to the General Plan EIR mitigation measures to reduce construction-
related air quality impacts in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, as
described under the “Municipal Code” heading in Section 4.2.1.2, Regulatory Framework. The Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements incorporate mitigation from the General Plan EIR, notably
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a which requires applicants for future development projects to comply with the
current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing fugitive
dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) during construction and Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, which
require the submittal of health risk assessments (HRAs) to the City to ensure mobile sources of TACs are
considered in subsequent project-level environmental review from the General Plan EIR. Thus, individual
project applicants for future potential development must include these measures in the applicable
construction documents, prior to issuance of the first permit. Additionally, Plan Bay Area was updated as
described in Section 4.2.1.2, Regulatory Framework.
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Conditions
California is divided geographically into air basins for the purpose of managing the air resources of the
State on a regional basis. The State is divided into 15 air basins and the Study Area is in the SFBAAB. The
BAAQMD is the regional air quality agency for the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties; the southern portion of Sonoma
County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined by such
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-18 APRIL 2024
natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air
pollution sources and ambient conditions. The discussion below identifies the natural factors in the
SFBAAB that affect air pollution. Air pollutants of concern are criteria air pollutants and TACs. Federal,
State, and local air districts have adopted laws and regulations intended to control and improve air quality.
Meteorology
The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and
bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range splits the Bay Area, creating a western
coast gap, the Golden Gate strait, and an eastern coast gap, the Carquinez Strait, which allows air to flow
in and out of the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The climate is dominated by the strength and location of
a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is
centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady
northwesterly wind flow. The upwelling of cold ocean water from below the surface because of the
northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. The cool and moisture-laden air
approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the presence of the cold-water band,
resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast.
In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore,
the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds
result in a low air pollution potential.
Wind Patterns
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and
over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais in Marin
County, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they
stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that
sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San José
when it meets the East Bay hills. Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled
through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap.
The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near
ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon and the sea breeze deepens and increases
in velocity while spreading inland. Under normal atmospheric conditions, the air in the lower atmosphere
is warmer than the air above it. In the winter, the SFBAAB frequently experiences stormy conditions with
moderate to strong winds, known as Diablo Winds, as well as periods of stagnation with very light winds.
Winter stagnation episodes (i.e., conditions where there is little mixing, which occurs when there is a lack
of or little wind) are characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of
the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back down
toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the SFBAAB.
Temperature
Summertime temperatures in the Air Basin are determined in large part by the effect of differential
heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-19
water, a large-scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the
Central Valley, and small-scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and
bays. The temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in summer, because of the
upwelling of cold water from the ocean bottom along the coast. On summer afternoons, the
temperatures at the coast can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles
inland; at night, this contrast usually decreases to less than 10°F. In the winter, the relationship between
minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the temperature contrast between
the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in temperature is large.
Precipitation
The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November
through March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual
precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another, even within short distances. In
general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in
sheltered valleys.
During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and
vertical mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels
tend to be low (i.e., air pollutants are dispersed more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate
under stagnant conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, where mixing and
ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up.
Wind Circulation
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be
emitted into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun
(fall and winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from
some sources are at their peak, namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances
(nighttime). The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants up-valley
during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted
movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to
potentially unhealthful levels.
Inversions
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions
significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available
for diluting air contaminants near the ground). There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in
the SFBAAB. Elevation inversions are more common in the summer and fall, and radiation inversions are
more common during the winter. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur
during inversions.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-20 APRIL 2024
Attainment Status of the SFBAAB
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the State and federal
AAQS through the State Implementation Plan. Areas that meet AAQS are classified as attainment areas,
and areas that do not meet these standards are classified nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for
O3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme.
Unclassified: A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a
designation of attainment or nonattainment.
Attainment: A pollutant is in attainment if the AAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in
the area during a three-year period.
Nonattainment: A pollutant is in nonattainment if there was at least one violation of an AAQS for that
pollutant in the area.
Nonattainment/Transitional: A subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated
nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant.
The attainment status for the SFBAAB is shown in Table 4.2-4, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for
California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS.
TABLE 4.2-4 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005)
Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment (marginal) a
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment b
PM2.5 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Notes:
a. Severity classification current as of February 13, 2017.
b. In December 2014, US EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 National AAQS. Areas designated
“unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this
standard is April 15, 2015.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 19, 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and
Climate Protection in the Bay Area, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-
proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
Existing Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the City are best documented
by measurements taken by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD has 24 permanent monitoring stations around the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-21
Bay Area. The nearest station to the Study Area is the San Jose-Jackson Street Monitoring Station, which
monitors O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Data from the monitoring station is summarized in Table 4.2-5,
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary. The data show that the area regularly exceeds the State and
federal one-hour, eight-hour O3 standards and federal PM2.5, and occasionally exceeds the State PM10 in
the last three recorded years.
TABLE 4.2-5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Pollutant/Standard Number of Days Thresholds Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels
2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm
(Days exceed threshold) 1 3 0
State & Federal 8-hour ≥ 0.070 ppm
(Days exceed threshold) 2 4 1
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.106 0.098 0.090
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.085 0.084 0.074
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 ppm
(Days exceed threshold) 0 0 0
Federal 1-Hour ≥ 0.100 ppm
(Days exceed threshold) 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.0519 0.0478 0.0468
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3
(Days exceed threshold) 10 0 0
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3
(Days exceed threshold) 0 0 0
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 137.1 45.1 44.5
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3
(Days exceed threshold) 12 1 2
Federal Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 120.5 38.1 36.2
Notes: ppm = parts per million; parts per billion, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Data for O3, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 obtained from the San Jose-
Jackson Street Monitoring Station
Source: California Air Resources Board, January 29, 2024 (accessed), iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population
groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, seniors , the acutely ill, and the
chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases.
Residential areas are considered sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children
and seniors ) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any
pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-22 APRIL 2024
Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods
are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air
pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial,
commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods
are relatively short and intermittent, as most of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In
addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public.
Existing Emission Sources
Existing sources of criteria pollutant and TACs emissions in the Study Area principally include area, energy,
and mobile sources. Area source emissions are generated from the use of landscaping equipment, paints
and coatings, and other non-point source fuel and aerosol applications. Energy source emissions are
generated through the consumption of on-site natural gas for building space and water heating. Mobile
source emissions for development projects are generated from the consumption of transportation fuels.
As the Study Area currently has a mix of predominately residential, commercial, and retail land uses, the
above emission sources exist in the city.
4.2.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant air
quality impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
AIR-1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? SU SU
AIR-2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard?
SU SU
AIR-3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LTS/M LTS/M
AIR-4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? LTS LTS
AIR-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to air quality? SU SU
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of
this EA. General Plan EIR AIR-2 has been removed, and AIR-3 has been modified to exclude analyzing ozone precursors. Accordingly, this EA only
analyzes the current questions AIR-1 through AIR-5 as shown here.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
BAAQMD Plan-Level Significance Criteria
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts
of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for
evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA
requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and
background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air
toxics, odors, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental justice.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-23
In June 2010, BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the
CEQA Guidelines. These thresholds are designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air
pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. BAAQMD published a
new version of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines dated April 2023.18 This latest version of the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was used to prepare the analysis in this EA.
Clean Air Plan Consistency
Under its plan-level review criteria, which apply to long-range plans such as the proposed Modified
Project, the BAAQMD recommends a consistency evaluation of the proposed plan with its current AQMP
control measures. The BAAQMD considers a plan to be consistent with the applicable AQMP, which is
currently the 2017 Clean Air Plan, if it is consistent with below considerations:
Does the project support the primary goals of the AQMP?
Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQMP?
Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQMP control measure?
Does the project result in VMT growth that is equal to or less than the projected population growth
over the same timeframe?
Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursors
Plan-Level
The BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor
emissions, including ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. These significance thresholds are recommended by the
BAAQMD as de minimis thresholds for individual development projects, meaning they represent a level of
air pollutant emissions at which impacts to air quality become potentially significant and could contribute
to a potential or existing violation of federal and State AAQS. Development projects below the significance
thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient air pollutant emissions to violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation of federal or State AAQS.
According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, long-range plans (e.g., general plans) present
unique challenges for assessing air quality impacts. Because of the SFBAAB’s nonattainment status for
ozone and particulate matter and the cumulative impacts of population and development growth on air
quality, these plans can often have significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts. To meet the
BAAQMD’s recommended plan-level significance thresholds for operational criteria air pollutant and
precursor impacts, a proposed plan must satisfy the following criteria:
Consistency with current Air Quality Management Plan control measures.
A proposed plan’s VMT or vehicle trips growth is equal to or less than the projected population
growth over the same timeframe?
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed
January 25, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-24 APRIL 2024
Project-Level
The BAAQMD’s regional significance criteria for projects that exceed the screening thresholds are shown
in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds. Criteria
for both the construction and operational phases of the project are shown.
TABLE 4.2-6 BAAQMD REGIONAL (MASS EMISSIONS) CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Air Pollutant
Construction Phase Operational Phase
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual Emissions
(Tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices None None
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed January 25, 2024.
If projects exceed the emissions in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant
Significance Thresholds, emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment status and would
contribute in elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Reducing emissions would
further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants.
However, for projects that exceed the emissions in Table 4.2-6, it is speculative to determine how
exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment since
mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in
the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above. The BAAQMD is the primary agency
responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air
quality in the SFBAAB and at the present time, it has not provided methodology to assess the specific
correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue
raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978 (Friant
Ranch).
Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight
and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash,
atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone
concentrations in relation to the National AAQS and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks
to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health-based
standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail
regional programs to attain the AAQS. However, if a future potential development project within the Study
Area exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the future potential development project could
contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time the attainment standards are met in
the SFBAAB.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-25
Sensitive Receptor Exposure to Pollutant Concentrations
Local Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO
hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which are 9.0
ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). Under a plan-level review, the BAAQMD does not
require an evaluation of CO hotspots. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels,
and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in attainment of the California and National
AAQS for CO emissions, and CO concentrations in the Air Basin have steadily declined. Because CO
concentrations have improved, the BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following
criteria are met (BAAQMD 2023):
The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles
per hour.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking
garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
Community Risk and Hazards
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to both the
siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor. Local community risk and hazard impacts are
associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts
at the local level. The proposed Modified Project would generate TACs and PM2.5 during construction
activities that could elevate concentrations of air pollutants at the nearby sensitive receptors. The
thresholds for construction-related local community risk and hazard impacts are the same as for project
operations. The BAAQMD has adopted screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction.
Construction-related TAC and PM2.5 impacts should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into
consideration the specific construction-related characteristics of each project and proximity to off-site and
on-site receptors, as applicable.19
Community Risk and Hazards: Project
Project-level emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from individual sources that exceed any of the thresholds listed
below are considered a potentially significant community health risk:
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a noncancer (i.e., chronic or acute)
hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a significant project contribution.
19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed
January 25, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-26 APRIL 2024
An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average
PM2.5 from a single source would be a significant project contribution.20
Community Risk and Hazards: Cumulative
Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk values of each of the individual sources within the
1,000-foot evaluation zone. A project would have a cumulatively considerable impact if the aggregate
total of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a
source or location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds any of the following:
An excess cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million or a chronic noncancer hazard index (from
all local sources) greater than 10.0.
0.8 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5.21
In February 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted new
health risk assessment guidance that includes several efforts to be more protective of children’s health.
These updated procedures include the use of age sensitivity factors to account for the higher sensitivity of
infants and young children to cancer causing chemicals, and age-specific breathing rate.22
Odor Impacts
The BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous
Substances. This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations
on certain odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule
1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to
any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or
safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more
violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance. The BAAQMD has established
odor screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints,
including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal
facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plant. For a plan-level analysis, BAAQMD requires:
Potential existing and planned locations of odor sources to be identified.
Policies to reduce odors.
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed
January 25, 2024.
21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed
January 25, 2024.
22 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), February 2015, Guidance Manual for Preparation
of Health Risk Assessment, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-27
4.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
METHODOLOGY
Emissions Quantification
Impacts related to air quality resulting from implementation of the proposed Modified Project are
described below. The impact analysis is based on air quality modeling of the criteria air pollutant and
ozone precursor emissions that would result from future potential development under the proposed
Modified Project. To determine the increase in air pollutants because of the proposed Modified Project,
the maximum allowable net new residential dwelling units envisioned by the proposed Modified Project
(3,312 units) 23 were estimated by calculating the net change from Approved Project and buildout of the
proposed Modified Project in 2040. Due to a lack of available information on existing development on
sites identified to accommodate the envisioned 3,312 dwelling units through 2040, emissions generated
by the net new 3,312 dwelling units are herein considered to be a net increase from conditions under the
Approved Project.
CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions of air pollutants associated with buildout of the
proposed Modified Project (see Table 4.2-9, Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Forecast). Tables 3-4 and 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, identify the sites intended to accommodate
the housing supply growth envisioned by the proposed Modified Project. Based on the housing density
data from these tables, all new housing units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise”, “Apartments
Mid-Rise”, Condos/Townhouse”, and “Single-Family Housing” land use categories in CalEEMod. Consistent
with the Transportation Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Modified Project, emissions
modeling for weekday rates utilized the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for cumulative conditions
and cumulative conditions with project implementation. Saturday and Sunday trip generation and VMT in
the emissions modeling were calculated using the proportional change from CalEEMod default weekday
trip rates to those provided by Fehr & Peers with the CalEEMod default values for Saturday and Sunday
trip rates. All vehicle trips represented in the emissions modeling were assigned to be 100 percent
primary, meaning no trip distance or generation discounts were applied for pass-by or diverted trips to
provide a conservative emissions estimate.
Consistent with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood -Burning Devices, no new dwelling units
modeled with CalEEMod were assumed to contain any wood-burning devices. In addition, the per-
dwelling unit indoor and outdoor water consumption rates as well as the solid waste generation and
energy consumption rates reflect utilization of CalEEMod default rates.
Impacts of the Environment on a Project
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines include methodology for jurisdictions wanting to evaluate the potential
impacts from placing sensitive receptors proximate to major air pollutant sources. For assessing
community risk and hazards for siting a new receptor, sources within a 1,000-foot radius of a project site
23 Modeling assumed 3,317 new residential units within the City for consistency with the transportation analysis.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-28 APRIL 2024
are typically considered. Sources are defined as freeways, high volume roadways (with volume of 10,000
vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day) and permitted sources.
Buildout under the proposed Modified Project could result in siting sensitive uses (e.g., residential) near
sources of emissions (e.g., freeways, industrial uses, etc.). Developing new sensitive land uses near
sources of emissions could expose persons that inhabit these sensitive land uses to potential air quality-
related impacts. However, the purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant
effects of the proposed Modified Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the
environment on the proposed Modified Project. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478). Thus, CEQA does not require
analysis of the potential environmental effects from placing sensitive receptors near existing sources, and
this type of analysis is not provided below in the Section 4.2.3, Impact Analysis.
While it is generally not within the purview of CEQA to analyze impacts of the environment on a project,
the CMC includes provisions to prioritize of the health of Cupertino’s residents through the incorporation
of design features to minimize air quality impacts and to achieve appropriate health standards. The
General Plan 2040 contains several goals, policies, and strategies that aim to reduce the potential for
sensitive receptor exposure to TACs. For example, General Plan Policy ES-4.1, New Development, aims to
promote the reduction in health and safety hazards associated with TACs and fugitive dust generated by
new development in the city.
AIR-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the potential future development under the Approved Project would
not exceed regional growth projections or hinder BAAQMD’s ability to attain the California or National
AAQS. As the Approved Project would adhere to BAAQMD regulations as well as to General Plan policies,
it would ensure new sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. The Approved
Project is consistent with the goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan and implements policies and strategies that
ensure consistency with the control measures of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. However, the Approved Project
would result in a higher VMT rate of growth than rate of service population growth, and buildout of the
Approved Project would conflict with the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan goal for community-wide VMT to
increase at a slower rate compared to population and employment growth.
The following describes potential air quality impacts of consistency with the AQMP from the
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. The General Plan plays an important role in local
agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the 2017 Clean Air Plan. It fulfills
the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under
consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also
provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals
in the Bay Area. BAAQMD requires a consistency evaluation of a proposed project with the current AQMP
control measures, as described in Section 4.2.2, Standards of Significance.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-29
BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan Goals
Attain Air Quality Standards
As described in the General Plan EIR, the potential future development under the Approved Project would
not exceed regional growth projections of Plan Bay Area or hinder BAAQMD’s ability to attain the
California or National AAQS. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, BAAQMD adopted its 2017
Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan strategy is based on regional population and employment
projections in the Bay Area compiled by ABAG, which are based in part on cities’ general plan land use
designations. These demographic projections are incorporated into Plan Bay Area. Demographic trends
incorporated into Plan Bay Area determine VMT in the Bay Area, which BAAQMD uses to forecast future
air quality trends. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 (State
AAQS only).
In addition, as described in greater detail under Impact Discussion AIR-2, individual development projects
facilitated by the proposed Modified Project that are subject to CEQA would be required to undergo their
own respective environmental review. In determining whether an individual development project would
have potentially significant impacts on local and regional air quality, including consideration of an
individual development project’s contribution to an existing or forecast air quality violation, BAAQMD
recommends using project-level significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and ozone precursors.
Utilizing the BAAQMD’s recommended project-level significance thresholds and considering that the
SFBAAB is currently in nonattainment for PM standards, individual potential future development projects
facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would be considered to have potentially significant site-
specific or project-specific impacts related to the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities
if they do not implement BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures targeting dust control and sediment
migration. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for PM, and BAAQMD’s
recommended significance threshold for construction fugitive dust is binary—meaning if a project
includes dust control best management practices (BMP) that resemble BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control
Measures, then construction fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant. Pursuant to CMC
Section 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, potential future development under
both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project would be required to implement BAAQMD’s
Basic Dust Control Measures and therefore impacts related to construction fugitive dust would be less
than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to
construction fugitive dust when compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
In addition, construction and operation of potential future development on the Housing Opportunity
Sites, as identified in Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table
3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), of this EA, the
proposed Modified Project could result in air quality emissions that exceed the BAAQMD significance
criteria for ozone precursors. However, like the Approved Project, potential future development under the
proposed Modified Project would implement the City’s Standard Environmental Protection Requirements
as stipulated in CMC Chapter 17.04. These requirements are codified regulations equivalent to the
General Plan EIR mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. For example,
CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(3) would require a future project to use low-VOC architectural coatings of no
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-30 APRIL 2024
greater than 50 grams per liter of product, potential impacts related to construction VOC emissions—an
O3 precursor —so that these emissions would be reduced during construction and impacts would be less
than significant. As the Standard Environmental Protection Requirements would apply to both the
Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
new or more severe impacts with regard to construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions or a
substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Moreover, the General Plan EIR found that potential future development under the Approved Project
would not exceed regional projections for residential or employment populations and would not hinder
BAAQMD’s ability to attain the California or National AAQS. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description,
the proposed Modified Project would introduce up to 3,312 net new housing units and 9,737 new
residents, which would increase the City’s total population to approximately 81,037. According to the Plan
Bay Area 2040 growth projections, which underpin the growth assumptions that inform the emissions
forecasts in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Cupertino is projected to have a population of 68,305 people by
2040; therefore, the proposed Modified Project would result in greater population growth in the city than
what is accounted for in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As a result, the proposed Modified Project would be
considered inconsistent with the growth assumptions and emissions forecasts of the AQMP and impacts
would be potentially significant. It is important to note that this impact conclusion is solely based on the
fact that the City’s population growth projections exceed what is currently accounted for in BAAQMD’s
2017 Clean Air Plan. Should BAAQMD update its Clean Air Plan to reflect the updated regional growth
projections from ABAG for the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 -2031), it is possible that the new
growth accommodated by the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct BAAQMD’s
ability to attain the California or National AAQS; however, it is unknown how BAAQMD’s attainment
strategy may change in response to updated population growth projections or emissions forecasts. As
such, this impact would be potentially significant.
Reduce Population Exposure and Protect Public Health
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Cupertino is largely developed, and new sensitive land uses
could be proximate to major sources of TACs. Under the Approved Project, adherence to BAAQMD
regulations would ensure new sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. Like
the Approved Project, future potential development of the proposed Modified Project could result in new
sources of TACs and PM2.5. Stationary sources, including smaller stationary sources associated with
residential development (e.g., emergency generators, boilers), are subject to review by BAAQMD as part
of the permitting process. Adherence to BAAQMD permitting regulations would ensure that new
stationary sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. Mobile sources of air toxics
(e.g., truck idling) are not regulated directly by BAAQMD. However, potential future residential
development associated with the proposed Modified Project would not generate substantial truck traffic
or idling. Furthermore, individual future potential development projects facilitated by the proposed
Modified Project would be required to achieve the project-level risk thresholds established by BAAQMD to
ensure the sensitive receptor impact resulting from the subject development project would be less than
significant. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts
with regard to reducing the population’s exposure and protecting public health or a substantial increase in
magnitude of impacts compared what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-31
Reduce GHG Emissions and Protect the Climate
Consistency of the proposed Modified Project with State, regional, and local plans adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions are discussed in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EA.
The General Plan EIR determined that the Approved Project is consistent with the goals of the 2010 Bay
Area Clean Air Plan to reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate and that new policies would be
introduced as part of the Approved Project to minimize impacts. Like the Approved Project, future
development allowed by the proposed Modified Project would be required to adhere to statewide
measures that have been adopted to achieve the GHG reduction targets of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.
The proposed Modified Project is consistent with regional strategies for infill development identified in
Plan Bay Area 2050 and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR,
BAAQMD adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan. While Impact Discussion GHG-1 in Chapter 4.7 identifies that
the proposed Modified Project would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions, the proposed
Modified Project is consistent with State, regional and local plans to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the
proposed Modified Project is consistent with the goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan to reduce GHG emissions
and protect the climate and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would
not result in new impacts with regards to reducing GHG emissions and protecting the climate or a
substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures
The General Plan EIR determined that the Approved Project would not hinder BAAQMD from
implementing the control measures contained in the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Since the certification of the
General Plan EIR, BAAQMD has adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan. Table 4.2-7, Control Measures from the
BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, identifies the control measures included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan that are
required by BAAQMD to reduce air quality emissions for a wide range of both stationary and mobile
sources. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean
Air Plan and would not hinder BAAQMD from implementing the control measures in the 2017 Clean Air
Plan and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not
result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude impacts from implementation of the 2017
Clean Air Plan Control Measures than what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Growth Projections for VMT and Population
The General Plan EIR determined that VMT in the Study Area would increase at a rate higher than the
service population. However, because BAAQMD’s AQMP recommends that the VMT increase be less than
or equal to the projected population increase to determine in part a proposed plan’s consistency with the
applicable AQMP, impacts were significant under the Approved Project. The VMT Analysis (2024) prepared
for the proposed Modified Project, which estimated the weekday citywide VMT generation for the
proposed Modified Project under existing conditions (2019) and future with project conditions (2040),
accounts for full buildout of the proposed Modified Project in 2040.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-32 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN
Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
Stationary
Source Control
Measures
SS 1 – Fluid Catalytic Cracking in Refineries
SS 2 – Equipment Leaks
SS 3 – Cooling Towers
SS 4 – Refinery Flares
SS 5 – Sulfur Recovery Units
SS 6 – Refinery Fuel Gas
SS 7 – Sulfuric Acid Plants
SS 8 – Sulfur Dioxide from Coke Calcining
SS 9 – Enhanced NSR Enforcement for Changes in Crude Slate
SS 10 – Petroleum Refining Emissions Tracking
SS 11 – Petroleum Refining Facility-Wide Emission Limits
SS 12 – Petroleum Refining Climate Impacts Limit
SS 13 – Oil and Gas Production, Processing and Storage
SS 14 – Methane from Capped Wells
SS 15 – Natural Gas Processing and Distribution
SS 16 – Basin-Wide Methane Strategy
SS 17 – GHG BACT Threshold
SS 18 – Basin-Wide Combustion Strategy
SS 19 – Portland Cement
SS 20 – Air Toxics Risk Cap and Reduction from Existing Facilities
SS 21 – New Source Review for Toxics
SS 22 – Stationary Gas Turbines
SS 23 – Biogas Flares
SS 24 – Sulfur Content Limits of Liquid Fuels
SS 25 – Coatings, Solvents, Lubricants, Sealants and Adhesives
SS 26 – Surface Prep and Cleaning Solvent
SS 27 – Digital Printing
SS 28 – LPG, Propane, Butane
SS 29 – Asphaltic Concrete
SS 30 – Residential Fan Type Furnaces
SS 31 – General Particulate Matter Emission Limitation
SS 32 – Emergency Backup Generators
SS 33 – Commercial Cooking Equipment
SS 34 – Wood Smoke
Stationary and area sources are regulated directly by BAAQMD; therefore, as the
implementing agency, new stationary and area sources within the City would be required
to comply with BAAQMD regulations. BAAQMD routinely adopts/revises rules or
regulations to implement the stationary source (SS) control measures to reduce
stationary source emissions. Based on the new residential uses under the proposed
Modified Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not hinder the
ability of BAAQMD to implement these SS control measures. Major stationary source are
more commonly associated with industrial manufacturing or warehousing. However,
BAAQMD and the City have existing regulations in place to ensure potential future
development under the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with the applicable
SS control measures. Non-residential land uses may generate small quantities of
stationary source emissions during project operation (e.g., emergency generators, dry
cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities); however, these small-quantity generators
would require review by BAAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics, which would ensure
consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
The proposed Modified Project involves residential uses and would not include major
stationary sources of emissions. Boilers and emergency generators for multi-family
residential products would be required to follow BAAQMD’s permitting requirements.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-33
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN
Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
SS 35 – PM from Bulk Material Storage, Handling and Transport,
Including Coke and Coal
SS 36 – PM from Trackout
SS 37 – PM from Asphalt Operations
SS 38 – Fugitive Dust
SS 39 – Enhanced Air Quality Monitoring
SS 40 – Odors
Transportation
Control
Measures
TR 1 – Clean Air Teleworking Initiative
TR 2 – Trip Reduction Programs
TR 3 – Local and Regional Bus Service
TR 4 – Local and Regional Rail Service
TR 5 – Transit Efficiency and Use
TR 6 – Freeway and Arterial Operations
TR 7 – Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to Transit
TR 8 – Ridesharing, Last-Mile Connection
TR 9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities
TR 10 – Land Use Strategies
TR 11 – Value Pricing
TR 12 – Smart Driving
TR 13 – Parking Policies
TR 14 – Cars and Light Trucks
TR 15 – Public Outreach and Education
TR 16 – Indirect Source Review
TR 17 – Planes
TR 18 – Goods Movement
TR 19 – Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks
TR 20 – Ocean Going Vessels
TR 21 – Commercial Harbor Craft
TR 22 – Construction, Freight and Farming Equipment
TR 23 – Lawn and Garden Equipment
Transportation (TR) control measures are strategies to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use,
VMT, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle
emissions. Although most of the TR control measures are implemented at the regional
level—that is, by MTC or Caltrans—the 2017 Clean Air Plan relies on local communities to
assist with implementation of some measures.
Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed
based on current General Plan 2040 policies, which are largely unchanged as a result of
the proposed Modified Project being an update to the Housing Element. For example, the
General Plan 2040 Mobility Element contains several policies and strategies that
encourage regional transportation planning coordination, improvements to active
transportation infrastructure, and improvements to transit and rideshare programs.
Energy and
Climate Control
Measures
EN 1 – Decarbonize Electricity Production
EN 2 – Renewable Energy Decrease Electricity Demand
The energy and climate (EN) control measures are intended to reduce energy use as a
means to reducing adverse air quality emissions.
Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed
based on current General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, which are largely unchanged
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-34 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN
Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
as a result of the proposed Modified Project being an update to the Housing Element. For
example, the General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element contains
several goals, policies, and strategies that encourage green building design for the
conservation of energy during construction and operation of new development.
Furthermore, future potential development accommodated under the proposed Modified
Project would be built to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen standards. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would
not conflict with these EN control measures.
Buildings
Control
Measures
BL 1 – Green Buildings
BL 2 – Decarbonize Buildings
BL 3 – Market-Based Solutions
BL 4 – Urban Heat Island Mitigation
The buildings (BL) control measures focus on working with local governments to facilitate
adoption of best GHG emissions control practices and policies.
Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed
based on current General Plan 2040 policies, which are largely unchanged as a result of
the proposed Modified Project being an update to the Housing Element. For example, the
General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element contains several goals,
policies, and strategies that encourage green building design for the conservation of
energy during construction and operation of new development.
Furthermore, potential future development accommodated under the proposed Modified
Project would be built to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen standards. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would
not conflict with these BL control measures.
Agriculture
Control
Measures
AG 1 – Agricultural Guidance and Leadership
AG 2 – Dairy Digesters
AG 3 – Enteric Fermentation
AG 4 – Livestock Waste
Agricultural practices in the Bay Area accounts for a small portion, roughly 1.5 percent, of
the Bay Area GHG emissions inventory. The GHGs from agriculture include methane and
nitrous oxide, in addition to carbon dioxide. While the Agriculture (AG) control measures
target larger scale farming practices that are not included in the proposed Modified
Project, the housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project do not
constitute any sites which currently host commercial agricultural operations.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
these AG control measures.
Natural and
Working Lands
Control
Measures
NW 1 -- Carbon Sequestration in Rangelands
NW 2 – Urban Tree Planting
NW 3 – Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands
The control measures for the natural and working lands sector focus on increasing carbon
sequestration on rangelands and wetlands. While the Natural Working Lands (NW)
control measures target the sequestration of GHG emissions through improving or
establishing working lands, working lands are not included in the proposed Modified
Project, and the housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project do not
constitute any sites which currently host working lands.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
these NW control measures.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-35
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN
Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
Water Control
Measures
WR 1 – Limit GHGs from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
WR 2 – Support Water Conservation
The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes measures to reduce water use. Future potential
development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed based on current
General Plan 2040 policies. The Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
contains goals, policies, and strategies that direct the City to develop and adopt a Climate
Action Plan that, among other objectives, aims to improve water efficiency and
conservation through project design review. Furthermore, future potential development
accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be built to comply with the
latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards that would ensure
incremental improvements in water efficiency in building design. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with these WR
control measures.
Super-GHG
Control
Measures
SL 1 – Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
SL 2 – Guidance for Local Planners
SL 3 – GHG Monitoring and Emissions Measurements Network
Super-GHGs include methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases. The compounds are
sometimes referred to as short-lived climate pollutants because their lifetime in the
atmosphere is generally fairly short. Measures to reduce super GHGs are addressed on a
sector-by-sector basis in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Through ongoing implementation of the
CAP, the City will continue to reduce local GHG emissions, meet State, regional, and local
reduction targets, which would ensure implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not conflict with these SL control measures.
Further Study
Control
Measures
FSM SS 1 – Internal Combustion Engines
FSM SS 2 – Boilers, Steam Generator and Process Heaters
FSM SS 3 – GHG Reductions from Non Cap-and Trade Sources
FSM SS 4 – Methane Exemptions from Wastewater Regulation
FSM SS 5 – Controlling start-up, shutdown, maintenance, and
malfunction (SSMM) Emissions
FSM SS 6 – Carbon Pollution Fee
FSM SS 7 – Vanishing Oils and Rust Inhibitors
FSM SS 8 – Dryers, Ovens and Kilns
FSM SS 9 – Omnibus Rulemaking to Achieve Continuous
Improvement
FSM BL 1 – Space Heating
FSM AG 1 – Wineries
The majority of the further study control measures apply to sources regulated directly by
BAAQMD. Because BAAQMD is the implementing agency, new and existing sources of
stationary and area sources in the project area would be required to comply with these
additional further study control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 19, 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-36 APRIL 2024
Table 4.2-8, Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the City of Cupertino, displays the change
in VMT and population growth between existing conditions under the Approved Project (2019) and future
2040 conditions with buildout of the proposed Modified Project.
TABLE 4.2-8 COMPARISON OF THE CHANGE IN POPULATION AND VMT IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
Category
Existing Conditions
(2019)
Cumulative Year With
Proposed Modified
Project (2040)
Change from Existing
Change %
Population a 56,784 81,037 24,253 42.7%
Daily VMT b 3,772,000 3,927,390 155,390 4.1%
VMT/person c 66.43 48.46 -17.97 -27.1%
Notes:
a. City Population in 2019 was drawn from the California Department of Finance's Table E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State,
2011-2020, with 2010 Benchmark. City Population for Cumulative Year (2040) was identified by adding the 2040 forecasted population from the
General Plan EIR and adding the 9,737 net new residents accommodated by the proposed Modified Project through the buildout year of 2040, as
described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EA.
b. The Existing Conditions (2019) and Cumulative Year with Proposed Modified Project (2040) VMT estimates are drawn from Table 7 in the Fehr &
Peers Transportation Analysis for the Environmental Review, dated January 2024 (Appendix E).
c. VMT/person estimates are identified by dividing the Daily VMT estimates by the City Population for the corresponding year.
As shown in Table 4.2-8, Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the City of Cupertino,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project in 2040 would result in a lower daily per capita VMT
rate than is experienced under the Approved Project, which would result in a population growth which
outpaces VMT growth in the Study Area from 2019 through 2040. Therefore, the proposed Modified
Project would be considered consistent with the VMT-reduction objectives of the current AQMP.
Nonetheless, the proposed Modified Project would result in the introduction of a population growth
which goes beyond the growth projections contained in Plan Bay Area 2040, which underpins the growth
assumptions used for the emissions forecasts in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed
Modified Project would be considered inconsistent with the applicable AQMP and impacts with regards to
attainment of air quality standards would be potentially significant.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Mobility (M)and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES)
Elements contain a policy and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts that development could have on consistency with air quality plans. Like the Approved
Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 includes a policy and strategies, and updated policy and
strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also ensure consistency with air quality plans.
Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning
processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and
to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address
regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-1)
Strategy ES- 4.1.1. Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to review projects for potential generation of
toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management
District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-37
Strategy ES- 4.1.3. Planning. Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals.
(General Plan EIR Strategy 3)
Strategy ES- 4.2.1. Public Education Program. Establish a citywide public education program providing
information on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to provide information about
alternative commutes, carpooling and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the Air” high-
emissions days.
Summary
While implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have less-than-significant impacts with
respect to construction fugitive dust and criteria air pollutant emissions, exposing sensitive receptors to
TACs and PM2.5, generating GHG emissions and harming the climate, and implementing the control
measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, would be considered consistent with the VMT-reduction
objectives of the current AQMP, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be inconsistent
with the growth projections applied to the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would therefore be inconsistent with
the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Impacts would be potentially significant.
Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would conflict with the growth
assumptions under Plan Bay Area 2040 that are applied to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed Modified Project would therefore conflict with the air
quality emissions forecast in the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. While the proposed Modified
Project would support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the buildout of the proposed
Modified Project would exceed the growth projections that underpin the growth assumptions
that inform the emissions forecasts in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. There are no feasible mitigation
measures to address the timing of the update to the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan to incorporate the
current growth projections for the Bay Area as issued by ABAG. It should be noted that the
identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant
impacts for subsequent projects that comply with BAAQMD screening criteria or meet applicable
thresholds of significance. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Modified
Project, no additional mitigation measures are available, and the impact is considered significant
and unavoidable.
AIR-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal
or State ambient air quality standard.
As described in the General Plan EIR, criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction and
operation under the Approved Project would generate a substantial increase in ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD regional significance thresholds, even with implementation of
the General Plan 2040 policies and strategies. Therefore, even with implementation of General Plan EIR
Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b to comply with BAAQMD control measures to reduce PM10
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-38 APRIL 2024
(fugitive dust) and implement construction mitigation measures, respectively, the Approved Project could
contribute to an increase in health effects in the air basin until the attainment standards are met in the
SFBAAB. Impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Construction
The proposed Modified Project would not directly result in construction of any development or
infrastructure; however, potential future development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would
result in short-term construction-related criteria pollutant emissions with the potential to have an adverse
effect on air quality. Short-term criteria pollutant emissions would occur during demolition, site
preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities associated with
individual development projects. ROG and NOX emissions are primarily associated with gasoline and diesel
equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5)
are primarily associated with site preparation and vary as a function of such parameters as soil silt
content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and VMT by construction vehicles on-
and off-site. Typical construction equipment associated with development and redevelopment projects
includes dozers, graders, excavators, loaders, and trucks.
Although the exact coverage, location, or duration of future potential construction projects is unknown at
the time of preparation of this EA, potential future development activities under the proposed Modified
Project would generally entail demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and
painting, like those under the Approved Project. Since Cupertino is a built-out city, many potential future
developments in the Study Area would likely require the demolition of existing structures to make room
for newer ones. Fugitive dust emissions would typically be greatest during building demolition, site
preparation, and grading activities due to the disturbance of soils and transport of material. NOX
emissions would result from the combustion of diesel fuels used to power off-road heavy-duty vehicles
and equipment (e.g., backhoes, bulldozers, excavators). The types and quantity of equipment, as well as
duration of construction activities, would be dependent on project-specific conditions. Larger
developments would require more equipment over a longer time frame than required for redevelopment
of a single residential home.
As described under Impact Discussion AIR-1, BAAQMD does not recommend plan-level thresholds of
significance for construction emissions; however, similar to potential future development under the
Approved Project, BAAQMD does maintain and recommend project-level thresholds of significance for
construction emissions that future potential development projects under the proposed Modified Project
would be subject to. In addition, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify and recommend a
series of “Basic” measures to control and reduce construction-related fugitive dust emissions. The SFBAAB
is currently designated as a nonattainment area for both PM10 and PM2.5, and BAAQMD’s recommended
significance threshold for construction fugitive dust is binary, meaning if a project includes dust control
best management practices that resemble BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures, then construction
fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant. Because CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) requires
construction projects to implement BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures, same as General Plan EIR
Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ2-b, impacts related to construction fugitive dust for potential future
development under both the Approved and Modified Project would be less than significant. The proposed
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-39
Modified Project would not result in new impacts and a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts
compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Operation
The proposed Modified Project would accommodate potential future development that would operate
through the planning horizon year 2040. Potential future residential development facilitated by the
proposed Modified Project would result in long-term area-, energy-, and mobile-source air quality
emissions. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission sources that include use of
outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, use of
fireplaces and hearths, and periodic reapplication of architectural coatings. Criteria pollutants generated
from energy sources are principally from the on-site use of natural gas; electricity consumption is not
included in energy source emissions because those potential emissions would be generated as the result
of the operation of an electricity generation facility, which may or may not be within the same air basin
and under the same attainment status as the end use. Mobile source emissions result from the vehicle
activity associated with the operation of a given land use development project.
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project may result in potential future development of up to
3,312 net new residential units compared to the Approved Project. It should be noted that the proposed
Modified Project would not itself authorize specific development in the city. Future potential development
projects would be subject to the City’s standard review process and would be required to assess project-
specific emissions in relation to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. As such, future potential
development projects subject to CEQA would prepare project-specific analyses, which would compare
project emissions to the BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds and identify and implement
mitigation measures, as necessary, to reduce any potential impacts that could occur. Although specific
project-level information for potential future development is not available at this time and the estimation
of emissions resulting from future potential development would be speculative, CalEEMod was utilized to
provide an estimate of the potential overall area, energy, and mobile source emissions resulting from
implementation of the proposed Modified Project for informational purposes only (i.e., not for the
purpose of determining significance of potential air quality impacts).
CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions of air pollutants associated with buildout of the
proposed Modified Project (see Table 4.2-9, Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Forecast). Please refer to Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table
3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), in Chapter 3,
Project Description, of this EA, for the sites identified to accommodate the housing supply growth
envisioned by the proposed Modified Project. Based on the housing density data from these tables, all
new housing units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise”, “Apartments Mid-Rise”,
Condos/Townhouse”, and “Single-Family Housing” categories. Consistent with the Transportation Analysis
prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix E, Transportation Analysis, of
this EA), modeling for weekday rates utilized the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for cumulative
conditions under the Approved Project and cumulative conditions with proposed Modified Project
implementation. Saturday and Sunday trip generation and VMT were calculated from the ratio CalEEMod
default Saturday and Sunday trip rates to the weekday rate. Moreover, all vehicle trips represented in the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-40 APRIL 2024
emissions modeling were assigned to be 100 percent primary, meaning no trip distance or generation
discounts were applied for pass-by or diverted trips to provide a conservative emissions estimate.
Consistent with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood -Burning Devices, no new dwelling units
modeled with CalEEMod were assumed to contain any wood-burning devices. In addition, the per-
dwelling unit indoor and outdoor water consumption rates as well as the solid waste generation and
energy consumption rates reflect utilization of CalEEMod default rates. The estimated criteria air
pollutants resulting from full implementation of the proposed Modified Project are shown in Table 4.2-9,
Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast. CalEEMod output files are included as
Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this EA.
TABLE 4.2-9 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FORECAST
Sectors
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
(Tons per year)
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Modified Project Land Uses (Year 2031)
Mobile 54 26 104 27
Area 16 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 <1 <1
Total Average (Tons/year) 71 28 104 27
BAAQMD Project-Level Threshold (Tons/year) 10 10 15 10
Total Average (lbs./day) 389 154 570 82
BAAQMD Project-Level Threshold (lbs./day) 54 54 82 54
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
As previously described, the air quality emissions estimates in Table 4.2-9 provide an estimate of the
potential overall area, energy, and mobile source emissions resulting from implementation of the
proposed Modified Project. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project could generate a
substantial increase in criteria air pollutant emissions that exceeds the BAAQMD project-level significance
thresholds, and this impact would be potentially significant. Compliance with applicable policies and
programs would contribute to minimizing long-term emissions. However, implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would still exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for operation. While the
Approved Project resulted in criteria air pollutant emission that exceeds the BAAQMD average daily
thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 as well as its annual ROG and NOx thresholds, the proposed
Modified Project would result in an exceedance of BAAQMD’s average daily and annual thresholds for all
pollutants. However, the Approved Project did not account for operational fugitive dust emissions. As
BAAQMD has since updated its guidance for CEQA analyses to include fugitive dust emissions in
operational emissions estimates, the annual PM emission estimates for full implementation of the
proposed Modified Project shown in Table 4.2-9 are greater than those of the Approved Project because
they include both exhaust and fugitive dust PM estimates.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-41
Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
As previously described, the BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance does not require an emissions inventory of
criteria air pollutants for plan-level analysis; however, the BAAQMD recommends that one method used
for determining plan-level impact significance is to analyze the proposed plan’s consistency with the
current AQMP control measures. As described in Impact Discussion AIR-1, the proposed Modified Project
would be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures, as illustrated in Table 4.2-6.
As such, the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the current AQMP control measures,
and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new
impacts and a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Proposed Plan VMT and Population Growth
As previously described, the BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance does not require an emissions inventory of
criteria air pollutants for plan-level analysis; however, the BAAQMD recommends that the second method
for determining plan-level impact significance is to analyze the proposed plan’s projected VMT growth
versus its projected population growth from existing conditions through the General Plan’s planning
horizon year (2040). If the proposed Modified Project’s projected VMT growth outpaces its projected
population growth, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants,
and this impact would be potentially significant. As described in Impact Discussion AIR-1, the VMT growth
facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would constitute an approximately 4.1 percent growth
through 2040 while population growth facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would constitute an
approximately 42.7 percent growth through 2040. Therefore, the forecast population growth would
outpace the forecast VMT growth facilitated by the proposed Modified Project, and this impact would be
less than significant. As such, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe
impacts with regard to attainment of air quality standards or a substantial increase in magnitude of
impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Element
contains policies and strategies that reduce criteria air pollutants. Like the Approved Project, the following
existing General Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of
the proposed Modified Project, would also reduce criteria air pollutants from development projects to the
maximum extent practicable.
Policy ES-4.1. New Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and
air quality impacts that affect new development.
Strategy ES- 4.1.1. Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to review projects for potential generation of
toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management
District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain.
Strategy ES- 4.1.2. Dust Control. Continue to require water application to non-polluting dust control
measures during demolition and the duration of the construction period.
Strategy ES- 4.1.3. Planning. Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals.
(General Plan EIR Strategy 3)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-42 APRIL 2024
Policy ES- 4.2. Existing Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development.
(General Plan Policy 5-5)
Strategy ES- 4.2.1. Public Education Program. Establish a citywide public education program providing
information on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to provide information about
alternative commutes, carpooling and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the Air” high-
emissions days.
Strategy ES- 4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based
businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.
Strategy ES- 4.2.3. Tree Planting in Private Development. Review and enhance the City’s tree planting
and landscaping program and requirements for private development to reduce air pollution levels.
Strategy ES- 4.2.4. Fuel- efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing
use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to
require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related
funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to
support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant
funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs.
Strategy ES- 4.2.5. Point Sources of Emissions. Continue to seek the cooperation of the BAAQMD to
monitor emissions from identified point sources that impact the community. In addition, for sources
not within the regulatory jurisdiction of the City, seek cooperation from the applicable regulatory
authority to encourage reduction of emissions and dust from the point source.
Policy ES- 4.3. Use of Open Fires and Fireplaces. Discourage high pollution fireplace use. (General Plan
EIR Policy 5-7)
Strategy ES- 4.3.1. Education. Continue to make BAAQMD literature on reducing pollution from
fireplace use available.
Strategy ES-4.3.2. Fireplaces. Continue to prohibit new wood-burning fireplaces, except EPA certified
wood stoves as allowed by the Building Code.
Summary
While implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have less-than-significant impacts with
respect to construction fugitive dust, would be consistent with the current AQMP control measures, and
the Modified Project’s projected VMT growth would not outpace its projected population growth,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project could generate a substantial increase in criteria air
pollutant emissions that exceeds the BAAQMD project-level significance, and impacts would be potentially
significant.
Impact AIR-2: Operation of development projects that could occur from implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would generate emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
regional significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-43
Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. The General Plan includes policies
and strategies, listed above and under Impact Discussion AIR-1 that, once adopted would
minimize GHG emissions to the extent feasible; however, there are no additional measures
available to mitigate this impact due to the level of growth forecast in the city. It should be noted
that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-
significant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with BAAQMD screening criteria or meet
applicable thresholds of significance. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed
Modified Project, no additional mitigation measures are available, and the impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
AIR-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project could expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would not increase traffic volumes at affected
intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour and therefore would not
have the potential to result in CO hotspots at affected intersections in Cupertino. In addition, the
Approved Project would implement the General Plan 2040 policies, which would address TACs under
Policy ES-4.1, New Development, Strategy ES-4.1.1, Toxic Air Contaminants, and Policy ES-4.2, Existing
Development, accompanying Strategy ES-4.2.4, Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and Use, and Policy HS-6.2,
Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials. However, even with implementation of these policies, the
General Plan EIR found impacts from TACs would be significant without mitigation. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure AQ-4a and 4b, which would ensure that new development projects are consistent
with BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines and require submission of a health risk assessment for projects within
1,000 feet of a major source of TACs, impacts from TACs would be less than significant.
Same as the Approved Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project could facilitate
individual future potential development projects that cause or contribute significantly to elevated
pollutant concentration levels such that it would expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant
concentrations. Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air
concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.
Construction Community Risk and Hazards
Future potential construction under the proposed Modified Project would temporarily elevate
concentrations of TACs and DPM in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. Since
the details regarding future potential construction activities are not known at this time, due to this
analysis being conducted at the programmatic level construction emissions are evaluated qualitatively in
accordance with BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance. Subsequent environmental review of future potential
development projects would be required to assess potential impacts under BAAQMD’s project-level
thresholds. In addition, CMC Section 17.04.040, Standard Environmental Protection Technical Report
Submittal Requirements, requires new development to analyze health impacts for new sensitive receptors,
such as residences, that are located within “Conduct Further Study” areas on BAAQMD’s “Planning
Healthy Places” map. Moreover, CMC Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit
Submittal Requirements, require that new projects which disturb more than 1 acre and occur for longer
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-44 APRIL 2024
than 2 months to use construction equipment that is rated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) as Tier 4 for all off-road construction engines that are greater than 25 horsepower.
Compliance with the CMC would reduce potential health risk impacts from construction of individual
projects. While construction impacts associated with individual future potential projects under the
proposed Modified Project could still exceed BAAQMD’s project level and cumulative significance
thresholds for community risk and hazards, similar to the Approved Project, implementation of the CMC
Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section 17.04.040(A)(2), which incorporate General Plan EIR Mitigation
Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, would reduce the proposed Modified Project construction-related health risk
impacts to a level that is less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new
impacts with regard to construction-related health risk or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts
compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Operational: CO Hotspots
As determined by the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would not increase traffic volumes at
affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical
and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create
pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20
ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Since CO is produced in the greatest quantities from vehicle
combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically
demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at
intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are
subject to reduced speeds.
An overarching goal of the Plan Bay Area 2050 is to concentrate development in areas where there are
existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial
transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle VMT and
associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the
overall goals of the Plan Bay Area 2050 because many of the new housing sites would be located within
existing PDAs and TPAs. Additionally, the proposed Modified Project would not hinder the capital
improvements outlined in the Santa Clara County CMP. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not
conflict with the CMP.
Furthermore, the proposed Modified Project would result in an incremental increase in daily vehicles trips
that would be distributed across the city’s roadway network. The proposed Modified Project is not
anticipated to increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than BAAQMD’s screening criteria
of 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited. Overall, similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project is not
expected to increase CO emissions at intersections in the city and vicinity such that BAAQMD’s CO hotspot
screening criteria are exceeded. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would
therefore be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts with
regards to CO Hotspots or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-45
Operational Community Risk and Hazards
Common sources of TAC emissions are stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, diesel backup generators,
and gasoline stations, that are subject to BAAQMD permit requirements. Implementation of the proposed
Modified Project could result in new sources of TACs and PM2.5. Stationary sources, including smaller
stationary sources associated with residential development (e.g., emergency generators and boilers), are
subject to review by BAAQMD as part of the permitting process. Adherence to BAAQMD permitting
regulations would ensure that new stationary sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant
health risk. Mobile sources of air toxics (e.g., truck idling) are not regulated directly by BAAQMD. However,
potential future residential development associated with the proposed Modified Project would not
generate substantial truck traffic or idling. Furthermore, individual development projects would be
required to achieve the project-level risk thresholds established by BAAQMD to ensure the sensitive
receptor impact resulting from the subject development project would not be potentially significant.
Similar to the Approved Project, implementation of CMC Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section
17.04.040(A)(2), which incorporate General Plan EIR’s Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, would
reduce the proposed Modified Project’s operational-related health risk impacts to a level that is less than
significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts with regard to operational
community risk and hazards or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Mobility (M),
Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Health and Safety (HS) Elements contain policies and
strategies that reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution.
Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and
updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also reduce
concentrations of air pollution.
Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a
half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)
Policy LU-3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of
connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and
building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and
corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
Strategy LU -19.2.2. Existing Streets. Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become
more bike land pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees, improved pedestrian
intersections to accommodate the connects to Ninteen800, Main Street, and the surrounding areas.
(General Plan EIR Policy 4-9)
Policy LU-20.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road,
Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue shall be coordinated with planned improvements to improve
pedestrian, bike and transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian
environment with street trees, attractive bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should
provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street. Future improvements to the Wolfe Road
bridge should be coordinated to preserve the vision for this area. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-46 APRIL 2024
Policy LU-21.3. Streetscape and Connectivity. North De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable
boulevard with wide sidewalks with street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and
pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also
envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will
also improve school routes from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson school to the east and
provide access to transit routes. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-21.4. Streetscape and Connectivity. South De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable
boulevard with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian
crossings. Side streets are also envisioned with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to ensure
walkable connections from adjacent neighborhoods. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-24.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Bubb Road is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable corridor
with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also envisioned along
other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve
routes from the northern and eastern neighborhood to the tri-school area, parks and services and
reduce impacts caused by to school and employment traffic. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Strategy LU-27.1.1 Regulations. Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single
family development that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. (General
Plan EIR Policy 2-8)
Policy M-1.3. Regional Trail Development. Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system
of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor
and Ridge Trail. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-6)
Policy M-3.6. Safe Spaces for Pedestrians. Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for
pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-13)
Policy M-4.4. Transit Facilities with New Development. Work with VTA and/or major developments to
ensure all new development projects include amenities to support public transit including bus stop
shelters, space for transit vehicles as appropriate and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles,
signage, seating and lighting. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)
Strategy M-5.1.1. Coordination with School Districts. Coordinate with the School Districts to develop
plans and programs that encourage car/van-pooling, stagger hours of adjacent schools, establish
drop-off locations, and encourage walking and bicycling to school. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-15)
Strategy M-9.3.2. Streetscape Design. When reviewing the widening of an existing street, consider
aesthetically pleasing enhancements and amenities to improve the safe movement of pedestrians and
bicyclists in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Strategy ES- 4.1.1. Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to review projects for potential generation of
toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management
District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain.
Policy ES- 4.2. Existing Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development.
(General Plan Policy 5-5)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-47
Policy HS-6.2. Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials. Assess future residents’ exposure to
hazardous materials when new residential development or sensitive populations are proposed in
existing industrial and manufacturing areas. Do not allow residential development or sensitive
populations if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk. (General
Plan EIR Policy 6-28)
As with the Approved Project, while the proposed Modified Project would accommodate future potential
development projects that may result in a localized impacts during construction, compliance with the
City’s Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, such as those identified in CMC Section
17.04.050(A)(2), would reduce potential health impacts during construction. Furthermore, compliance
with CMC Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section 17.04.040(A)(2) would reduce the proposed Modified
Project health risk impacts to a level that is less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not
result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AIR-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in
other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would minimize odor impacts as siting of new
sensitive land uses would require utilization of BAAQMD’s odor screening distances during future CEQA
review and would require compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7.
Construction
While odors could be generated during construction activities, the proposed Modified Project is a General
Plan Housing Element Update and would not directly result in construction of any development project.
Identification of potential impacts to odor receptors resulting from construction-generated odors, such as
equipment exhaust, would require project-specific information for future individual land use development
projects that is not currently known. As previously discussed, consistent with the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines, a plan-level analysis must acknowledge odor sources within the Study Area and
identify policies, goals, and objectives aimed at reducing potential odor impacts to ensure that potential
impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the
General Plan EIR as they pertain to construction odors.
Operation
According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints
typically include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial
operations such as chemical and other manufacturing. While odors do not themselves present a health
risk, they are often considered a nuisance by people who live, work, or otherwise are located near
outdoor odor sources. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would not
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-48 APRIL 2024
include odor-generating uses, such as composting, green waste, and recycling operations; food
processing; and painting/coating operations, because these are types of uses are often found in the
commercial and/or industrial areas. Increase in residential uses would not generate substantial odors that
would affect a substantial number of people. During operation, residences could generate odors from
cooking. However, odors from cooking are not substantial enough to be considered nuisance odors that
would affect a substantial number of people.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Environmental
Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that reduce potential land use
incompatibilities regarding objectionable odors. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General
Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed
Modified Project, would also reduce other emissions.
Strategy LU-27.1.1 Regulations. Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single
family development that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. (General
Plan EIR Policy 2-8)
Policy ES- 4.2. Existing Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development.
(General Plan Policy 5-5)
Strategy ES- 4.2.1. Public Education Program. Establish a citywide public education program providing
information on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to provide information about
alternative commutes, carpooling and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the Air” high-
emissions days. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)
Strategy ES- 4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based
businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work. (General Plan
EIR Strategy 3 and 4)
Strategy ES- 4.2.3. Tree Planting in Private Development. Review and enhance the City’s tree planting
and landscaping program and requirements for private development to reduce air pollution levels.
(General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)
Strategy ES- 4.2.4. Fuel- efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing
use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to
require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related
funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to
support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant
funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)
Strategy ES- 4.2.5. Point Sources of Emissions. Continue to seek the cooperation of the BAAQMD to
monitor emissions from identified point sources that impact the community. In addition, for sources
not within the regulatory jurisdiction of the City, seek cooperation from the applicable regulatory
authority to encourage reduction of emissions and dust from the point source. (General Plan EIR
Strategy 3 and 4)
Furthermore, nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which
requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. In addition, odors are also regulated
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-49
under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance. Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7 would
ensure that odor impacts associated with future potential development under the proposed Modified
Project are minimized. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a
substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR as they pertain to
operational odors.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AIR-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to air quality.
As described in the General Plan EIR, regional air quality impacts were identified as significant and
unavoidable; therefore, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, the
Approved Project even with implementation of applicable regulations and mitigation measures, would
result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to air quality.
As with the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also exceed the BAAQMD criteria air
pollutant emissions thresholds, even with implementation of the General Plan 2040 policies and strategies
described under Impact Discussions AIR-1 through AIR-4. As described under Impact Discussion AIR-1, the
proposed Modified Project would be inconsistent with BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan due to the
introduction of more residents than is assumed in the AQMP’s demographic growth projections and the
collective exceedance of BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds during operation. In addition, as
shown under Impact AIR-2, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would collectively result in
an exceedance of BAAQMD’s regional air quality thresholds of significance. Implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in localized health risks that exceed BAAQMD’s significance
thresholds after compliance with the CMC Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section 17.04.040(A)(2), as
reported under Impact AIR-3. As described under Impact AIR-4, the proposed Modified Project would
constitute the development and operation of residential land uses, which are not substantial odor
generators, and thus would result in less-than-significant impacts related to odors. Therefore,
cumulatively, the proposed Modified Project would result in significant impacts related to consistency
with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, generating cumulatively considerable criteria air pollutants, and exposing
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As with the Approved Project, the proposed
Modified Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable air quality
impact.
Impact AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed Modified Project
could generate a substantial increase in emissions that exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations and
health risk in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. No feasible mitigation has been
identified.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-50 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-1
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes the potential biological resource impacts associated with the approval and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter also describes the regulatory framework
and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of
the potential biological resource impacts, and identifies policies and/or strategies that could mitigate any
potentially significant impacts.
4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and
endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and its implementing
regulations prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or
endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the FESA. FESA defines
“take” as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.” Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants, Section 17.3, Definitions, of the Code of Federal Regulations, defines the term “harass” as an
intentional or negligent act that creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent
as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Furthermore,
Section 17.3 defines “harm” as an act that either kills or injures a listed species. By definition, “harm”
includes habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavior patterns, such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or
sheltering.
Section 10(a) of the FESA establishes a process for obtaining an incidental take permit that authorizes
nonfederal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish. Incidental take is defined by FESA as
take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.”
Preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The
USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries Service) have joint authority under the FESA for administering the incidental take program.
NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all
other fish and wildlife species.
Section 7 of the FESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry
out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the FESA, or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required to minimize impacts
to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance of permits or funding. Section 7
requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-2 APRIL 2024
critical habitat (FESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is
prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results
in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the HCP required
under Section 10(a) will result in jeopardy to any HCP Covered Species or will adversely modify critical
habitat and the measures necessary to avoid or minimize effects to listed species.
Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, Section 9 of
the FESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting the malicious destruction on federal
land and other “take” that violates State law. Protection for plants not living on federal lands is provided
by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
Clean Water Act
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.). These waters, and their
lateral limit, include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands.1 The
lateral limits of jurisdiction for a nontidal stream are measured at the line of the ordinary high-water
mark2 or the limit of adjacent wetlands.3 Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the
U.S., whether natural or human-made, results in a similar extension of USACE jurisdiction.
Waters of the U.S. fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters include
waterbodies and watercourses generally lacking plant cover, such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds,
coastal waters, and estuaries. Wetlands are aquatic habitats that support hydrophytic wetland plants and
include marshes, wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended
seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds,
ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support
wetland plant communities. Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit
wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the U.S.
Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrologic connection to a navigable water of the
U.S. are not tributaries to waters of the U.S. These are termed “isolated wetlands.” Isolated wetlands are
jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce.4 The
USACE may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands depending on the specific circumstances.
In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE before placing fill or
grading in wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Prior to issuing the permit, the USACE is required to
consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of FESA if the project may affect federally listed species.
All USACE permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This
regulatory program is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Project
1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a).
2 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(e).
3 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(b).
4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-3
proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the U.S. must apply for water quality
certification from the RWQCB, which has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland,
streambed, or other jurisdictional area.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc.
of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take”
is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture,
collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.”5 Most bird species native to North America are
covered by this act. The MBTA prohibits the intentional or incidental killing of birds or destruction of their
nests when in active use. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the
MBTA .
State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
CESA generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Its intent is to prohibit take and protect State-listed endangered and
threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Unlike its federal counterpart, CESA also applies the take
prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (State candidates). Candidate species may be afforded
temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of
the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate
species. Under certain conditions, CESA has provisions for take through a Section 2081 Incidental Take
Permit or memorandum of understanding (MOU). In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are
protected by the State as “fully protected species.” California “species of special concern” are species
designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or
continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), which maintains a record of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species.
Informally listed taxa are not protected necessarily but warrant consideration in the preparation of
biological resource assessments.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or
requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to
have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, a species not
included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be
shown by a local agency to meet the criteria” for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be
shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and be considered a “de facto” rare or
endangered species.
5 United States Code, Title 16, Conservation, Section 715n.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-4 APRIL 2024
California Fish and Game Code
CDFW is responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), which contains several
protections from “take” for a variety of species. CDFW also protects streams, water bodies, and riparian
corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Sections 1601 to 1606 of the CFGC.
CFGC stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially
change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW, incorporating
necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement.6 CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to
the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover.
The CFGC also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which may not be taken or
possessed at any time. CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for
necessary scientific research, habitat restoration/species recovery actions, or live capture and relocation
pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully protected species are listed in CFGC Sections
3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the CFGC, while
protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42, respectively.
Several provisions in the CFGC provide for the protection of birds and bird nests in active use. Unless the
CFGC or its implementing regulations provide otherwise, under California law, it is unlawful to:
Take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian.
Take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird.
Take, possess, or destroy any bird of prey in the orders Strigiformes (owls) and Falconiformes (such as
falcons, hawks, and eagles) or the nests or eggs of such a bird.
Take or possess any of the 13 fully protected bird species listed in CFGC Section 3511.
Take any nongame bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California that is not a gamebird,
migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).
Take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such bird,
except as provided by rules or regulations adopted by the United States Department of the Interior
(DOI) under the MBTA.
Take, import, export, possess, purchase, or sell any bird (or products of a bird), listed as an
endangered or threatened species under the CESA unless the person or entity possesses an Incidental
Take Permit or equivalent authorization from CDFW.
Non-native species, including European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus),
and rock pigeon (Columba livia), are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or CFGC.
6 California Fish and Game Code Section 1602.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-5
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,7 the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge
of waste that could affect the quality of the state’s waters. The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated
waters and wetlands, as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by the USACE. Therefore, even if a
project does not require a federal permit, it still requires review and approval by the RWQCB. When
reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the
“beneficial uses” associated with waters of the state. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these
beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements into projects that will require
discharge into waters of the state. For most construction projects, the RWQCB requires the use of
construction and post-construction best management practices.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants
into California, “take” of rare and endangered plants, and sale of rare and endangered plants. CESA defers
to the California Native Plant Protection Act, which ensures that State-listed plant species are protected
when State agencies are involved in projects subject to CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under the
California Native Plant Protection Act are not protected under CESA but rather under CEQA.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a nongovernmental conservation organization that has
developed a list of plants of special concern in California. The following explains the designations for each
plant species:8
Rank 1A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere
Rank 1B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
Rank 2A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere
Rank 2B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere
Rank 3. Plants About Which More Information is Needed; A Review List
Rank 4. Plants of Limited Distribution; A Watch List
California Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are natural community types considered to be rare or of a “high inventory
priority” by CDFW. Although sensitive natural communities have no legal protective status under FESA or
CESA, they are provided some level of consideration under CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
identifies potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six criteria to consider in
determining the significance of a proposed project. While no thresholds are established as part of this
criterion, it serves as an acknowledgement that sensitive natural communities are an important resource
and, depending on their rarity, should be recognized as part of the environmental review process. The
level of significance of a project’s impact on any particular sensitive natural community depends on that
natural community’s relative abundance and rarity.
7 California Water Code Sections 13000 through 14920.
8 California Native Plant Society, 2023, CNPS Rare Plant Ranks, https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks,
accessed March 10, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-6 APRIL 2024
As an example, a discretionary project that has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, native
grassland, valley oak woodland, and/or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered
to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be
interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality, degree of
past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type.
Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act9 of 2001 acknowledges the importance of private land
stewardship to the conservation of the state’s valued oak woodlands. This act established the California
Oak Woodlands Conservation Program, which aims to conserve oak woodlands existing in the state’s
working landscapes by providing education and incentives to private landowners. The program provides
technical and financial incentives to private landowners to protect and promote biologically functional oak
woodlands.
Regional Regulations
Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area
Adopted in 1998, the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area covers 28
special-status species of plants and animals that occur mainly on serpentine soils and grasslands in the
San Francisco Bay Area.10 Due to much of the San Francisco Bay being converted into urban and industrial
uses, many species have been forced to move from their historic ranges. The goal of this recovery plan is
to delist certain endangered and threatened species, improve the security of several listed species, and
ensure long-term conservation of certain species of concern.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
Adopted in August 2012, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan provides a framework for promoting the
protection and recovery of natural resources, including endangered species, while streamlining the
permitting process for planned development, infrastructure, and maintenance activities.11 The permit
area for the plan does not cover any part of Cupertino; therefore, the regulations in the plan do not apply
to any projects in Cupertino.
9 California Fish and Game Code Section 1360 et seq.
10 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, September 1998, Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco
Bay Area, https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/management/upload/-1491-Recovery-Plan-for-serpentine-soil-species-of-the-San-
Francis.pdf, accessed August 9, 2022.
11 Santa Clara County, 2012, Santa Clara County Habitat Plan, https://www.scv-
habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/137/Executive-Summary, accessed on July 25, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-7
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements
of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources. Applicable policies and strategies that
would minimize potential adverse impacts to biological resources are identified in Section 4.3.3, Impact
Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to biological
resources in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to
biological resources are included in Title 8, Animals; Title 9, Health and Sanitation; Title 14, Streets,
Sidewalks and Landscaping; Title 17, Environmental Regulations; and Title 19, Zoning .
Title 8, Animals. This section of the CMC outlines how animals may be handled in the city and the
level of authority that different people in the city have.
Chapter 9.19, Water Resource Protection. The City has established requirements to obtain a
streamside modification permit under certain conditions and establishes procedures for the
administration and issuance of such permits. These permits apply to the specific property for which it
was issued and therefore transfers when the property ownership is transferred, unless specific
conditions provide otherwise.
Chapter 14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance. This ordinance outlines how important protected trees are to
the community, and how protecting trees in all zoning districts is intended to preserve this asset.
Actions that are prohibited through this ordinance are deliberately causing damage to any protected
trees and removing any protected trees in any zoning district without first obtaining a tree removal
permit as required by Section 14.18.110 unless a permit is not required per Section 14.18.150. This
ordinance also outlines Heritage Tree Designations and how this process can only be initiated by the
owner of property on which the tree is located unless the tree is on public or quasi-public property.
After designation, the heritage tree shall be added to the heritage tree list and a heritage tree
identification tag will be added that is purchased and placed by the City. It also outlines removal and
replacement of Protected, including Heritage, trees.
Chapter 14.12, Trees. This chapter describes the comprehensive plan that the City has for purchase,
planting, and maintenance of public trees in Cupertino. In the chapter, the master street tree list is
established, which dictates the tree type and species, as well as locations for where trees should be
planted in Cupertino.
Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance. This chapter was created to promote the use of region-
appropriate plants that require minimal supplemental irrigation.
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements . The purpose of this chapter is to
identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet,
including, but not limited to, environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-8 APRIL 2024
documents required as part of a General Plan update. This chapter includes specific requirements for
biological resources, including requirements about active nests and special-status roosting bats.
Section 17.04.050(D)(1), Avoid Nesting Birds During Construction. This section requires that for all
projects that involve removal of a tree (either protected or unprotected) or other vegetation
suitable for nesting birds, or construction or ground-disturbing activities defined in Section
17.04.020, the project applicant shall comply with, and the construction contractor shall indicate
the following on all construction plans, when required to ensure the following measures are
performed to avoid inadvertent take of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code when in active use:
a. Demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, and tree removal/pruning activities shall be
scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. If feasible, construction,
ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities shall be completed before the start of
the nesting season to help preclude nesting. The nesting season for most birds and raptors in
the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1 through August 31. Preconstruction
surveys (described below) are not required for construction, ground-disturbing, or tree
removal/pruning activities outside the nesting period.
b. If demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities occur
during the nesting season (February 1 and August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be
conducted as follows:
i. No more than 7 days prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-disturbing,
or tree removal/pruning activities, in order to identify any active nests with eggs or
young birds on the site and surrounding area within 100 feet of construction or tree
removal activities.
ii. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until demolition,
construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities have been initiated
in the area, after which surveys can be stopped. As part of the preconstruction
survey(s), the surveyor shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in, and
immediately adjacent to, the construction areas for active nests, while ensuring that
they do not disturb the nests as follows:
1. For projects that require the demolition or construction one single-family
residence, ground disturbing activities affecting areas of up to 500 square feet, or
the removal of up to three trees, the property owner or a tree removal contractor,
if necessary, is permitted to conduct the preconstruction surveys to identify if there
are any active nests. If any active nests with eggs or young birds are identified, the
project applicant shall retain a qualified ornithologist or biologist to identify
protective measures.
2. For any other demolition, construction and ground disturbing activity or the
removal of four or more trees, a qualified ornithologist or biologist shall be retained
by the project applicant to conduct the preconstruction surveys.
c. If the preconstruction survey does not identify any active nests with eggs or young birds that
would be affected by demolition, construction, ground-disturbing or tree removal/pruning
activities, no further mitigating action is required. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds
is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-9
documented, and the qualified ornithologist or biologist shall identify protective measures to be
implemented under their direction until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.
d. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, establishment of clearly delineated
exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or
equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified ornithologist or biologist,
taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to
existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and
75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored
on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm
nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified ornithologist or
biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion
zones may be reduced by the qualified ornithologist or biologist only in consultation with
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures and buffers shall remain in
effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer
active.
e. A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology, survey date(s), map of
identified active nests (if any), and protection measures (if required), shall be prepared by the
qualified ornithologist or biologist and submitted to the Director of Community Development or
his or her designee, through the appropriate permit review process (e.g., demolition,
construction, tree removal, etc.), and be completed to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree
removal/pruning activities.
Section 17.04.050(D)(2), Avoid Special-Status Roosting Bats During Construction Permit
Requirements . This section describes the procedures for protecting special-status bats.
a. For all projects that involve demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting of an abandoned or
vacant building or structure, where the property owner cannot show evidence to the
satisfaction of the City of Cupertino Building Inspector that the building or structure was
appropriately sealed at the time the building or structure was vacated to prevent bats from
roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction
surveys of the on-site buildings or structures prior to commencing any demolition,
renovation, or re-tenanting activities. A building or structure is not appropriately sealed
unless seal holes that are more than 0.5 inches in diameter or cracks that are 0.25 by 1.5
inches or larger are filled or closed with suitable material such as caulking, putty, duct tape,
self-expanding polyurethane foam, 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth, 0.5-inch or smaller
welded wire mesh, installing tighter-fitting screen doors, or steel wool.
b. The project applicant shall comply with, and the construction contractor shall include in the
applicable construction documents, the following to ensure appropriate preconstruction
surveys are performed and adequate avoidance provided for any special-status roosting bats,
if encountered on the site. Preconstruction surveys shall:
i. Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or building demolition,
renovation, or re-tenanting. Note that the preconstruction survey for roosting bats is
required at any time of year since there is no defined bat roosting season as there is with
nesting birds.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-10 APRIL 2024
ii. Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to start of tree removal or demolition,
renovation, or re-tenanting.
iii. Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated after which surveys
can be stopped, unless construction activities are suspended for more than 7
consecutive days at which point the surveys shall be reinitiated.
iv. If no special-status bats are found during the survey(s), then no additional measures are
warranted.
c. Protective measures shall be included in the applicable construction documents and implemented
prior to issuance of permits, if any special-status bat species are encountered or for any roosts
detected within the existing structures, where individual bats could be inadvertently trapped and
injured or killed during demolition unless passively evicted in advance of construction activities.
Protective measures shall include:
i. If no maternity roosts are detected, adult bats can be flushed out of the structure or tree
cavity using a one-way eviction door placed over the exit location for a minimum 48-hour
period prior to the time tree removal or building demolition is to commence.
ii. Confirmation by the qualified biologist that the one-way eviction door was effective, and that
all bats have dispersed from the roost location, modifying any exclusion efforts to ensure
individual bats have been successfully evicted in advance of initiating tree removal or
building demolition.
iii. If a maternity roost is detected, and young are found roosting in a building identified for
demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting, work shall be postponed until the young are flying
free and are feeding on their own, as determined by the qualified biologist.
iv. Once the qualified biologist has determined that any young bats can successfully function
without the maternity roost, then the adults and young bats can be excluded from the
structure to be demolished using the one-way eviction methods described above.
v. Monitoring shall be provided by the qualified biologist as necessary to determine status of
any roosting activity, success of any required bat exclusion, and status of any maternity
roosting activity by bats, in the remote instance a maternity roost is encountered on the site.
Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards. This chapter regulates the design and construction of
buildings so that they are bird safe and reduce light pollution. The standards in this chapter reduce
bird mortality from windows, specific glass features, and lighting elements, with the goals of reducing
light pollution, improving bird mortality rates, and increasing bird visibility in the night sky.
Section 19.102.030, Bird-safe Development Requirements. This section outlines certain
requirements that must be met for certain projects. These include Bird-safe Design Requirements,
which deter the use of funneling flight paths, reflective and transparent glass, and the use of
untreated glass or other transparent materials.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to biological resources
associated with buildout of the General Plan at a program level. The setting for biological resources is
described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.3.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the
General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations equivalent to the General Plan EIR mitigation measures
to reduce construction-related biological resources impacts in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements (SEPRs), as described under the Municipal Code heading in
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-11
Section 4.3.1.1, Regulatory Framework. The SEPRs incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure the
protection of nesting raptors and other birds when in active use, as required by the federal MBTA and the
CFGC, if applicable. CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), Avoid Nesting Birds During Construction, requires the
project applicant to avoid nesting birds during construction and describes the procedures to be
implemented to ensure avoidance. Thus, this mitigation measure is no longer necessary, but would still
apply as a standard project requirement to all applicable projects.
4.3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant biological
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
BIO-1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
LTS/M LTS
BIO-2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
NI NI
BIO-3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
LTS LTS
BIO-4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
LTS LTS
BIO-5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? LTS LTS
BIO-6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
NI NI
BIO-7. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to biological
resources? LTS LTS
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of
this EA. The question posed in BIO-6 is no longer repeated in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EA.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-12 APRIL 2024
4.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
BIO-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
As described in the General Plan EIR, potential future development and land use activities as a result of
implementation of the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where special-status species are
generally not expected to occur. The potential for occurrence of special-status species in developed areas
is generally very remote in comparison to undeveloped lands with natural habitat that contain essential
habitat characteristics for the range of species known from the west Cupertino vicinity.
The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities that
would also occur in already urbanized areas that are dominated by existing structures, pavement, and
other impervious surfaces, and are surrounded by development where special-status species are generally
not expected to occur. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit
Priority Areas, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the locations of potential future development
would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites
either already previously developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential
and residential-serving development, where potential future development would have a lesser impact on
biological resources.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Environmental
Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and
strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would continue
to minimize adverse effects on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species:
Policy LU-3.5. Bird Safety. Enhance bird safety and educe bird mortality from windows, other glass
features, and certain lighting elements that are known to increase the risk of bid collisions.
Strategy LU-3.6.2. Bird Safe Design Ordinance. New development and other applicable projects shall
comply with the City’s Glass and Lighting Standards Orsinace, which provides Bird Safe Design
regulations to reduce the potential risk of bird collisions.
Strategy LU-12.4.2. Developments near Public Space. Locate private driveways and building sites as far
as possible from property boundaries adjoining public open space preserves and parks to enhance the
natural open space character and protect plant and animal habitat.
Policy ES-5.2. Development Near Sensitive Areas. Encourage the clustering of new development away
from sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-13
preserves and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have a harmonious landscaping plan
approved prior to development. (General Plan EIR Policies 5-9 and 5-21)
Policy ES-5.3. Landscaping In and Near Natural Vegetation. Preserve and enhance existing natural
vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development is proposed within existing
natural areas. When development is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the landscaping to
be consistent with the palate of vegetation found in the natural vegetation. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-
10)
Strategy ES-5.3.1. Native Plants. Continue to emphasize the planting of native, drought tolerant, pest
resistant, non-invasive, climate appropriate plants and ground covers, particularly for erosion control
and to prevent disturbance of the natural terrain. (General Plan EIR Strategy 4 under Policy 2-20).
Policy ES-5.6. Recreation and Wildlife. Provide open space linkages within and between properties for
both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened,
endangered or designated as species of special concern. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-14)
Policy ES-7.1. Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. In public and private development, use
Low Impact Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by mimicking natural hydrology,
minimizing grading and protecting or restoring natural drainage systems. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-
18)
Policy ES-7.8. Natural Water Courses. Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses
and associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and
assist in groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of such areas. (General
Plan EIR Policy 5-27)
The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project would have a have a potential adverse effect on
some bird species, such as Cooper’s hawk and white-tailed kite, as they could use the remaining riparian
corridors and heavily wooded areas for nesting, dispersal, and other functions when they pass through
urbanized areas. Accordingly, the General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to minimize the
possible loss or abandonment of nests of birds protected under the federal MBTA and CFGC. Following the
certification of the General Plan EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), Avoid Nesting Birds
During Construction, that requires the project applicant to avoid nesting birds during construction and
describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance. Therefore, mandatory compliance with
CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1) as standard project requirements, would ensure that impacts would
continue to be less than significant without mitigation from the adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project.
As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and
design standards governing special-status species, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall
impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or
more severe impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-14 APRIL 2024
BIO-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project would have no impact on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community. Development and land use activities of the Approved Project would
occur in urbanized areas where sensitive natural communities are absent.
As with the potential future development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential future development
under the proposed Modified Project would also occur in already urbanized areas without sensitive
natural communities. Thus, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural
communities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
BIO-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where
jurisdictional waters are absent. Any indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters would be
largely avoided through effective implementation of best management practices during construction and
compliance with water quality controls.
As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of
potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be concentrated on a limited
number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or
underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where
potential future development would have a lesser impact on jurisdictional waters. Additionally, potential
indirect water quality-related impacts to jurisdictional waters are evaluated further in Chapter 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EA.
As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and
design standards governing wetlands, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe
impacts to state or federally protected wetlands beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-15
BIO-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
As described in the General Plan EIR, potential future development and land use activities as a result of
implementation of the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where sensitive wildlife
resources and important wildlife movement corridors are no longer present because of existing
development. However, wildlife species common to urban and suburban habitat could be displaced where
existing structures are demolished and landscaping is removed as part of the Approved Project.
As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of
potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be concentrated on a limited
number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or
underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development in
already urbanized areas that are dominated by existing structures, pavement, and other impervious
surfaces, and are surrounded by development where wildlife species are generally not expected to occur.
Additionally, as described in the General Plan EIR, the species likely inhabiting the area are relatively
abundant and adapted to human disturbance.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Element
contains a strategy that requires local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that
development could have on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species,
migratory wildlife corridors, and nursey sites. The following General Plan 2040 strategy would also serve
to provide additional habitat to minimize adverse effects on the movement of native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species, migratory wildlife corridors, and nursey sites: Strategy ES-5.3.1, Native Plants.
Continue to emphasize the planting of native, drought-tolerant, pest-resistant, non-invasive, climate-
appropriate plants and ground covers, particularly for erosion control and to prevent disturbance of the
natural terrain. (General Plan EIR Strategy 4 under Proposed Policy 2-20).
As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and
design standards governing wildlife movement, as necessary. For example, in Hillside areas, the Municipal
Code allows solid board fencing on only 5,000 sq. ft. around a home and all other fencing must be open
fencing to allow wildlife to pass. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-16 APRIL 2024
BIO-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would not conflict with any local ordinances or
policies protecting biological resources. Activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project
would occur in urbanized areas where sensitive biological and wetland resources are generally considered
to be absent, and no major conflicts with the relevant policies or ordinances in the Cupertino General Plan
and/or Municipal Code are anticipated. Additionally, with adherence to the General Plan policies listed in
Impact Discussions BIO-1 and BIO-4 of the General Plan EIR, and the Protected Tree Ordinance and Water
Protection Ordinance, no conflicts with local plans and policies were anticipated.
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include potential future development
and land use activities that would also occur in already urbanized areas that are dominated by existing
structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces. Additionally, future potential development under
the proposed Modified Project would adhere to the General Plan policies and strategies listed in Impact
Discussions BIO-1 and BIO-4 of this EA and local regulations described in Section 4.3.1.1, Regulatory
Framework. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe conflicts with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
BIO-6 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan.
The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project was located outside the boundaries of the Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The city is not within any other HCP or natural community conservation plan; as
such, the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with any such plan.
Thus, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not
result in new or more severe conflicts with the provisions of an adopted HCP; Natural Community
Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State HCP beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-17
BIO-7 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to biological resources.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for biological
resources considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands, and the region. Potential
future development and land use activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would
occur in urbanized areas, thus avoiding or diminishing effects on biological resources. With
implementation of the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the Approved Project would not make
a significant contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources.
The impacts of potential future development on biological resources tend to be site-specific, and the
overall cumulative effects would depend on the degree to which significant vegetation and wildlife
resources are protected on a particular site. This includes preservation of well-developed native
vegetation (e.g., native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian woodland, and chaparral), populations of
special-status plant or animal species, and wetland features (e.g., coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh
and seeps, riparian corridors, and drainages). Further, site evaluations would be required for future
projects, where appropriate, to determine the presence of special-status species, nesting birds, sensitive
natural communities, regulated waters, and wildlife movement corridors. These biological resource
assessments would serve to ensure that important biological resources are identified, protected, and
properly managed, and to prevent any significant adverse development-related impacts, including future
potential development from the proposed Modified Project.
Additionally, like in the Approved Project, increased future potential development potential in the Study
Area is anticipated to predominantly occur in existing urbanized areas. Potential future development that
could occur elsewhere in the region, outside of the Study Area, would also likely occur in urbanized areas,
minimizing cumulative impacts to biological resources. Further, future potential development under the
proposed Modified Project and other projects would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies,
and design standards governing biological resources, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified
Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources
beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-18 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-1
4.4 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes the potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with the
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory
framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an
analysis of the potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, and identifies General Plan 2040
policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
TERMINOLOGY
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this chapter.
Cultural Resource. This term is used to describe several different types of properties: pre-contact
(prehistoric) and historic archaeological sites, buildings, objects, structures, and districts or any other
physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture or a community
for scientific, traditional, or religious reasons.
Historic Property. Federal regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 800) define a historic
property as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This term includes artifacts, records,
and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term also includes properties
of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native American tribes or Native Hawaiian
organizations and that meet NRHP criteria.
Historical Resource. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)
define a historical resource as a resource listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR) or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR by the State Historical Resources
Commission, a resource included in a local register of Historical Resources, or identified as significant
in a Historical Resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.
Unique Archaeological Resource. CEQA defines this term as an archaeological artifact, object, or site
about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of
knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information.
Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type.
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-2 APRIL 2024
Tribal Cultural Resource. CEQA defines tribal cultural resources as sites, features, places, cultural
landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included or determined to be eligible for
inclusion in the CRHR; and/or included in a local register of historical resources; and/or a resource
determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA ) of 1966 defines the responsibilities of federal agencies to
protect and preserve historic properties and established the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register) as the official designation of historical resources, including districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects. Sites less than 50 years in age, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for the
National Register. Listing in the National Register does not entail specific protection for a property, but
project effects on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register must be evaluated under
CEQA. For a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register, it must be significant and possess
integrity. According to the National Register criteria for evaluation,1 a property is significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture if it is:
A. Associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of significant persons in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (United States Code, Title 16, Sections 470aa–mm) became
law on October 31, 1979, and has been amended four times. It regulates the protection of archaeological
resources and sites that are on federal and Indian lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (United States Code, Title 25,
Sections 3001 et seq.) protects Native American remains, including Native American graves on federal and
tribal lands, and recognizes tribal authority over the treatment of unmarked graves. This act prohibits the
selling of Native American remains and provides guidelines for the return of Native American human
1 Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 60.4.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-3
remains and cultural objects from any collection receiving federal funding, such as museums, universities,
or governments. Noncompliance with this act can result in civil and criminal penalties.
State Regulations
California Health and Safety Code
Health and Safety Code Section 7052 states that the disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a
felony. Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains
are discovered during activities involving ground disturbance. If human remains are discovered or
identified in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there should be no further disturbance or
excavation nearby until the county coroner has determined the area is not a crime scene that warrants
further investigation into the cause of death and made recommendations to the persons responsible for
the work in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98 (the California Native American Historical,
Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act). If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her
authority and recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains are those of Native American, he or
she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of State policies and regulations in
the PRC. In addition, cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection
under the PRC and CEQA. California PRC Sections 5097.9–5097.991 provides protection to Native
American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites and identifies the powers and duties of the
NAHC. It also requires notification to descendants of discoveries of Native American human remains and
provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.
California Historical Building Code
The California Historical Building Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 8) provides regulations for permitting repairs,
alterations, and additions for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, reconstruction, change of use, or
continued use of historical buildings, structures, and properties determined by any level of government as
qualifying as a historical resource. A historical resource is defined in Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division
13, Part 2.7 of the Health and Safety Code, and subject to rules and regulations in the California Historical
Building Code.
California Register of Historic Resources
The California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) establishes a list of properties to be
protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1). A historical resource may be listed in the
California Register if it is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California,
and meets any of the following criteria:
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-4 APRIL 2024
Is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past.
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction;
represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic value.
Has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
The California Register includes properties that are listed or have been formally determined eligible for
listing in the National Register, State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Other
potential resources require nomination for inclusion in the California Register.
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) was signed into law in September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. It
places requirements on local governments for developments in or near “traditional tribal cultural places”
(TTCP). Pursuant to SB 18, the law requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of
California Native American tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving TTCPs. The
Final Guidelines recommend that the NAHC provide written information as soon as possible but no later
than 30 days after receiving a request to inform the lead agency if the proposed project is determined to
be in proximity to a TTCP and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to
consult to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. There is no
statutory limit on the consultation duration. Forty-five days before the action is publicly considered by the
local government council, the local government refers action to agencies, following the CEQA public
review time frame. The CEQA public distribution list may include tribes listed by the NAHC who have
requested consultation, or it may not.
SB 18 is triggered before the adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a city or county general plan.
Although SB 18 does not specifically mention consultation or notice requirements for adoption or
amendment of specific plans, the Final Tribal Guidelines advises that SB 18 requirements extend to
specific plans as well, because State planning law requires local governments to use the same process for
amendment or adoption of specific plans as general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65453).
In addition, SB 18 provides a new definition of TTCPs requiring a traditional association of the site with
Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies, or the site must be shown to
actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies
(previously, the site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways,
and ceremonial activities). SB 18 law also amended Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native
American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of
protecting their cultural places.
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act
The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number,
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, passed in 2014 and amended CEQA to address California Native American tribal
concerns regarding how cultural resources of importance to tribes are treated under CEQA and created
the new TCR category. CEQA identifies a TCR as a separate and distinct category of resource, separate
from a historical or archaeological resource. CEQA specifies that a project that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a TCR (as defined in CEQA Statute or PRC Section 21074[a]) is a
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-5
project that may have a significant effect on the environment. To help determine whether a project may
have such an effect, the PRC requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe
that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed project. According to the act, tribes may have expertise in tribal history and “tribal knowledge
about land and TCRs at issue should be included in environmental assessments for projects that may have
a significant impact on those resources.”
CEQA Section 21074.3(a) defines a TCR as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe that is either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic
Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, or if the City of Cupertino, acting as the
lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a TCR.
Because these criteria also meet the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, a TCR may also
require additional consideration as a historical resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological,
cultural, or physical indicators.
CEQA Section 21080.3.2 provides that as part of the tribal consultation process, parties could propose
mitigation measures. If the California Native American tribe requests consultation to include project
alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects, the consultation would be required to cover those
topics. CEQA Section 21082.3 provides that any mitigation measures agreed on during this consultation
“shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation
monitoring program” if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on TCRs.
Assembly Bill 168
AB 168 was signed in 2020 and extends the responsibility of a development proponent to consult with
Native American tribes to streamlined ministerial approvals for affordable multifamily housing
developments under SB 35. A development with streamlined ministerial approval under SB 35 is not
subject to CEQA, allowing for such developments to occur without going through a CEQA review or
screening process to determine if they would affect TCRs.
AB 168 requires a development proponent to submit notice of its intent to apply for streamlined approval
to the local government prior to the actual application submittal. The local government is then required to
provide formal notice to each California Native American tribe that is culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of the proposed development and to engage in a scoping consultation regarding the
potential effects the proposed development could have on a potential TCR (California Government Code
Section 65913.4(b)). The scoping consultation must commence within 30 days after the proponent
submits a notice of intent to apply for ministerial approval and conclude before the proponent can submit
the application.
AB 168 deems a project ineligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process and requires it be
subject to CEQA if:
A. The site of the proposed development is a TCR that is on a national, state, tribal, or local historic
register list;
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-6 APRIL 2024
B. The local government and the California Native American tribe do not agree that no potential TCR
would be affected by the proposed development; or
C. The local government and California Native American tribe find that a potential TCR could be affected
by the proposed development and the parties do not document an enforceable agreement regarding
the methods, measures, and conditions for treatment of those TCRs, as provided.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The proposed Land Use and Community Design (LU) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals,
policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to
cultural and tribal cultural resources. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential
adverse impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources are identified in Section 4.4.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to cultural
and tribal cultural resources in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most
provisions related to cultural and tribal cultural resources are included in Title 17, Environmental
Regulations, and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements . The purpose of this chapter is to
identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet,
including, but not limited to, environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental
documents required as part of a General Plan update. This chapter includes specific requirements for
the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources.
Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources Permit Requirements. This section describes the
procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources.
1. Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources: For all projects requiring
ground-disturbing activities on land with no known archaeological or tribal cultural resources
that has not been previously disturbed and/or where ground-disturbing activities would occur
at a greater depth or affect a greater area than previously disturbed, the following shall be
required:
a. Areas with No Known Cultural Resources. For all projects within areas where there are no
known cultural resources, prior to soil disturbance, the project applicant shall provide
written verification, including the materials provided to contractors and construction
crews, to the City confirming that contractors and construction crews have been notified
of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological
resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting these
resources as follows:
i. Basic archaeological site indicators that may include, but are not limited to, darker
than surrounding soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire affected
rock or earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of stone, bone, or
shellfish; evidence of living surfaces (e.g., floors); and burials, either human or animal.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-7
ii. The potential for undiscovered archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources on
site.
iii. The laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, including, but not
limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, Public
Resources Code Section 5097, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050 and
Section 7052.
iv. The protection procedures to follow should construction crews discover cultural
resources during project-related earthwork, include the following:
1. All soil disturbing work within 25 feet of the find shall cease.
2. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide and
implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation, as needed, to define the
deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area to
determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected by the
project.
3. Any potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources found during construction
activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and
Recreation forms by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is a tribal cultural
resource, the consulting archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe, as
determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, to evaluate the
significance of the resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible
avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation measures, in light of factors such as
the significance of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other
considerations. The archeologist shall perform this evaluation in consultation with
the tribe.
b. Areas with Known Cultural Resources. For all projects within areas of known cultural
resources as documented in the 2015 General Plan EIR Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in
the Project Study Area and Vicinity, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced
by the City, and the archaeological or tribal cultural resources cannot be avoided, in
addition to the requirements in Section E.1.a for all construction projects with ground-
disturbing activities, the following additional actions shall be implemented prior to
ground disturbance:
i. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a subsurface
investigation of the project site, and to ascertain the extent of the deposit of any
buried archaeological materials relative to the project’s area of potential effects, in
consultation with a tribal representative as applicable. The archaeologist shall prepare
a site record and file it with the California Historical Resource Information System and
the City of Cupertino.
ii. If the resource extends into the project’s area of potential effects as determined by
the archaeologist, the resource shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist to
determine if the resource is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource is not eligible,
no further action is required unless there is a discovery of additional resources during
construction (as required above for all construction projects with ground-disturbing
activities). If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource is eligible, the
qualified archaeologist shall identify ways to minimize the effect which the project
applicant shall implement. A written report of the results of investigations and
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-8 APRIL 2024
mitigations shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist and filed with the
California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center and
the City of Cupertino.
2. Protect Human Remains and Native American Burials. The project applicant shall comply with
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98.
a. In the event of discovering human remains during construction activities, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius of the remains, or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.
b. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are Native American.
c. If the Santa Clara County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his
authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours.
d. The NAHC shall attempt to identify descendants (Most Likely Descendant) of the deceased
Native American.
e. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours following access to the project site to make
recommendations or preferences regarding the disposition of the remains. If the Most
Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours after being allowed
access to the project site, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in
an area of the property secure from further disturbance and provide documentation about
this determination and the location of the remains to the NAHC and the City of Cupertino.
Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations,
the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Construction shall halt
until the mediation has concluded.
Title 19, Zoning. Besides the General Plan, the zoning code is the primary tool that shapes the
form and character of physical development in Cupertino. This title establishes comprehensive
zoning regulations for the city and assures the orderly and beneficial development of the city,
attains a desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities, and promotes efficient
urban design and arrangement. The zoning code sets forth the standards requiring architectural
and site review and stipulating criteria for new development near historic buildings and districts.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to cultural and tribal
cultural resources associated with buildout of the General Plan at a program level. The setting for cultural
and tribal cultural resources is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since
the certification of the General Plan EIR in 2015, impacts to tribal cultural resources have been added to
the standards of significance.
4.4.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant cultural
and tribal cultural resources impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
CUL-1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? LTS LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-9
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant cultural
and tribal cultural resources impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
CUL-2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? LTS LTS
CUL-3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries? LTS LTS
CUL-4. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria
set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native
American tribe?
N/A LTS
CUL-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to cultural and
tribal cultural resources? LTS LTS
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of
this EA. CUL-4 regarding tribal cultural resources was not included in the General Plan EIR and impacts to unique paleontological resources or sites,
or unique geological features are now addressed in GEO-6 in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this EA.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = not a standard
of significance in the General Plan EIR.
4.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
CUL-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The General Plan EIR identified several historical resources within the boundaries of the Approved Project
that could be impacted by future development under the Approved Project. Potential impacts to
identified historic resources could be from demolition of the resource, inappropriate modification (using
incompatible materials, designs, or construction techniques), and incompatible new construction that
denigrate established architectural context of the historical resource. However, the General Plan EIR
referenced General Plan policies, in addition to the federal and State laws, that would minimize the
potential impacts to historical resources and ensure future development under the Approved Project
would not cause a substantially adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities within
the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development
Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the locations of potential future
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-10 APRIL 2024
development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved
Project.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) Element contains policies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have
on historic resources . Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies, and
updated policies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse
impacts on historic resources:
Policy LU- 6.1. Historic Preservation. Maintain and update an inventory of historically significant
structures and sites in order to protect resources and promote awareness of the city’s history in
the following four categories: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks and
Historic Mention Sites (General Plan Figure LU-3). (General Plan EIR Policy 2-71)
Policy LU-6.2. Historic Sites. Projects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of Interior
Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-66)
Policy LU-6.3. Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks. Projects on
Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks shall provide a plaque, reader
board and/ or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the
resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written
description and photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view
the information. (General Plan EIR Policies 2-66, 2-67, and 2-68)
Policy LU-6.4. Public Access. Coordinate with property owners of public and quasi-public sites to
allow public access of Historic and Commemorative Sires to foster public awareness and
education. Private property owners will be highly encouraged, but not required to provide public
access to Historic and Commemorative Sites. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-66)
Policy LU-6.5. Historic Mention Sites. These are sites outside the City’s jurisdiction that have
contributed to the City’s history. Work with agencies that have jurisdiction over the historical
resource to encourage adaptive reuse and rehabilitation and provide public access and plaques to
foster public awareness and education. (General Plan EIR Policies 2-66 and 2-69)
Policy LU- 6.6. Incentives for Preservation of Historic Resources. Utilize a variety of techniques to
serve as incentives to foster the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Resources including:
1. Allow flexible interpretation of the zoning ordinance not essential to public health and safety.
This could include land use, parking requirements and/ or setback requirements.
2. Use the California Historical Building Codes standards for rehabilitation of historic structures.
3. Tax rebates (Milles Act or Local tax rebates).
4. Financial incentives such as grants/ loans to assist rehabilitation efforts. (General Plan EIR Policy
2-70)
Since certification of the General Plan EIR, there have not been any new historical resources added to the
city. The policies listed would minimize the potential impacts to historical resources. As with the
development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential new development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing
historic resources, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-11
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts on
historical resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
CUL-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The General Plan EIR found that although the locations identified as potential for future development
would be concentrated on sites and in areas either already developed and/or in close proximity to existing
residential, where development would have a lesser impact on historical archaeological resources, the
potential remains that archaeological deposits could be discovered because project components would
result in development on, or within the vicinity of, several identified cultural resources. Ground-disturbing
activities could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical archaeological
resource. However, the General Plan included a policy that would protect archaeologically sensitive areas
and would provide for the identification of archaeological deposits prior to actions that may disturb such
deposits and make impacts less than significant.
The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities in the
same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development
Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the
proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project. Ground-disturbing
activities would still have the potential to impact unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological
sites and other historical archaeological features. However, following the certification of the General Plan
EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources Permit Requirements, that describes
the procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources, including archaeological
resources. Therefore, mandatory compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E) as a standard project
requirement would ensure that impacts would continue to be less than significant without mitigation
from the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project.
As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing
archaeological resources, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to
archaeological resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-12 APRIL 2024
CUL-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not disturb any
human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries.
The General Plan EIR concluded that human remains associated with pre-contact archaeological deposits
could exist in the Approved Project Study Area and could be encountered at the time potential future
development would occur. The associated ground-disturbing activities, such as site grading and trenching
for utilities, have the potential to disturb human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. However,
any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with future development
under implementation of the Approved Project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations,
such as the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CCR Section
15064.5(e) and the General Plan policy that protects Native American burial sites. Therefore, while the
potential for discovery or disturbance of any human remains during construction activities associated with
the Approved Project is possible, the policies and regulations included in the General Plan EIR would
minimize the impacts to less than significant.
The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities within
the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development
Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the
proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) Element contains policies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have
on human remains.
Ground-disturbing activities still have the potential to impact human remains. However, following the
certification of the General Plan EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources
Permit Requirements, that describes the procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural
resources. Therefore, mandatory compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E) would ensure that impacts
would continue to be less than significant without mitigation from the adoption and implementation of
the proposed Modified Project.
As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and
design standards governing human remains, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts
from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more
severe impacts to human remains beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-13
CUL-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: (i)
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1 (c). In applying the criteria set forth in
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a
California Native American tribe.
While the standards regarding tribal cultural resources were adopted by the California Natural Resource
Agency in July 2016, after the certification of the General Plan EIR, as described throughout this chapter,
the General Plan EIR addressed impacts to cultural resources associated with the Approved Project.
Additionally, the cultural resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR consisted of archival research
at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field
inspection, and contact with the Native American community. The cultural resources study addressed
impacts associated with archaeological resources, including those of Native Americans.
The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities in the
same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development
Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the
proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project. Pursuant to
California Government Code Section 21080.3.1 (AB 52), the City provided notification of determination
that a project application was complete and provided an opportunity for comments to two members of
the Tamien Nation on March 27, 2023: Quirina Luna Geary, Chairwoman and Johnathan Costillas, Tribal
Cultural Resource Officer (See Appendix C, Tribal Consultation Correspondence).
Additionally, Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (SB 18), the City requested a list
of local Native American representatives as potentially having local knowledge from the NAHC in
September 2023. The NAHC responded and provided contact information for 15 Native American tribal
representatives, which are listed below. The City submitted letters, shown in Appendix C, in December
2023 to provide an opportunity for the listed Native American tribes to participate in local land use
decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting or mitigating impacts to cultural places.
Ed Ketchum, Vice-Chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Valentin Lopez, Chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-14 APRIL 2024
Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
Timothy Perez, North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Katherine Perez, Chairperson of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Lillian Camarena, Secretary of the Tamien Nation
Johnathan Wasaka Costillas, THPO of the Tamien Nation
Quirina Luna Geary, Chairperson of the Tamien Nation
Andrew Galvan, Chairperson of the Ohlone Indian Tribe
Vincent Medina, Tribal Consultant for the Ohlone Indian Tribe
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson of the Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
No responses were received at the time of the publication of this EA. The City remains open to
consultation with tribal representatives. In addition, the City requested a Sacred Lands File search, which
was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, on October 23, 2023, with
negative results.
Following the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural
Resources Permit Requirements, that describes the procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal
cultural resources. Therefore, mandatory compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E), would ensure that
impacts would continue to be less than significant without mitigation from the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project.
As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and
design standards governing tribal cultural resources, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall
impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or
more severe impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
CUL-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to cultural or tribal
cultural resources.
The General Plan EIR concluded that potential future development permitted under the Approved Project,
in conjunction with buildout of the city and the region, has the potential to cumulatively impact historical
resources. Such impacts could result from more intensive land uses, incompatible site designs that impact
the historical integrity of nearby historical buildings and districts, and demolition of historical resources.
Further, development in the Approved Project Study Area also has the potential to adversely affect
archaeological resources and human remains through their destruction or disturbance. However, the
General Plan policies and strategies, and mandatory regulation would minimize impacts to such resources
that would occur from development and land use changes under the Approved Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-15
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project has the same potential to cumulatively impact
historical resources since the Study Area and known resources have remained the same. The General Plan
policies in place to protect cultural resources described in the previous impact discussions and CMC
Section 17.04.050(E) would also help to reduce impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.
Further, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project and other projects would be
required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing cultural and tribal
cultural resources, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or
more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-16 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-1
4.5 ENERGY
This chapter describes the potential energy impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of
the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and baseline conditions,
identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential energy
impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was established in response to the 1973 oil crisis. The act
created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, established vehicle fuel economy standards, and prohibited the
export of United States crude oil (with a few limited exceptions). It also created Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars starting in model year 1978. The CAFE standards are
updated periodically to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving
conditions.
The federal government issued new CAFE standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025 that required a
fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) for model year 2025. However, on March 30, 2020, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) finalized an updated CAFE and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards, covering
model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for
Model Years 2021 through 2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per
year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE standards established in 2012. Overall, SAFE
requires a fleet average of 40.4 MPG for model year 2026 vehicles. On March 31, 2022, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized new fuel standards, which will increase fuel efficiency 8
percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent annually for model year 2026. Overall, the
new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 MPG for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model
year 2026, which will be a 10 MPG increase relative to model year 2021.1
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) seeks to provide the nation with
greater energy independence and security by increasing the production of clean renewable fuels;
improving vehicle fuel economy; and increasing the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. It also
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for
Model Year 2024-2026, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-
year-2024-2026, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-2 APRIL 2024
seeks to improve the energy performance of the federal government. The act sets increased CAFE
Standards; the Renewable Fuel Standard; appliance energy-efficiency standards; building energy-efficiency
standards; and accelerated research and development tasks on renewable energy sources (e.g., solar
energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies), carbon capture,
and sequestration.2
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to
address energy issues. This Act includes tax incentives for energy conservation improvements in
commercial and residential buildings, fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities, and construction and
operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind
energy, and other alternative energy producers.
National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, the National Energy Policy is
designed to help the private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and
environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the
energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of
increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the United States Department of Transportation to
regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as
the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration within the United States Department of Transportation develops and enforces regulations
for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6-million-mile pipeline
transportation system.
State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
Established in 1974, the Warren-Alquist Act created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in response
to the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the state’s unsustainable growing demand for energy
resources. The CEC’s core responsibilities include advancing State energy policy, encouraging energy
efficiency, certifying thermal power plants, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy,
transforming transportation, and preparing for energy emergencies. The Warren-Alquist Act is updated
annually to address current energy needs and issues, and its latest edition was in November 2023.
2 Authenticated U.S. Government Information, 2007. One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America, H.R. 6,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-3
California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 under the Warren-Alquist Act as the State’s
principal energy planning organization in order to meet the energy challenges facing the state in response
to the 1973 oil embargo. The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing state energy
policy:
Forecast statewide electricity needs.
License power plants to meet those needs.
Promote energy conservation and efficiency measures.
Develop renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies.
Promote research, development, and demonstration.
Plan for and direct the state’s response to energy emergencies.
California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long-Term Energy
Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year
2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying
specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. This Plan sets
forth the following four goals, known as Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies, to achieve significant
reductions in energy demand:
All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;
All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy
performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income
energy efficiency program by 2020.
The CPUC and CEC have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy levels by 2030 in the
commercial sector:
Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean,
distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.
Goal 2: 50 percent of existing buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through
achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.
Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative
utility initiatives.
Renewable Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08
The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078
and was amended in 2006, 2011, and 2018. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric
service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy
resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. Initially under the RPS, certain retail sellers of
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-4 APRIL 2024
electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in
order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S 14 08 was signed in
November 2008, which expanded the state’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power
by 2020. This standard was adopted by the California legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). The California Public
Utilities Commission is required to provide quarterly progress reports on progress toward RPS goals. This
has accelerated the development of renewable energy projects throughout the state. For year 2022, the
three largest retail energy utilities provided an average of 48.4 percent of their supplies from renewable
energy sources. Community choice aggregators provided an average of 52 percent of its supplies from
renewable sources.3
Senate Bills 350 and 100
SB 350 was signed on October 7, 2015, which expands the RPS by establishing a goal of 50 percent of the
total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350
includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such
as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses upon which an energy efficiency program is focused)
of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires the CPUC, in
consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with
this goal. SB 350 also provides for the transformation of the California Independent System Operator into
a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the
western states and to improve the access of consumers served by the California Independent System
Operator to those markets, pursuant to a specified process.
On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed to replace the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS
for public owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by
2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent
by 2026. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall State policy that eligible renewable energy
resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-
use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.
Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow
resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. It requires renewable energy and zero-carbon
resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040. Additionally,
SB 1020 requires all state agencies to procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zero-
carbon resources by 2035.
3 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2023, May. 2023 Padilla Report: Costs and Savings for the RPS Program
(Public Utilities Code Section 913.3), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/industries-and-
topics/documents/energy/rps/2023/2023-padilla-report---final.pdf, accessed February 2, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-5
Energy-Efficiency Regulations
Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations contain energy performance, energy design, water
performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending
machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool
equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California (California Code of
Regulations Title 20, Parts 1600–1608). These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of
new energy efficiency technologies and methods.4
California Building Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and
most recently revised in 2022 (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6). Title 24 requires the design
of building shells and building components to conserve energy periodically to allow for consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 standards became
effective and replaced the 2019 standards on January 1, 2023.
The Energy Code contains mandatory requirements, which are required for all new development and
include standards covering space conditioning, water heating, cooking and furnace equipment, building
insulation, lighting controls, electrical distribution, and solar readiness. In addition to the mandatory
requirements, for a new development to demonstrate compliance with the Energy Code, it must
demonstrate compliance with either the Prescriptive Approach or Performance Approach. The
Prescriptive Approach contains various prescribed features, such as solar water heaters, solar panel arrays,
and battery storage, depending on the building occupancy types and location. For instance, the single-
family and low-rise (3 or fewer habitable stories) multi-family residential occupancy types would require a
photovoltaic (solar) system but no battery storage under the prescriptive pathway, while high-rise (greater
than 3 habitable stories) multi-family residential, grocery, office, financial institution, unleased tenant
space, retail, school, warehouse, auditorium, convention center, hotel, motel, library, medical office
building/clinic, restaurant, and theater occupancy types would require both solar and battery storage
systems under the Prescriptive Approach.
Under the Prescriptive Approach, a new development’s building design is called the “Standard Design
Building,” which represents the energy efficiency performance of that project should it include all
prescribed features (e.g., solar, battery storage) with no additional energy efficiency features beyond what
is required at minimum under the mandatory requirements and prescriptive pathway. A project may
instead demonstrate compliance with the Energy Code using the Performance Approach without
including prescriptive features like solar or battery storage; however, that building design must match or
exceed the energy efficiency performance of the Standard Design Building—that is, what the building’s
energy efficiency performance would be if it were to include solar and battery storage. For example, if a
4 California Energy Commission, 2017, 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/2016-appliance-
efficiency-regulations-5104f7.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-6 APRIL 2024
project would be required to include solar and battery storage under the Prescriptive Approach, it can
instead choose to comply with the Performance Approach and not include solar and battery storage so
long as it can demonstrate that it would achieve the same energy efficiency performance as if solar and
battery storage were included, as applicable.
California Building Code: Title 24, Part 11, Green Building Standards
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). It includes mandatory requirements for
new residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce
GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places
to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the
Governor. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last
updated in 2022. The 2022 CALGreen update, which was approved as part of 2022 Energy Code, became
effective on January 1, 2023, and provides updates to the residential and non-residential voluntary
measures. The next update to CALGreen—the intervening cycle update—will take effect starting July 1,
2024.
Overall, the code is established to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of
materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains
requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste
reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation
conservation, and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how
best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building
commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling
equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the CEC
on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.
The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated
appliances. They contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design
standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters,
fan s, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are
sold or offered for sale in California (California Code of Regulations Title 20, Parts 1600–1608). These
standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and
methods.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-7
Off-road Equipment and Transportation-Related Regulations
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car
standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty
vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger
vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to
California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel
economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also
the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards described previously in the "Federal Regulations”
section). In January 2012, the California Air Resources Board approved the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars
program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the
control of smog, soot, and GHGs and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a
single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles
will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.5
Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449
Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8 was adopted on May 2,
2008, that limits non-essential idling of fleets to no more than five consecutive minutes at any location.
This idling restriction applies to all vehicles in California with a diesel-fueled or alternative diesel-fueled
off-road engine, unless a waiver provides sufficient justification that such idling is necessary.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
In 2008, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly known by its legislative bill
number (SB 375) was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008
Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent
is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with
goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing
allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. Specifically,
SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) for the Bay Area region, which includes the city of Cupertino. Pursuant to the
recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), CARB adopted per capita
reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.
5 California Air Resources Board, January 18, 2017, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/ACC%20MTR%20Summary_Ac.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-8 APRIL 2024
Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 was issued, which sets a time frame for the transition to
zero-emissions (ZE) passenger vehicles and trucks in addition to off-road equipment. It directs CARB to
develop and propose the following:
Passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZEVs (zero-emission
vehicles) sold in California toward the target of 100 percent of in-state sales by 2035.
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZE trucks and buses
sold and operated in California toward the target of 100 percent of the fleet transitioning to ZEVs by
2045 everywhere feasible, and for all drayage trucks to be ZE by 2035.
Strategies to achieve 100 percent zero emissions from all off-road vehicles and equipment operations
in California by 2035, in cooperation with other State agencies, the EPA, and local air districts.
On August 25, 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulations that codifies the EO
goal of 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger vehicles and trucks be ZE by 2035. Starting in the
year 2026, ACC II requires that 35 percent of new vehicles sold be ZEVs or plug-in hybrids.
Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
In April 2023, CARB released the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation to accelerate the transition to
zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.6 In conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)
regulation, the ACF regulations helps to ensure that medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs are brought to the
market, by requiring certain fleets to purchase ZEVs. The ACF ZEV phase-in approach which provides initial
focus where the best fleet electrification opportunities exist, sets clear targets for regulated fleets to make
a full conversion to ZEVs, and creates a catalyst to accelerate development of a heavy-duty public
infrastructure network.
The ACF regulations covers four main elements:
Manufacturer sales mandate. Manufacturers may sell only zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles starting in 2036.
Drayage fleets. Beginning January 1, 2024, trucks must be registered in the CARB Online System to
conduct drayage activities in California. Non-zero-emission “legacy” drayage trucks may register in the
CARB Online System through December 31, 2023. Legacy drayage trucks can continue to operate
through their minimum useful life. Beginning January 1, 2024, only zero-emission drayage trucks may
register in the CARB Online System. All drayage trucks entering seaports and intermodal railyards
would be required to be zero-emission by 2035.
High-priority and federal fleets. High-priority and federal fleets must comply with the Model Year
Schedule or may elect to use the optional ZEV Milestones Option to phase-in ZEVs into their fleets:
6 California Air Resources Board. 2024. Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/about, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-9
Model Year Schedule: Fleets must purchase only ZEVs beginning 2024 and, starting January 1,
2025, must remove internal combustion engine vehicles at the end of their useful life as specified
in the regulation.
ZEV Milestones Option (Optional): Instead of the Model Year Schedule, fleets may elect to meet
ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for
electrification.
State and local agencies. State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and
State agency fleets, would be required to ensure 50 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission
beginning in 2024 and 100 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission by 2027. Small government
fleets (those with 10 or fewer vehicles) and those in designated counties would start their ZEV
purchases beginning in 2027. Alternately, State and local government fleet owners may elect to meet
ZEV targets using the ZEV Milestones Option. State and local government fleets may purchase either
ZEVs or near-ZEVs, or a combination of ZEVs and near-ZEVs, until 2035. Starting in 2035, only ZEVs will
meet the requirements.
The ACF regulations would also establish requirements that transform the medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle sector and demonstrate independent utility through achievement of the following objectives:
Achieve criteria and GHG emissions reductions consistent with the goals identified in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Strategy and Scoping Plan.
Provide emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities (DAC), thereby supporting the
implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (Garcia, C., Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017).
Support the goals of Executive Order N-79-20 which calls for accelerated ZEV deployment with these
targets:
100 percent ZE drayage by 2035
100 percent ZE trucks and buses where feasible by 2045
Ensure requirements, such as ZEV deployment schedules and related infrastructure build-out, are
technologically feasible, cost-effective, and support market conditions.
Lead the transition away from petroleum fuels and towards electric drivetrains.
Contribute towards achieving carbon neutrality in California pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 100, and in
accordance with Executive Order B-55-18.
Mindfully set requirements to allow time for public ZE infrastructure buildout for smaller fleets or for
regional haul applications who would be reliant on a regional network of public chargers.
Ensure manufacturers and fleets work together to place ZEVs in service suitably and successfully as
market expands.
Establish a fair and level playing field among fleet owners.
Craft the Proposed Modified Project in a way that ensures institutional capacity for CARB to manage,
implement, and enforce requirements.
Energy Storage
California has set ambitious long-term goals for energy storage beyond 2026 to support its clean energy
and climate goals. The state aims to reach 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, which will require
significant investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, as well as energy storage
technologies to balance the variability of these sources.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-10 APRIL 2024
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has a total energy storage capacity of more than
3,160 megawatts (MW) as of June 2022.7 This includes both large-scale and distributed energy storage
systems, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage, and thermal storage. CAISO is responsible for
managing the electricity grid for much of California, and it has set a target of adding 3,300 MW of
additional energy storage capacity by 2024 to support the integration of more renewable energy sources
like wind and solar. As part of SB 100, load serving entities (LSEs) were required to procure no less than
1.3 gigawatts (GW) of energy storage capacity by 2020, and 3 GW by 2030. Additionally, the CPUC has
established a target of 15 GW of energy storage capacity by 2030.8
The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
CAISO develops a coordinated grid management plan to integrate the generation and storage capacities of
LSEs, called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP is a comprehensive planning document that
outlines CAISO’s forecasts for electricity demand, supply, and transmission needs over a 20-year planning
horizon, as well as its strategies for integrating renewable energy resources and other grid services to
meet those needs. The plan is developed in collaboration with LSEs, regulators, and other stakeholders,
and is updated periodically to reflect changes in the energy landscape and evolving policy goals. Overall,
the IRP plays a critical role in ensuring the reliability and resilience of California’s electricity grid as the
state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.
When an individual Battery Energy Storage (BES) facility or generation infrastructure (i.e., solar panels)
comes online in California, it is typically included in the IRP through a process known as the
Interconnection Queue. The Interconnection Queue is managed by the CAISO, which oversees the
operation of the State’s electricity grid.
The Interconnection Queue
The Interconnection Queue is an application process that functions as a waiting list of proposed electricity
generation and storage projects that are seeking to connect to the grid. When a new BES facility or
generation infrastructure is proposed, the developer applies to CAISO to request an interconnection to
the grid. CAISO evaluates the application to ensure that the facility meets technical and operational
requirements, such as voltage regulation and frequency response, and that it can be integrated effectively
into the grid.
Once the BES facility or generation infrastructure is approved by CAISO, it is assigned a point of
interconnection on the grid, and its output is added to the IRP as a resource that can provide electricity
and other grid services, such as frequency regulation or ramping support. The facility is then dispatched
7 California Independent System Operator, June 14, 2022, “A golden age of energy storage,”
http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/Blog/Posts/A-golden-age-of-energy-storage.aspx, accessed January 26, 2024.
8 California Public Utilities Commission, November 13, 2023, Draft 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report,
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2023-integrated-energy-policy-report,
accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-11
by CAISO based on its bids into the day-ahead and real-time electricity markets, and its output is used to
help balance supply and demand on the grid in real-time.
Overall, the Interconnection Queue is an important mechanism for integrating new BES facilities and other
electricity resources into the California grid, and for ensuring that the grid remains reliable and resilient as
the state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.
Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.9 Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and
environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of
SB 375. Under the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies, just under half of all Bay Area households would live
within one half-mile of frequent transit by 2050, with this share increasing to over 70 percent for
households with low incomes. Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and
shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of
Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG
emissions from transportation would decrease significantly as a result of these transportation and land
use changes, and the Bay Area would meet the state mandate of a 19-percent reduction in per-capita
emissions by 2035 — but only if all strategies are implemented.10
To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for
the region concentrates most new population and employment growth in the region in Priority
Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing
communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where
there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where
substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle,
VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. In Cupertino, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza.11,12
9 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October. Plan Bay Area 2050.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 26,
2024.
10 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October. Plan Bay Area 2050.
/https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 26,
2024.
11 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transit Priority Areas (2021), 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.328339%2C-
122.044206%2C14.00, accessed on January 26, 2024.
12 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Priority Development Areas – Plan Bay Area 2050, 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/explore?location=37.319615%2C-
122.033008%2C14.71, accessed on January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-12 APRIL 2024
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (Clean Air Plan) on April 19,
2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to
meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the
Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following:
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.
Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous
public transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and
putting organic waste to productive use.13
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next 3 to
5 years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The
control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, toxic air
contaminants, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following
sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and
working lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed
control strategy is based on the following key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.
Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.
Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).
Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.
Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.
Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Housing (HE), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Infrastructure (INF) Elements of
the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development
decisions to consider impacts to energy. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential
adverse energy impacts are identified in Section 4.5.3, Impact Discussion.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017, Spare the Air: Cool the Climate, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-
vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-13
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse energy impacts from
development in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to
energy use and conservation are included in Title 16, Buildings and Construction, as follows:
Chapter 16.16, Electrical Code. Adopts the 2022 California Electrical Code as the rules, regulations,
and standards within the City as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC.
Chapter 16.32, Energy Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Energy Code and all of the
regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code and requires newly constructed buildings in
the city to be all-electric, with varying exceptions for non-residential occupancies.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Green Building
Standards Code and includes local amendments regarding the local water and efficient landscape
ordinance, electric vehicle charging, and space design for different types of new construction.
Section 16.58.400, Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging - Residential. Outlines the requirements and
installation process of EV chargers in residential areas.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
Adopted in August 2022, the City of Cupertino CAP 2.0 is an updated roadmap of specific actions to
reduce GHG emissions, achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040, and increase community
resilience. 14 The CAP 2.0 allows City decision-makers and the community to understand the sources and
magnitude of local GHG emissions and identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation
actions the City will use to achieve targets consistent with State recommendations of 15 percent below
2005 emissions levels by 2020, 4.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per person by
2030, and 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. The CAP 2.0, adopted in 2022, updated and expanded the
City’s goals from the 2015 CAP, it also details strategies for Cupertino to prepare for and mitigate
approaching risks from climate change.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not specifically analyze energy because it was
approved prior to the 2019 amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
which incorporated subdivision (b) to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2. While certain energy impacts
standards, such as the current 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Senate Bill 100, were
adopted after the certification of the General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the
General Plan EIR addressed energy impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a
program level. The setting for energy is described in detail in General Plan EIR Section 4.14.4.1,
Environmental Setting.
14 City of Cupertino, 2022, August, Climate Action 2.0,
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-14 APRIL 2024
Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR a new energy service provider has formed, Silicon Valley
Clean Energy (SVCE), which provides electricity through geothermal, solar power and storage, wind
generation, and long duration storage to its service area. The service area includes Cupertino as well as 10
other jurisdictions, including Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno,
Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and unincorporated Santa Clara County.
Customers are automatically enrolled in SVCE but have the option to opt out of SVCE renewable energy
sources and receive their energy service from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E is
responsible for maintaining transmission lines, handling customer billing, and responding to new service
requests and emergencies within the SVCE service area.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Electricity
PG&E is a publicly traded utility company which generates, purchases, and transmits energy and natural
gas under contract with the CPUC. PG&E’s service territory is 70,000 square miles, roughly extending
north to Eureka, south to Bakersfield, west to the Pacific Ocean, and east to the Sierra Nevada mountain
range. PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit-miles of electric distribution lines
and 18,466 circuit-miles of interconnected transmission lines.15 PG&E owns and maintains above-ground
networks of electric transmission and distribution facilities throughout the EIR Study Area. In 2022,
approximately 39 percent of PG&E’s energy generated came from renewable resources including
biopower, geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.16
PG&E electricity is generated by a combination of sources such as coal-fired power plants, nuclear power
plants, and hydro-electric dams, as well as newer sources of energy, such as wind turbines and
photovoltaic plants, also known as solar farms. The bulk electric grid (collectively referred to as “The
Grid”) is a network of high-voltage transmission lines, linked to power plants within the PG&E system. The
distribution system, comprised of lower voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level,
and consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops”
that connect to the individual customer.
Natural Gas
PG&E gas transmission pipeline systems serve approximately 4.5 million gas customers in northern and
central California.17 The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program. The system
15 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024, Company profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-
information/profile/profile.page, accessed January 26, 2024.
16 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2023, Key Sustainability Indicators,
https://www.pgecorp.com/assets/pgecorp/localized/en/sustainability/corporate-responsibility-
sustainability/reports/2023/sustainability/key-sustainability-indicators/#fnm1c, accessed January 26, 2024.
17 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024. Company profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-
information/profile/profile.page, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-15
operates in real time on a 24-hour basis, and includes leak inspections, surveys, and patrols of the
pipelines. PG&E also adopted Pipeline 2020 program, which aims to modernize critical pipeline
infrastructure, expand the use of automatic or remotely operated shut-off valves, catalyze development of
next-generation inspection technologies, develop industry-leading best practices, and enhance public
safety partnerships with local communities, public officials, and first responders. Total natural gas
consumption in PG&E’s service area was 449,302,071,200 kilo-BTU (KBTU) for 2021.18 PG&E is the sole
provider for natural gas services to the City.
Fuel Consumption
California is among the top producers of petroleum in the country, with crude oil pipelines throughout the
state connecting to oil refineries in the Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay, and the Central Valley regions.
In addition to producing petroleum, California is also one of the top consumers of fuel for transportation.
With this sector accounting for approximately 35 percent of California’s total energy demand in 2020,
amounting to approximately 2,355.5 trillion BTUs.19 In addition, in 2020, California’s transportation sector
consumed approximately 433 million barrels of petroleum fuels.20 According to the California Energy
Commission, California’s 2019 fuel sales were approximately 15,365 million gallons of gasoline and 1,756
million gallons of diesel.21 In Santa Clara County, approximately 713 million gallons of gasoline and 66
million gallons of diesel fuel were sold in 2019.22
4.5.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant energy
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
ENE-1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A LTS
ENE-2. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? N/A LTS
ENE-3. Result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands,
and would not require new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or
capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities?
LTS LTS
ENE-4. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to energy resources? N/A LTS
18 California Energy Commission, 2024, Gas Consumption by Planning Area.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx, accessed January 26, 2024.
19 United States Energy Information Administration, 2021, Table F35: Total Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure
Estimates, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_te.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.
20 United States Energy Information Administration, 2021, Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2021,
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_pa.html, accessed January 26, 2024.
21 California Energy Commission, 2023, California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results, h
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/2010-2022%20CEC-A15%20Results%20and%20Analysis%20ADA.xlsx,
accessed January 26, 2024.
22 California Energy Commission, 2023, California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results, h
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/2010-2022%20CEC-A15%20Results%20and%20Analysis%20ADA.xlsx,
accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-16 APRIL 2024
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant energy
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of this
EA. Energy has been added as a separate impact category to Appendix G, thus this EA analyzes the current energy questions in addition to ENE-3, which
was included in the General Plan EIR as UTIL-11. In the General Plan EIR, energy impacts were evaluated in Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = not a standard of
significance in the General Plan EIR.
4.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
METHODOLOGY
To determine whether the proposed Modified Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, this analysis uses the guidance provided in Appendix F of the CEQA
Guidelines and the analytical precedent set by League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of
Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168).
According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy is translated to include
decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal, natural
gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain
etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168), the Appellate Court concluded that the
analysis of wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption was not adequate because it did
not consider whether additional renewable energy features could be added to the project.
The proposed Modified Project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would
result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance
provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in League to Save Lake
Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168), the proposed Modified
Project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
Decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption;
Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and
Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
The following is a summary of the assumptions used for this energy analysis:
On-Road Transportation. Fuel use was based on the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for
cumulative conditions and cumulative conditions with project implementation provided by Fehr and
Peers in the City (see Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA). Saturday and Sunday trip generation
and VMT were calculated from the ratio CalEEMod default Saturday and Sunday trip rates to the
weekday rate. All vehicle trips represented in the emissions modeling were assigned to be 100-
percent primary, meaning no trip distance or generation discounts were applied for pass-by or
diverted trips to provide a conservative emissions estimate.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-17
Energy (Natural Gas and Electricity). Based on the housing density data from Table 3-4, Housing
Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table 3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031)
Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA,
the proposed Modified Project would result in 3,312 net new residential units. 23 All new housing
units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise”, “Apartments Mid-Rise”, Condos/Townhouse”, and
“Single-Family Housing” categories. Emissions associated with natural gas and electricity use for
residential land uses in the City were modeled based on CalEEMod default data for year 2031. 24
While the proposed Modified Project would have a buildout horizon year of 2040, the updates to the
General Plan included in the proposed Modified Project in part is in response to the current Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle, which has a horizon of 2031. Therefore, a buildout year of
2031 was used in emissions and energy consumption estimates for a conservative assessment and
efficiencies are expected to improve through 2040 and the 3,312 net new residential units are
identified for the RHNA cycle through 2031.
ENE-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
potentially significant environmental impact from wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation.
The General Plan EIR did not specifically analyze energy because it was approved prior to the 2019
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to incorporate CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2(b). However, as
described previously, energy impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level
were analyzed in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, and were found to
be less than significant.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Potential future development projects facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would create
temporary demands for electricity during construction. Natural gas is not generally required to power
construction equipment, and therefore is not anticipated during construction activity. It is anticipated that
most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws,
compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities.
Future potential development projects under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project
would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation and off-road
equipment operation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of vehicle trips, VMT,
fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Energy use during construction would come from the
transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction
23 Modeling assumed 3,317 new residential units within the City for consistency with the transportation analysis.
24 While energy use is based off of year 2031 for consistency with the Housing Element planning period, the proposed
Modified project would have an implementation year of 2040.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-18 APRIL 2024
employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles
would fluctuate according to the construction activity and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most
off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or
diesel powered. In addition, all operation of construction equipment would cease after completion of
project construction. Furthermore, the construction contractors would be required to minimize non-
essential idling of construction equipment during construction, in accordance with the California Code of
Regulations Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and
unnecessary energy consumption. Future potential development in the Study Area under the Approved
Project would be similar to potential future development under the proposed Modified Project. Overall,
there would be no unusual project characteristics anticipated under the proposed Modified Project that
would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at
comparable construction sites in other parts of California. Therefore, short-term construction activities
that occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption during construction activities compared to the Approved
Project. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in
magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of potential future development accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would
create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to the Approved Project. Operational
use of electricity and natural gas would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water
heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on-site equipment and appliances; lighting; and charging
electric vehicles. Land uses accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would also result in
additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity)
associated with on-road vehicles. Electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel consumption estimates
during operation of the proposed Modified Project are presented in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Modified
Project Energy Consumption.
TABLE 4.5-1 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy Resource Annual Energy Consumption a
Building – Electricity b 11,636,361
Building – Natural Gas c 37,527,747
Transportation – Electricity b 2,110,930
Transportation – Natural Gas d 981
Transportation – Diesel d 35,719
Transportation – Gasoline d 1,723,451
Notes:
a. While energy use is based off of year 2031 for consistency with the Housing Element planning period, the proposed Modified Project would have an
implementation year of 2040.
b. Energy resource is expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh).
c. Energy resource is expressed in kilo-British thermal units (kBTU).
d. Diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and gasoline fuels are expressed in gallons. Electric vehicles are expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh).
Source: CalEEMod Output; EMFAC 2021 Version 1.0.2; Appendix B to this EA.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-19
As shown in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption, the maximum 2040 buildout of
up to 3,31225 new units under the proposed Modified Project would result in the annual consumption of
an estimated 11,636,361 kWh of electricity, 37,527,747 BTUs of natural gas, 35,719 gallons of diesel
transportation fuel, 981 gallons of CNG transportation fuel, and 1,723,451 gallons of gasoline
transportation fuel. Considering that the introduction of up to 3,312 new units could accommodate up to
9,737 new residents, the proposed Modified Project is anticipated to result in 1,412 kWh of electricity,
3,854 BTUs of natural gas, 3.7 gallons of diesel fuel, 0.1 gallons of CNG fuel, and 117 gallons of gasoline
fuel per capita.
Decreasing Overall Per-Capita Energy Consumption
While the electricity and natural gas demand for the Study Area is expected to increase compared to the
Approved Project because the new energy consumption estimates shown in Table 4.5-1, Proposed
Modified Project Energy Consumption, account for new units beyond the City’s current housing supply,
developments accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with
the most current versions of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Compliance with
these regulations would contribute to reducing the building-related energy demands shown in Table 4.5-
1, Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption. Newly constructed and redeveloped buildings that
comply with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. In
addition, not all units envisioned by the proposed Modified Project would be constructed under the
current California Building Code cycle and would be subject to future iterations of CALGreen and other
related building codes. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen would result in greater building-related per-capita energy efficiency and move closer toward
buildings achieving zero net energy.
In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the proposed Modified Project
Housing (HE), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Infrastructure (INF) Elements contain
policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that
potential future development could have energy. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General
Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified
Project, would increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient use of energy resources.
Strategy HE-1.3.5. Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones. The City will
incentivize development of residential units in mixed-use projects that include affordable units (at
least 20 percent), by providing incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
Priority project processing
Delay payment of development impact or permit fees for affordable units
Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements
Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for infrastructure
upgrades.
25 Modeling assumed 3,317 new residential units in the City for consistency with the transportation analysis.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-20 APRIL 2024
Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional
financing.
Strategy HE-2.3.12. Live/Work Units. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable
live/workspace units to reduce displacement of residents and employees, specifically when replacing
older strip mall type developments along busier streets (e.g., S. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard) to preserve the more urban and mixed-use character of the street. This would allow the
street frontage to remain commercial use while the residential portion of the units would be located
towards the rear of the site or in upper floors.
The City will also help to market the Homeownership Assistance Programs offered by Housing Trust
Silicon Valley (HTSV) in an effort to expand affordable homeownership options.
Policy HE-4.1. Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all
existing and new residential development.
Strategy HE-4.1.1. Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for
energy conservation and will evaluate using some of the other suggestions as identified in the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.
Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape
Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies
primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant
improvements of 10 or more units. To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the City
will evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy
conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or new) with fewer than 10 units
to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. The City will also
implement the policies in its climate action plan to achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas
emission reductions and further these community energy and water conservation goals.
Strategy HE-4.1.3. Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing. The City will work with and support housing
developers to develop sustainable, energy-efficient housing. Such development should include solar
panels, green roofs, energy-efficient lighting, and other features that aim toward carbon-neutral
impacts while lowering energy costs.
Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s
planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of
future generations.
Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to
attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This
qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future
project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.
Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.
Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-21
Policy ES-2.1. Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources. Encourage the maximum feasible
conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing
residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.
Strategy ES-2.1.1. Coordination. Continue to evaluate and revise, as necessary, applicable City plans,
codes, and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State, and regional requirements and conservation
targets.
Strategy ES-2.1.2. Comprehensive Energy Management. Prepare and implement a comprehensive
energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy
goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as
part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally
Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and
construction practices.
Strategy ES-2.1.3. Energy Efficient Replacements. Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify
City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to
benchmark and showcase City energy efficiency achievements (i.e., EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide
Green Business Program).
Strategy ES-2.1.4. Incentive Program. Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory
requirements and promote incentives from state, county, and federal governments for improving
energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations.
Strategy ES-2.1.6. Alternate Energy Sources. Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable
energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs, and incentives.
Strategy ES-2.1.7. Energy Co-Generation Systems. Encourage the use of energy co-generation systems
through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users
and public facilities.
Strategy ES-2.1.8. Energy Audits and Financing. Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’
programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial
and City facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities
for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits
to include emerging online and applications-based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share
residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach
events and civic media assets.
Strategy ES-2.1.10. Community Choice Energy. Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate
feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program.
Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building.
Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building
ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings
projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection
and building design.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-22 APRIL 2024
Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs,
and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external
trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater,
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).
Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green
Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry,
land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building
maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.
Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve
third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of
creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.
Strategy ES- 4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based
businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.
Policy INF-6.1. Telecommunications Master Plan. Maintain and update a Telecommunications Master
Plan with regulations and guidelines for wireless and emerging technologies.
Policy INF-6.2. Coordination. Coordinate with providers to improve access and delivery of services to
businesses and homes.
Strategy INF-6.2.1. Facility Upgrades. When possible, require service providers to upgrade existing
facilities as part of permit or lease renewals. Encourage use of newer technologies that allow the
facility components to be reduced in size or improve screening or camouflaging.
Strategy INF-6.2.2. Improved Access. Work with providers to expand service to areas that are not
served by telecommunications technologies.
Strategy INF-6.2.4. Agency and Private Facilities. Encourage the installation of communications
infrastructure in facilities owned by other public agencies and private development.
Strategy INF-6.2.5. Communications Infrastructure. Support the extension and access to
telecommunications infrastructure such as fiber optic cables.
Policy INF-6.3. Emerging Technologies. Encourage new and innovative technologies and partner with
providers to provide the community with access to these services.
Strategy INF-6.3.1. Strategic Technology Plan. Create and update a Strategic Technology Plan for the
City to improve service efficiency.
Additionally, fuel efficiency of vehicles during the buildout year of 2040 would, on average, improve
compared to vehicle fuel efficiencies experienced under the Approved Project, thereby resulting in a
lower per-capita fuel consumption in 2040 assuming travel distances, travel modes, and trip rates remain
the same. The improvement in fuel efficiency would be attributable to regulatory compliance (e.g., CAFE
standards), resulting in new cars that are more fuel efficient and the attrition of older, less fuel-efficient
vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to residents or land use development projects,
but to car manufacturers. Thus, City residents do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency
of vehicles manufactured and that are made available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by
car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-23
would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the city
with more fuel-efficient vehicle options. Considering the proposed Modified Project would result in future
potential development, which on average would have the same or greater energy-efficient designs than
current structures and those under the Approved Project, and vehicle fuel efficiencies would improve year
over year through the buildout year of 2040, the proposed Modified Project is anticipated to result in a
decrease in overall per-capita energy consumption in 2040. As such, the proposed Modified Project would
be consistent with this energy conservation criterion. The proposed Modified Project would not result in
new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed Modified Project would conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to decrease the
reliance on fossil fuels. New and replacement buildings in compliance with CALGreen standards would
generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. In addition, not all future potential
development under the proposed Modified Project would be constructed under the current California
Building Code cycle and would be subject to future iterations of CALGreen and other related building
codes. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would
result in greater building-related per-capita energy efficiency and move closer toward buildings achieving
zero net energy. The new energy-efficiency building standards would result in a decrease in per unit or
per-capita natural gas consumption for space and water heating.
In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the proposed Modified Project
Housing (HE), and Land Use and Community Design (LU) Elements contain policies and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that potential future development
could have energy. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and
strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would increase
energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient use of energy resources.
Strategy HE-1.3.5. Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones. The City will
incentivize development of residential units in mixed-use projects that include affordable units (more
than 20 percent), by providing incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
Priority project processing
Delay payment of development impact or permit fees for affordable units
Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements
Support developers with infrastructure upgrades in the way of grant applications for funding.
Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional
financing.
Strategy HE-2.3.12. Live/Work Units. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable
live/workspace units to reduce displacement of residents and employees, specifically when replacing
older strip mall type developments along busier streets (e.g., S. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard) to preserve the more urban and mixed-use character of the street. This would allow the
street frontage to remain commercial use while the residential portion of the units would be located
towards the rear of the site or in upper floors. The City will also help to market the Homeownership
Assistance Programs offered by Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) in an effort to expand affordable
homeownership options.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-24 APRIL 2024
Strategy HE-4.1.1. Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for
energy conservation and will evaluate using some of the other suggestions as identified in the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.
Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance
for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to
new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of
10 or more units. To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the City will evaluate the
potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation
improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or new) with fewer than 10 units to exceed the
minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. The City will also implement the
policies in its climate action plan to achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas emission reductions
and further these community energy and water conservation goals.
Strategy HE-4.1.3. Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing. The City will work with and support housing
developers to develop sustainable, energy-efficient housing. Such development should include solar
panels, green roofs, energy-efficient lighting, and other features that aim toward carbon-neutral
impacts while lowering energy costs.
Policy HE-4.1. Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all
existing and new residential development.
Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a
half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors.
Policy LU-3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of
connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and
building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and
corridors.
The proposed Modified Project also envisions new residential development throughout the Study Area,
which would be required to install rooftop solar if seeking compliance with the prescriptive method of the
Energy Code. New single-family residences would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter
8, Section 150.1(c)14 and new multifamily residences would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6,
Subchapter 11, Section 170.2(f), of the 2022 California Building Code to include rooftop solar systems.
Compliance with these codes would decrease overall reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation as
some on-site electricity consumption could be satisfied with on-site electricity generation.
Moreover, as previously discussed, fuel efficiency of vehicles during the buildout year of 2040 would on
average improve compared to vehicle fuel efficiencies experienced under the Approved Project. In
addition to regulatory compliance that would contribute to more fuel-efficient vehicles and less per-capita
demand in fuels, the General Plan EIR also found that Land Use and Community Design (LU),
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Elements (ES), and Mobility (M) Elements contain policies and
strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that potential future
development could have related to VMT. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan
2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project,
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-25
would contribute to minimizing overall VMT and fuel consumption, and thus incrementally decreasing
dependance on fossil fuels for transportation energy needs.
Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a
half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)
Policy LU- 3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network
of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space
and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas
and corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning
processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and
to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address
regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.
Policy M-3.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master
plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create
a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.
Policy M-4.8: Micro-Transit. Continue to support a local micro-transit option, such as the Silicon Valley
Hopper or similar service.
Policy M-8.1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with
specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program
to ensure implementation.
Policy M-8.3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Programs. Employ TSM strategies to
improve efficiency of the transportation infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements
intelligent transportation systems and optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
Policy M-9.2. Reduced Travel Demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new
development.
Strategy ES-2.1.9. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient
transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and van
pooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, sage routes to
schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment,
development incentives, and community education. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-3)
Strategy ES-4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based
businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.
For a complete list of policies and strategies aimed at reducing VMT, please see Impact Discussion TRANS-
2, in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. Considering these policies and strategies and those in
Chapter 4.14, the proposed Modified Project would result in potential future development consisting of
up to 3,312 dwelling units that would be designed to be compliant with the California Building Code,
thereby reducing reliance on fossil fuels for space and water heating. Additionally, the proposed Modified
Project would result in population growth that would result in subsequent increases in transportation
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-26 APRIL 2024
energy demand; however, with improving fuel-efficiency standards year over year through the buildout
year of 2040 and compliance with the EV charging infrastructure requirements in the California Building
Code, the proposed Modified Project would reduce reliance on fossil fuels for transportation energy
demand on average. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would be considered consistent with this
energy conservation criterion, similar to the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would not
result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy Sources
New potential future development in the form of single-family residences under both the Approved
Project and proposed Modified project would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 8,
Section 150.1(c)(14) and new multifamily residences would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6,
Subchapter 11, Section 170.2(f), of the 2022 California Building Code, which may include rooftop solar
systems depending on the Energy Code compliance method taken by the individual project. Compliance
with these codes would directly increase overall reliance on renewable energy sources for electricity
generation. Moreover, compliance with the EV charging infrastructure requirements in CALGreen would
increase availability for electricity for transportation energy demand. As electricity consumed in California
is required to meet the increasing renewable energy mix requirements under the State’s RPS and
accelerated by SB 100, greater proportions of electricity consumed potential future development and for
transportation energy demand under the proposed Modified Project would continue to be sourced from
renewable energy sources. Furthermore, future potential development facilitated by the proposed
Modified Project would be automatically enrolled in SVCE service, which provides more renewable-
sourced electricity services in addition to those provided by PG&E. While future potential development
would have the option to opt-out back into PG&E service, SVCE would automatically enroll future
residents accommodated by the proposed Modified Project into their minimum 44.9 percent renewable
“SVCE GreenStart ” electricity service.26 As future potential residents have the option to choose an
electricity service that relies on renewable sources more for electricity generation than what is minimally
required under the State’s RPS, and considering that both electricity service providers for the Study Area
would provide incrementally greater and greater proportions of renewably sourced electricity to city
residents, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would result in an overall
increase in reliance on renewable energy sources. As such, the proposed Modified Project would be
consistent with this energy conservation criterion.
Considering the above analysis demonstrating that the proposed Modified Project would result in an
overall decrease in energy consumption per capita, decrease in reliance on fossil fuels, and increase in
renewable energy sources, the proposed Modified Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As such, the proposed Modified Project would not result
in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
26 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2024, January 26 (accessed). 2022 Power Mix (Residential).
https://svcleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/PCL-Residential-Tech_ADA.pdf
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-27
ENE-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
The General Plan EIR did not specifically analyze Approved Project consistency with renewable energy or
energy-efficiency plans because it was approved prior to the 2019 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to
incorporate CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2(b).
California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS program. Renewable
sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. In general,
California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 40 percent by 2024
(SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). SB
100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable
energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. The statewide RPS requirements do not
directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as PG&E and
SVCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of
transitioning to renewable energy. For the City of Cupertino, California’s Community Choice Aggregation
(CCA) law (AB 117, 2002)27 requires SVCE to become the default provider of electric generation for
customers in its service area and operate as an opt-out program. Even if customers in the Study Area were
to opt-out of the SVCE GreenStart program, and therefore receive all their electricity from PG&E, 38.3
percent of PG&E’s electricity is generated from renewable energy.28 Both electricity providers would be
required to be consistent with the statewide RPS requirements.
Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with the
current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Furthermore, as
described for Impact Discussion ENE-1, the proposed Modified Project would implement Housing Element
policies that would support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources.
The net increase in energy demand associated with implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would be within the service capabilities of SVCE and PG&E and would not impede their ability to
implement California’s renewable energy goals. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
California’s RPS program. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial
increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
27 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 2024, January 31 (accessed). Community Choice Aggregation,
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/consumer-support/consumer-programs-and-services/electrical-energy-and-energy-
efficiency/community-choice-aggregation-and-direct-access-/cca-regulatory-information
28 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2024, January 26 (accessed). 2022 Power Mix.
https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/billing-and-assistance/bill-inserts/1023-Power-Content-Label.pdf
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-28 APRIL 2024
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of
GHG emissions in the city’s limits; presents current and future emissions estimates; identifies a GHG
reduction target for future years; and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions
from the energy, transportation, land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors.29 Pursuant
to the CAP 2.0, projects are considered consistent with the CAP 2.0 if they do not conflict with the
required GHG reduction measures contained in the CAP.
In compliance with CMC Section 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, the future
potential development under the proposed Modified Project must complete a consistency checklist with
the City’s CAP for review and approval by the City Environment and Sustainability Department prior to
issuance of the first permit. A project consistency matrix with the adopted energy-reduction measures are
shown in Table 4.5-2, Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 Consistency Matrix. As described here,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be required to be consistent with the applicable
energy-related measures of the CAP 2.0. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict or
obstruct implementation of the City’s CAP. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new
impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
TABLE 4.5-2 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
Measure BE-1 Reduce non-SVCE usage
rate to 2 percent for residential and 10
percent for commercial by 2030 and
maintain through 2040.
Consistent. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project
would comply with the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
to reduce energy consumptions.
Measure BE-4 Require new residential and
commercial development to be all-electric
at time of construction.
Consistent. The City of Cupertino requires all newly constructed buildings to be All-
Electric Buildings and has adopted the California Energy Code (CMC Chapter 16.32).
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would comply with this measure.
Measure TR-1 Develop and implement an
Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15
percent of active transportation mode
share by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040.
Consistent. As stated in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, the proposed
Modified Project would not include modifications to the roadway, bicycle, or
pedestrian network. In addition, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified
Project would also be consistent with the City of Cupertino’s Pedestrian
Transportation Plan with Pedestrian Guidelines and Bicycle Transportation Plan.
The proposed Modified Project would also continue to implement the policies and
strategies of the Approved Project to encourage active transportation throughout
the Study Area, and is most exemplified through Policy M-3.1, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan, which would see to the adoption and maintenance of a
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to create a safe way for citizens to bike and walk
on a daily basis. Other policies include Policy LU- 3.1, Site Planning, which would
ensure project sites are planned so that there is a network of connected streets to
improve pedestrian and bicycle access; Strategy LU-8.3.3, Infrastructure and
Streetscape Improvements, which would encourage redevelopment of areas
throughout the city to be pedestrian oriented; Strategy LU-19.1.7, Existing Streets,
which would improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more
29 City of Cupertino, 2015, January. Climate Action Plan.
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9605/636280426123030000.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-29
TABLE 4.5-2 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
bike and pedestrian-friendly; as well as Policy M-1.3, Regional Trail Development, to
implement best practices on streets to reduce speeds to accommodate alternative
modes of transportation. Compliance with these policies and strategies would
reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels in the Study Area.
Measure TR-2 Implement public and
shared transit programs to achieve 29
percent of public transit mode share by
2030 and maintain through 2040.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, the proposed
Modified Project would implement strategies and policies such as Policy LU-1.1,
Land Use and Transportation, which would concentrate higher land use intensities
within a half-mile of public transit services, and Policies LU-20.2, Streetscape and
Connectivity for North Vallco Park Special Area, and LU-21.3, Streetscape and
Connectivity for North De Anza Special Area, which would improve transit
connections for future roadway improvements and specifically for North Vallco Park
and North De Anza. These policies would also include Policy M-4.4, Transit Facilities
with New Development, which would ensure that all future potential development
would include amenities to support public transit and space for transit vehicles.
Compliance with these policies and strategies would reduce fuel consumption and
reliance on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area. As such, the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure TR-3 Increase zero-emission
vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 35 percent for
passenger vehicles and 20 percent for
commercial vehicles by 2030 and 100
percent for all vehicles by 2040.
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in an
increase in land use intensity throughout the Study Area that has access to existing
transportation infrastructure and services. Future potential development under the
proposed Modified Project would comply with the CALGreen requirements for
electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. In addition, as seen in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this EA, Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-
based ride-sharing program that provides transportation anywhere inside the city.
Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years, which
would support Measure TR-3. Compliance with this measure would reduce reliance
on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area and would promote use of renewable
energy. The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of
this measure.
Measure TR-4 Re-focus transportation
infrastructure away from single occupancy
gasoline vehicles to support the
bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, and ZEV
goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3.
Consistent. The proposed Modified Project would implement policies and strategies
to encourage active transportation throughout the Study Area, such as through
redevelopment of areas to be pedestrian oriented or connecting streets to improve
pedestrian and bicycle access. In addition, future potential development under the
proposed Modified Project would concentrate higher land use intensities near
public transit services, which could reduce the need for single-occupancy trips for
gasoline-fueled vehicles. Furthermore, as seen in Chapter 3, Project Description, of
this EA, Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-based ride
sharing program that provides transportation anywhere inside the city. Via plans to
expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years, which would support
Measure TR-4. Compliance with this measure would reduce fuel consumption and
reliance on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area and would promote use of
renewable energy. The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022, August 16. City of Cupertino, Climate Action Plan 2.0.
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-30 APRIL 2024
ENE-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands and
would not require new energy supply facilities and distribution
infrastructure or capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities.
Electrical service to the Study Area would be provided by SVCE and PG&E through connections to existing
electrical lines and infrastructure. As shown in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Modified Project Energy
Consumption, electricity use in the Study Area would increase by an estimated 13,747,291 kWh per year
through implementation of the proposed Modified Project. In addition, natural gas use in the Study Area
would increase by an estimated 37,527,747 kBTU per year through implementation of the proposed
Modified Project. Considering that the introduction of up to 3,312 new units could accommodate an
estimated 9,737 new residents, the proposed Modified Project is anticipated to result in 1,412 kWh of
electricity use or 3,854 kBTU of natural gas per capita. This is conservative as future potential residential
development in the Study Area would be subject to the CMC ’s all-electric requirements.
These energy consumption rates are modest increases when considered in the context of SVCE’s and
PG&E’s service territories. The increase in electricity usage for the Study Area is approximately 0.1 percent
of PG&E’s projected energy supply in 2035, and the increase in natural gas consumption for the Study
Area is less than 0.06 percent of PG&E’s natural gas supply.30 PG&E also states that there would be
sufficient electrical and natural gas supplies to cover its service area in 2035.
In addition, potential future development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the California Energy Code
and the CALGreen Code, which would contribute to reducing energy demands. Future potential
development would also use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance
Efficiency Regulations, which would ensure the use of efficient electricity and natural gas consumption.
New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would have greater energy efficiency
than existing buildings. In addition, the sites identified by the proposed Modified Project are in urbanized
areas that are served by existing high-volume energy transmission infrastructure.
Moreover, the latest California Building Standards Code and CALGreen requirements include rooftop solar
systems and passive energy-efficiency designs to reduce potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of electricity. Rooftop solar systems, if applicable to the individual project design, would
reduce the amount of overall electricity consumed that is transported through the State’s electricity grid,
reducing the amount of electricity lost in transmission. Regarding electricity that would be drawn from the
grid, electricity utility compliance with the State’s RPS program under SB 100 would ensure that the
proportion of electricity that is sourced from renewable and carbon-free sources—and consumed by
individual future potential development projects under the proposed Modified Project—increases until it
must be 100 percent in 2045. Compliance with the California Building Standards Code and CALGreen and
utility compliance with SB 100 ultimately result in incremental shifts away from reliance on fossil fuels and
toward a greater reliance on renewable energy sources. Overall, implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would result in greater energy-efficiency designs for new buildings and would result in
30 PG&E’s projected energy supplies for electricity and natural gas do not extend beyond 2035.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-31
more homes in the Study Area using electricity that is generated on-site. Therefore, the proposed
Modified Project electricity and natural gas consumption is not expected to result in the need for new or
expanded energy supply facilities, and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed Modified
Project would therefore not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative
impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
ENE-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to energy.
The area considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are the service areas of
PG&E as well as SVCE. Other projects in the PG&E and SVCE service areas would be required to comply
with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to minimizing
wasteful energy consumption and promoting renewable energy sources. As described under Impact
Discussion ENE-1, energy consumption resulting from implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would therefore not contribute to any cumulative energy impacts when considered together with
cumulative development projects and would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed Modified
Project would therefore not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative
impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
4.5-32 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-1
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This chapter describes the potential impacts to geology and soils associated with the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and
baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the
potential geology and soils impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could
minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 limits the collection of vertebrate fossils
and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit
from the appropriate state or federal agency. Additionally, it specifies these researchers must agree to
donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions, where they will remain accessible to the
public and to other researchers. This act incorporates key findings of a report, Fossils on Federal Land and
Indian Lands, issued by the Secretary of the Interior in 2000, that establishes that most vertebrate fossils
and some invertebrate and plant fossils are considered rare resources.1
State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface fault
rupture to structures used for human occupancy.2 The main purpose of the act is to prevent the
construction of buildings used for human occupancy on top of active faults. This act only addresses the
hazard of surface fault rupture—not other earthquake hazards such as earthquake-induced liquefaction or
landslides. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault
Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The
maps, which are developed using existing United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle
map bases, are then distributed to all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning
and controlling new or renewed construction. Generally, construction within 50 feet of an active fault
zone is prohibited.
1 U.S. Department of the Interior, May 2000, Fossils on Federal & Indian Lands, Report of the Secretary of the Interior,
accessed September 30, 2022, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/programs_paleontology_quick%20links_
Assessment%20of%20Fossil%20Management%20on%20Federal%20%26%20Indian%20Lands%2C%20May%202000.pdf.
2 California Department of Conservation, 2023, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, accessed January 25, 2024,
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
4.6-2 APRIL 2024
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which was passed in 1990, addresses seismic hazards such as
liquefaction and seismically induced landslides.3 Under this act, seismic hazard zones are mapped by the
State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning. Section 2691(c) of this act states that “it
is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately
prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and
regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” Section 2697(a) of
the act states that “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic
hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.”
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24, Part 2, of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the “California Building Code” (CBC). The
CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted jurisdiction by jurisdiction, subject to further
modification based on local conditions. The City of Cupertino regularly adopts each new CBC update
under the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.04, Building Code. These codes provide minimum
standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations,
foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of
seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. They also regulate grading activities, including drainage and
erosion control.
California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are afforded protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has set significance criteria for paleontological resources.4 Most
practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its
standard guidelines. Most State regulatory agencies with paleontological laws, ordinances, regulations,
and standards accept and use the professional standards set by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 prohibits the destruction or removal of any
paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency.
3 California Department of Conservation, 2023, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act,
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/hazards/seismic-hazards-mapping-act, accessed January 25, 2024.
4 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to
Paleontological Resources, https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf, accessed
January 25, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-3
California Penal Code Section 622.5
The California Penal Code Section 622.5 details the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological
resources, whether from private or public lands.
Regional Regulations
The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the
impact of disasters. The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan), adopted in 2017, provides an assessment of natural hazards in the county and a set of
short-term mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from these
hazards. Currently the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is being updated to become the Santa Clara County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). The MJHMP has an annex (chapter) dedicated to
Cupertino and provides a city-specific assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities as well as mitigation
actions items for Cupertino specifically.
The MJHMP must be reviewed and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster relief funding. As part of this process, the California
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services reviews all local hazard mitigation plans in accordance with the
Disaster Management Act of 2000 regulations, and coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure
compliance with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Health
and Safety (HS) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local
planning and development decisions to consider impacts to geology and soils. Applicable policies and
strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to soils and geologic resources are identified in
Section 4.6.3, Impact Discussion. While not a policy or strategy, Health and Safety Element Table HS-3,
Acceptable Exposure to Risk Related to Various Land Uses, and Table HS-4, Technical Investigations
Required based on Acceptable Risk describe when and the level of complexity of geotechnical review is
required.
Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to geology and soils in Cupertino. The
CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to geology and soils are in Title 15,
Water and Sewage; Title 16, Buildings and Construction; Title 18, Subdivisions; and Title 19, Zoning.
Chapter 15.20, Sewage Disposal Systems. Establishes standards for the approval, installation, and
operation of individual on-site sewage disposal systems consistent with the standards of the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board as set out by the Santa Clara County Environmental Health
Services and adopted by the Cupertino City Council.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
4.6-4 APRIL 2024
Chapter 16.04, Building Code. Adopts the 2022 CBC as the rules, regulations, and standards within the
City as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC. The CBC includes requirements for
geotechnical reports at the discretion of the building official.
Chapter 18.04, General Provisions. Implements the Subdivision Map Act to protect the community to
the maximum extent from excessive stormwater runoff, wanton destruction of trees, increased soil
erosion, earth movement, earthquake hazards, and other geological hazards. Applicants who are
proposing subdivisions within the Study Area must submit geotechnical reports before getting City
approval on the final map. Problems of drainage are to be resolved in such a manner as to provide
substantial security against excessive runoff or flooding, earth movements, and excessive erosion.
Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillsides (RHS) Zones. Section 19.40.050, Site Development Regulations,
describes the regulations for the development plans in Residential Hillside (RHS) zones. Created to
protect public and private lands from erosion, earth movement, and flooding, it establishes minimum
standards and requirements relating to land grading, excavations and fills, and removal of major
vegetation, including the preparation of geotechnical reports. The Site Development Regulations also
set the standards for development on or near steep slopes in order to minimize the risk of personal
injury, damage to property, and impact on water quality from potential landslides, erosion, earth
creep, stormwater runoff, and other hazards associated with hillside areas of the city, as well as
preserves existing topographical forms, open spaces, habitat areas and visual resources from
encroachment by new hillside development. Site development planning applications may require an
erosion and sediment control plan and control measures.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The setting for geology and soils resources is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.5.1.2, Existing
Conditions. There have not been any changes or additions to the existing conditions for geology and soils
since the certification of the General Plan EIR in 2014.
4.6.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant geology
and soils impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
GEO-1. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
ii) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards?
LTS
LTS
GEO-2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LTS LTS
GEO-3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
LTS LTS
GEO-4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? LTS LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-5
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant geology
and soils impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
GEO-5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
NI NI
GEO-6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? LTS LTS
GEO-7. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and soils? LTS LTS
Note: In December 2018 amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of
this EA. GEO-6, regarding unique paleontological resources or sites, or unique geological features was included in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of
the General Plan EIR.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
4.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
GEO-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides,
mudslides, or other similar hazards.
As described in the General Plan EIR, only one Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been mapped in
the Study Area—namely, the zone that flanks the San Andreas Fault in the most southwestern part of the
Study Area. In the event of a large, magnitude (MW) 6.7 or greater seismic event, much of the Study Area
is projected to experience “strong” ground shaking, with the most intense shaking forecast for the
northwest part of the Study Area.5 Additionally, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction is low
and limited to narrow areas that flank natural drainages along Stevens, Regnart, and Calabazas Creeks.
Furthermore, potential future residential developed under the proposed Modified Project is in the mostly
flat and low landslide susceptibility areas of the Study Area. As described in the General Plan EIR,
compliance with building codes and regulations and General Plan 2040 policies would minimize impacts
involving 1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault; 2) strong seismic ground shaking; 3) seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction; and 4) landslides, mudslides, or similar hazards.
5 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2020, MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, accessed January 25, 2024,
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
4.6-6 APRIL 2024
The proposed Modified Project would also include potential future development and land use activities
that would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites
either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or near existing residential and residential-serving
development, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, of Chapter 3,
Project Description, of this EA. These sites would be in similar areas as future potential development
under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project, outside of Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and
in low landslide and liquefaction susceptible areas.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have
on geologic and seismic processes in the area. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General
Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified
Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on geologic processes:
Strategy HS-1.1.1. Monitoring and Budgeting. Monitor and evaluate the success of the LHMP,
including local strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex Section 11. Working with Santa Clara
County, ensure that strategies are prioritized and implemented through the Capital Improvement
Program and provide adequate budget for on-going programs and department operations. (General
Plan EIR Strategy 1 under Policy 6-1)
Strategy HS-1.1.2. Mitigation Incorporation. Ensure that mitigation actions identified in the LHMP are
being incorporated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where appropriate. (General Plan EIR
Strategy 2 under Policy 6-1)
Policy HS- 5.1. Seismic And Geologic Review Process. Evaluate new development proposals within
mapped potential hazard zones using a formal seismic/ geologic review process. Use Table HS- 3 (from
the General Plan) of this Element to determine the level of review required. (General Plan EIR Policy
6-2)
Strategy HS-5.1.1. Geotechnical and Structural Analysis. Require any site with a slope exceeding 10
percent to reference the Landslide Hazard Potential Zone maps of the State of California for all
required geotechnical and structural analysis. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1 under Policy 6-2)
Strategy HS-5.1.2. Residential Upgrades. Require that any residential facility, that is being increased
more than 50 percent assessed value or physical size, conform to all provisions of the current building
code throughout the entire structure. Owners of residential buildings with known structural defects,
such as un-reinforced garage openings, “soft first story” construction, unbolted foundations, or
inadequate sheer walls are encouraged to take steps to remedy the problem and bring their buildings
up to the current building code. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 6-2)
Strategy HS-5.1.3. Geologic Review. Continue to implement and update geologic review procedures
for Geologic Reports required by the Municipal Code through the development review process.
(General Plan EIR Strategy 3 under Policy 6-2)
Policy HS- 5.2. Public Education on Seismic Safety. Reinforce the existing public education programs to
help residents minimize hazards resulting from earthquakes. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-3)
Strategy HS-5.2.1. Covenant on Seismic Risk. Require developers to record a covenant to tell future
residents in high-risk areas about the risk and inform them that more information is in City Hall
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-7
records. This is in addition to the State requirement that information on the geological report is
recorded on the face of subdivision maps. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1 under Policy 6-3)
Strategy HS-5.2.2. Emergency Preparedness. Publish and promote emergency preparedness activities
and drills. Use the City social media, and the website to provide safety tips that may include
identifying and correcting household hazards, knowing how and when to turn off utilities, helping
family members protect themselves during and after an earthquake, recommending neighborhood
preparation activities, and advising residents to maintain an emergency supply kit containing first- aid
supplies, food, drinking water and battery operated radios and flashlights. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2
under Policy 6-3)
Strategy HS-5.2.3. Neighborhood Response Groups. Encourage participation in Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) training. Train neighborhood groups to care for themselves during disasters.
Actively assist in neighborhood drills and safety exercises to increase participation and build
community support. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 under Policy 6-3)
Strategy HS- 5.2.4. Dependent Populations. As part of community- wide efforts, actively cooperate
with State agencies that oversee facilities for persons with disabilities and those with access and
functional needs, to ensure that such facilities conform to all health and safety requirements,
including emergency planning, training, exercises and employee education. (General Plan EIR Strategy
4 under Policy 6-3)
Strategy HS- 5.2.5. Foreign Language Emergency Information. Obtain translated emergency
preparedness materials and make them available to appropriate foreign language populations.
(General Plan EIR Strategy 5 under Policy 6-3)
As with the development assessed under the Approved Project, development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws, policies, and design
standards governing development near faults, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall
impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or
more severe impacts involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction; and landslides, mudslides, or similar hazards beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The General Plan EIR found that substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction could
undermine structures and minor slopes and could be a concern during buildout of the Approved Project.
As described in the General Plan EIR, in the east and central parts of the Study Area, the dominant soil
types include soils of the Urban Land-Flaskan, Urban-Land Stevens Creek, and Urban Land-Botella
complexes generally formed on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Soils in the western and southwestern parts of
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
4.6-8 APRIL 2024
the Study Area largely consist of soils of the Literr-Urban Land-Merbeth and Merbeth-Literr complex
formed on slopes of 5 to 30 percent. In almost all instances, these soils are reportedly deep and well
drained and typified by low runoff. Soils in the vicinity of Cupertino are known to be expansive in places.6
However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, such as implementation of grading erosion
control measures as specified in the CMC, would reduce impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil.
The proposed Modified Project would also include potential future development and land use activities
that would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites
either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and
residential-serving development, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites.
These would be in similar areas as those under the Approved Project.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Environmental Resources
and Sustainability (ES), and the Health and Safety (HS) Elements contain policies and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts development could have on soil
erosion and the loss of topsoil in the area. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan
2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project,
would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil Project:
Strategy LU-12.3.1. Grading. Follow natural land contours and avoid mass grading of sites during
construction, especially in flood hazard or geologically sensitive areas. Grading hillside sites not large,
flat areas shall be avoided.
Policy ES-5.3. Landscaping In and Near Natural Vegetation. Preserve and enhance existing natural
vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development is proposed within existing
natural areas. When development is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the landscaping to
be consistent with the palate of vegetation found in the natural vegetation. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-
10)
Policy ES-7.2. Reduction of Impervious Surfaces. Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts
resulting from development and use low impact development (LID) designs to treat stormwater or
recharge groundwater. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-19)
Strategy ES-7.2.2. Pervious Walkways and Driveways. Encourage the use of pervious materials for
walkways and driveways. If used on public or quasi- public property, mobility and access for the
disabled should take precedence. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 7.2)
Strategy ES-7.2.3. Maximize Infiltration. Minimize impervious surface areas, and maximize on-site
filtration and the use of on-site retention facilities. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 under Policy 7.2)
Policy HS-7.5. Hillside Grading. Restrict the extent and timing of hillside grading operations to April
through October except as otherwise allowed by the City. Require performance bonds during the
remaining time to guarantee the repair of any erosion damage. Require planting of graded slopes as
soon as practical after grading is complete. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-47)
6 UC Davis Soil Resource Laboratory, 2023, California Soil Resource Lab, Online Soil Survey, accessed on January 25, 2024,
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb/.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-9
As with the future potential development assessed under the Approved Project, development under the
proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws, policies, and
design standards governing soil erosion and loss of topsoil, as necessary. Based on these considerations,
overall impacts from implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more
severe soil erosion or loss of topsoil beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
As described in the General Plan EIR, unstable geologic units are known to be present in the Study Area.
Expansive soils are typically very fine grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically
montmorillonite, smectite, or bentonite clay, though the shrink-swell potential at a given project under
the Approved Project may be highly site-specific, requiring careful geotechnical investigation prior to
project design and construction. However, development under the Approved Project would not occur in
areas at risk of seismically induced liquefaction because these areas are limited to land flanking natural
drainages along Stevens, Regnart, and Calabazas Creeks.
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also include potential future
development and land use activities that would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the
form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close
proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing
Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites
As with future potential development under the Approved Project, development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws, policies, and design
standards governing unstable soils, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe
unstable soils as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-4 The proposed Modified Project would not be implemented on expansive
soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
As described in the General Plan EIR, expansive soils (denoted by soils with high linear extensibility and
plasticity index) are most prevalent in the northeast part of the Study Area, as shown on Figure 4.5-1,
Geologic Map, in the General Plan EIR. However, compliance with CBC regulations—requirements for
seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, site demolition, grading, drainage, and erosion
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
4.6-10 APRIL 2024
control—would minimize risk to life or property from expansive soil for potential future development
under the Approved Project.
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also include potential future
development and land use activities that would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the
form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close
proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing
Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on geologic processes, including General Plan
2040 Policies HS-1.1, Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning: Coordinate with Santa Clara County and
local agencies to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara
County. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-1). Also relevant were Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2 and the supporting
strategies described in Impact Discussion GEO-1. Similar to the Approved Project, these policies and
strategies, coupled with the CBC regulations identified in the General Plan EIR, would ensure that
potential future development permitted under the proposed Modified Project would minimize impacts to
life or property due to expansive soils.
Additionally, as with the future potential development under the Approved Project, future potential
development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and
local laws, policies, and design standards governing expansive soil, as necessary. Based on these
considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new or more severe impacts from expansive soil beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not have soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater.
The General Plan EIR found that future development under the Approved Project would not require the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Wastewater would be discharged into the
existing public sanitary sewer system in the city, served by the Cupertino Sanitary District, whose systems
capture and convey wastewater to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant where the
wastewater is cleaned and recycled. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project
would also not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, overall
impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or
more severe impacts to soils supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-11
GEO-6 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
At the time the General Plan EIR was certified, this threshold of significance was in the Cultural Resources
chapter, and this impact discussion is CULT-3 in Section 4.4.3, Impact Discussion, of the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan EIR found that though no paleontological resources have been identified within the
Study Area, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to contain fossils indicates that the
overall Study Area could contain paleontological resources. However, compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and General Plan policies would minimize impacts to unique paleontological resources.
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include potential future
development and land use activities within the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore,
as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, of this EA, the locations of
potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar disturbed and/or
developed areas as those of the Approved Project.
As with future potential development under the Approved Project, development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and
design standards governing unique paleontological resources, as necessary. Based on these
considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new or more severe impacts to unique paleontological resources beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-7 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to geology and soils.
As described in the General Plan EIR, potential cumulative geological impacts could arise from a
combination of the development of the Approved Project together with future development in the
immediate vicinity of the adjoining jurisdictions. Only regional faults have been mapped by the State of
California within the Study Area, thus the risk of primary fault rupture to occupied buildings is low.
Additionally, as described in the General Plan EIR, compliance with building code requirements would
reduce cumulative, development-related impacts under the Approved Project related to seismically induced
ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils.
The impacts to potential future development from seismic and geologic hazards tend to be site specific,
and the overall cumulative effects would be dependent on site-specific geologic studies. Like the
Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project has the same potential for cumulative impact on
geology and soils since the Study Area is the same. Additionally, General Plan 2040 policies and strategies
to protect cultural resources—described in Impact Discussions GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-4 and CMC
Section 17.04.050(E)—would reduce impacts to geology and soils under both the Approved Project and
proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY & SOILS
4.6-12 APRIL 2024
Further, development under the proposed Modified Project and other projects would be required to
comply with applicable federal and State laws, policies, and design standards governing geology and soils,
as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe
cumulatively considerable impacts to geology and soils beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan
EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-1
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This chapter describes the potential impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory
framework and baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an
analysis of the potential GHG impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies that could minimize any
potentially significant impacts.
4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.7.1.1 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large
amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is
fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—
water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase
in global average temperatures observed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the
IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. 1,2
The major GHGs are briefly described below.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and
coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical
reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (i.e.,
sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane
emissions also result from livestock, and other agricultural practices, and from the decay of organic
waste in landfills and water treatment facilities. Additionally, methane is the largest component of
natural gas, used to fuel appliances.3
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during the
combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However,
water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change.
2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow
(making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-
absorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. The share of black
carbon emissions from transportation is dropping rapidly and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as a result
of California’s air quality programs. The remaining black carbon emissions will come largely from woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road
applications, and industrial/commercial combustion. However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon
due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet
include black carbon.
3 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. “Natural Gas Explained” accessed April 19, 2024 at
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-2 APRIL 2024
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs
have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high Global Warming Potential
(GWP) gases. The GWP of applicable GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.7-1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-
equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs retain infrared radiation in the
atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5) GWP values for methane (CH4), a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be
equivalent to 280 MT of CO2.
TABLE 4.7-1 GHG EMISSIONS AND THEIR RELATIVE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL COMPARED TO CO2
GHGs
Fourth Assessment Report
Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2 a
Fifth Assessment Report
Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2 a
Sixth Assessment Report
Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2 a
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 1 1
Methane (CH4) b 25 28 30
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 265 273
Notes: The IPCC published updated GWP values in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and
an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in AR4 are used in CalEEMod. Therefore, this analysis utilizes AR4
GWP values.
a. Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2.
b. The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect
effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.
Sources: IPCC 2007, 2013, and 2022.
Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the
climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to
human activities.
The recent Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
summarizes the latest scientific consensus on climate change. It finds that atmospheric concentrations of
CO2 have increased by 50 percent since the industrial revolution and continue to increase at a rate of two
parts per million each year. By the 2030s, and no later than 2040, the world will exceed 1.5 degrees
Celsius (°C) warming.4 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change
pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate
that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical
composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of GHG emissions.5 In the past, gradual changes in
the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. Human activities are
4 California Air Resources Board, December 2022, Draft 2022 Scoping Plan, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-
04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
5 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, March 2006, Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ucldc-nuxeo-ref-media/0bdec21c-ca2b-4f4d-9e11-
35935ac4cf5f, accessed January 23, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-3
accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in
a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.6
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the
environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict.
Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are
based on different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations
of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather
events. On a local level, the Study Area is likely to experience the following trends due to an increase in
global GHG emissions:
Increase in annual average minimum and maximum temperatures.
Increase in the number of extreme heat days.
Increase in the frequency and intensity of both heavy rainfall and drought conditions.
Increase in mean high tide levels and bayshore flooding.
Increase in secondary effects of warmer temperatures and severe rainfall, including wildfires,
landslides, vector-borne illnesses, and poor air quality.
4.7.1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes key federal, State, regional, and local regulations and programs related to GHG
emissions resulting from the proposed Modified Project.
Federal Regulations
United State Environmental Protection Agency
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions
threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road
vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court
decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not
impose any emission reduction requirements but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in
2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.7
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, the USEPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The
finding identified emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United
States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the project’s GHG emissions inventory
6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
7 US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009, EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the
Environment. Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity.
https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-4 APRIL 2024
because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions and, according to guidance by the BAAQMD, are
the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule in 2009
that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG
emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more of CO2e per year are required to submit an annual
report.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2017 to 2026)
The federal government issued new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2012 for model
years 2017 to 2025, which required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) in 2025. However, on
March 30, 2020, the EPA finalized an updated CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and
light trucks and established new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer
Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 to 2026. Under SAFE, the fuel
economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE
standards established in 2012. Overall, SAFE requires a fleet average of 40.4 MPG for model year 2026
vehicles (85 Federal Register 24174 [April 30, 2020]).8
On December 21, 2021, under the direction of Executive Order (EO) 13990, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) repealed SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One, which had preempted state and
local laws related to fuel economy standards. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) announced new proposed fuel standards on March 31, 2022. Fuel efficiency
under the new standards proposed will increase 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10
percent annual for model year 2026. Overall, the new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 MPG
for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model year 2026, which would be a 10 MPG increase relative to
model year 2021.9
State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO B-30-15, EO B-55-18, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 , AB 1279, Senate Bill (SB) 32,
and SB 375.
Executive Order S-03-05
EO S-03-05 was signed June 1, 2005, and set the following GHG reduction targets for the state:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
8Environmental Protection Agency, April 2020, 85 Federal Register 24174, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-
04-30/pdf/2020-06967.pdf, accessed on February 2, 2024.
9 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for
Model year 2024-2026. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-
year-2024-2026, accessed on January 23, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-5
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course
toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction
targets established in EO S-03-05. CARB prepared the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline a plan to achieve the
GHG emissions reduction targets of AB 32.
Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, set a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent of 1990
levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify
the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires State agencies to implement measures to meet
the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in EO S-03-05. It also requires the Natural
Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California Adaptation Strategy in order to ensure
climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions.
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In September 2016, SB 32 and AB 197 were signed into law, making the executive order goal for year 2030
into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate
change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-
based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.
Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and
no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” Executive Order B-55-18
directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend
measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to
other statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of
CO2e from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December
15, 2022, which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier and to reduce the State’s
anthropogenic GHG emissions.10 The Scoping Plan was updated to address the carbon neutrality goals of
EO B-55-18 (described below) and the ambitious GHG reduction target as directed by AB 1279. Previous
Scoping Plans focused on specific GHG reduction targets for our industrial, energy, and transportation
sectors —to meet 1990 levels by 2020, and then the more aggressive 40 percent below that for the 2030
target. This plan expands upon earlier Scoping Plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to
10 California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-6 APRIL 2024
85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Carbon neutrality takes it one step further by expanding actions to
capture and store carbon including through natural and working lands and mechanical technologies, while
drastically reducing anthropogenic sources of carbon pollution at the same time.
The path forward was informed by the recent Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the IPCC and the
measures would achieve 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance AB 1279. CARB’s 2022
Scoping Plan identifies strategies as shown in Table 4.7-2, Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate
Action Plans, that would be most impactful at the local level for ensuring substantial process towards the
State’s carbon neutrality goals.
TABLE 4.7-2 PRIORITY STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE ACTION PLANS
Priority Area Priority Strategies
Transportation
Electrification
Convert local government fleets to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and provide EV charging at public sites.
Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building
standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer
education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans).
VMT Reduction
Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards.
Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element
requirements.
Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit
service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing, or eliminating fares,
microtransit, etc.
Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike
share, car share, and walking.
Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies.
Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill
development (such as increasing allowable density of the neighborhood).
Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward
infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation
easements)
Building
Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses.
Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings,
such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive appliances and equipment
with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers).
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings
such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances.
Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately
owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing)
Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing
public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in
public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings).
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022, Draft 2022 Scoping Plan, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-
plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents, accessed May 23, 2023.
For residential development projects, CARB recommends this first approach to demonstrate that these
land use development projects are aligned with State climate goals based on the attributes of land use
development that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing.
Attributes that accommodate growth in a manner consistent with the GHG and equity goals of SB 32 have
all the following attributes:
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-7
Transportation Electrification
Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards
in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.
VMT Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops
previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential
public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).
Does not result in the loss or conversion of the State’s natural and working lands;
Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units/acre), or is in
proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria
specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS);
Reduces parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of
parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or
Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per dwelling unit; or
For multifamily residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to
rent or own a residential unit.
At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income residents;
Result in no net loss of existing affordable units.
Building Decarbonization
Use all electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other
fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.
The second approach to project-level alignment with State climate goals is net zero GHG emissions. The
third approach to demonstrating project-level alignment with State climate goals is to align with GHG
thresholds of significance, which many local air quality management (AQMDs) and air pollution control
districts (APCDs) have developed or adopted.11
Assembly Bill 1279
AB 1279, signed into law in September 2022, codified the carbon neutrality targets of EO B-55-18 for year
2045 and sets a new legislative target for year 2045 of 85 percent below 1990 levels for anthropogenic
GHG emissions. CARB will be required to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to
achieve the net-zero and GHG emissions-reduction goals.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
11 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022, December. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-8 APRIL 2024
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number
(SB 375), was adopted in 2008 to connect the GHG emissions reduction targets established in the 2008
Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent
is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with
goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing
allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. Specifically,
SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO). Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the San
Francisco Bay region, which includes Napa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda,
Sonoma, Solano, and Contra Costa counties. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional
Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs
rather than a total magnitude reduction target.
CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released
updated targets and technical methodology, and released another update in February 2018, which
became effective in October 2018. All Sustainable Community Strategies (SCSs) adopted after October 1,
2018, are subject to these new targets. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as
identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible
revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward sustainable communities. Like the
2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions
from automobiles and light trucks compared to 2005. This excludes reductions anticipated from
implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any potential future state strategies such as
statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per-capita GHG emission reductions
from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035 translates into proposed targets that either match
or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted sustainable communities
strategies (SCS). As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an additional reduction of
over 8 MMTCO2e in 2035 compared to the current targets.12
Transportation Sector Specific Regulations
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car
standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty
vehicles). California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA.
In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG
emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. (See also the previous
discussion in federal regulations under “Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards [2017 to
2026].”)
12 California Air Resources Board (CARB), February 2018, Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/SB375_Updated_Final_Target_Staff_Report_2018.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-9
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for
model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with
requirements for greater numbers of ZE vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s
Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025 new automobiles will emit 34 percent less GHG emissions and 75
percent less smog-forming emissions.
Advanced Clean Fleets and Advanced Clean Trucks
In April 2023, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II rule (AC II), which requires all new passenger
vehicles, trucks, and SUVs sold in California to be zero emissions by 2035. The regulation amends the
Zero-emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles to support
the 2020 EO N-79-20 and amends the Low-emission Vehicle Regulations to include increasingly stringent
standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions.
This rule will substantially reduce air pollutants that threaten public health and would further develop the
zero-emission vehicle market starting with the 2026 model year.
In April 2023, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Fleets, which requires a phased-in transition toward
zero-emission medium-and-heavy duty vehicles. Under the new rule, fleet owners operating vehicles for
private services (such as Postal Service, state, and local government fleets) will begin their transition
toward zero-emission vehicles starting in 2024. The rule also requires an end to combustion truck sales in
2036 and follows the 2020 adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which put in place a requirement
for manufacturers to increase the sale of zero-emission trucks.
Executive Order S-01-07
On January 18, 2007, the State set a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in
the state. EO S 01 07 set a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e gram per unit of fuel
energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of
California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard
applied to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and used market-based
mechanisms to allow these providers to choose the most economically feasible methods for reducing
emissions during the “fuel cycle.”
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the State identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public
Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative
and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate ZE vehicles in major
metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle [EV] charging stations).
EO B 16-2012 also directed the number of ZE vehicles in California’s state vehicle fleet to increase through
the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles
are ZE by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also established a target for the
transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-10 APRIL 2024
Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, EO N-79-20 was signed into law, whose goal is that 100 percent of in-state sales
of new passenger cars and trucks will be ZE by 2035. Additionally, the fleet goals for trucks are that 100
percent of drayage trucks are ZE by 2035, and 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the
state are ZE by 2045, where feasible. The EO’s goal for the state is to transition to 100 percent ZE off-road
vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible.
Renewables Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and X1-2 and Executive Order S 14 08
A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard (RPS)
established under SB 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity
were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to
reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. EO S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the
state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by
the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar,
geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production decreases
indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable
sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the
RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also sets a new goal to
double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and
conservation measures.
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed into law. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities and
retail sellers consists of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by
2030. SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill
establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources
supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of
electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot
increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100
percent carbon-free electricity target.
Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. SB 1020 provides interim RPS targets (90 percent
renewable energy by 2035 and 95 percent renewable energy by 2040) and requires renewable energy and
zero-carbon resources to reach 100 percent clean electricity by 2045.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-11
Energy-Efficiency Regulations
California Building Code: Building Energy-Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 (Title
24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and
building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted on August 11, 2021, and went into effect on
January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready
requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen
ventilation standards, and more. The 2022 standards require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be
electric-ready to accommodate replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the
standards also include prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery requirements for high-rise,
multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices,
medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers.13
California Building Code: CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design
standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory
provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022. The 2022
CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2023.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on
October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.
The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated
appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the
standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
13 California Energy Commission (CEC), May 2021, Amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy
Code) Draft Environmental Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/environmental-impact-report-amendments-
building-efficiency-standards-2022-energy.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-12 APRIL 2024
Solid Waste Diversion Regulations
Assembly Bill 939: Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code Section 40050 et
seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste
from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the
requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this,
the Act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element.
AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill
capacity.
Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by
2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Section 5.408
of CALGreen also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition
waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code Section 42900
et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development
projects. The act requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model
ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of
recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or
an ordinance of their own.
Assembly Bill 1826
In October of 2014, AB 1826 was signed into law requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on
and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires
that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling
program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings with five or
more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous
wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste.
Water Efficiency Regulations
Senate Bill X7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010
pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009 to 2010 and
therefore dubbed “SB X7-7.” SB X7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to
prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirement (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan).
In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans,
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-13
measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SB X7-7 required urban
water providers to adopt a water conservation target of a 20 percent reduction in urban per-capita water
use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.
Assembly Bill 1881: Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the
updated DWR model water efficient landscape ordinance or an equivalent by 2015. AB 1881 also requires
the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling
requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors,
emission devices, and valves, to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy or water.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
On September 19, 2016, SB 1383 was signed into law to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the
Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and methane. Black carbon
is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during the incomplete combustion
of fuels. SB 1383 required CARB, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a
comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in
methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50
percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.
On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies
the state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants.
Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning,
fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black
carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.14
In-use on-road rules were expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent
between 2000 and 2020.
Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region
MTC and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG ) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21,
2021.15 Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the
regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Under the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies,
just under half of all Bay Area households would live within one half-mile of frequent transit by 2050, with
this share increasing to over 70 percent for households with low incomes. Transportation and
14 California Air Resources Board (CARB). March 2017. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
15 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October. Plan Bay Area 2050.
/https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 23,
2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-14 APRIL 2024
environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land
use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50
percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG emissions from transportation would decrease significantly as
a result of these transportation and land use changes, and the Bay Area would meet the state mandate of
a 19-percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035 — but only if all strategies are implemented.16
To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for
the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in Priority
Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing
communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where
there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where
substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle,
VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. In Cupertino, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza. 17,18
Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate on April 19, 2017. The 2017
Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s
2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a
post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following:
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.
Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous
public transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and
putting organic waste to productive use.19
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next three
to five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision.
The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, toxic
air contaminants, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the
following sectors: (1) stationary (industrial) sources; (2) transportation; (3) energy; (4) agriculture; (5)
16 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October. Plan Bay Area 2050.
/https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 23,
2024.
17 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transit Priority Areas (2021), 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.328339%2C-
122.044206%2C14.00, accessed on January 20, 2024
18 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Priority Development Areas – Plan Bay Area 2050, 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/explore?location=37.319615%2C-
122.033008%2C14.71, accessed on January 20, 2024.
19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Spare the Air: Cool the Climate, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan,
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-
vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 23, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-15
natural and working lands; (6) waste management; (7) water; and (8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the
proposed control strategy is based on the following key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.
Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.
Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).
Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.
Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.
Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under Air District Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area
Commuter Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the BAAQMD are
required to register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with the BAAQMD and the
MTC, the rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and decrease the Bay Area’s
traffic congestion by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, vanpool,
carpool, bicycling, and walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from one of four
commuter benefit options including a pre-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer-provided
transit, and alternative commute benefit.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and
Sustainability (ES), and Infrastructure (INF) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and
strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts from GHG
emissions. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts from GHG
emissions are identified in Section 4.7.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize GHG emissions. The CMC is
organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to reducing GHG emissions are included
in Title 6, Franchises, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Title 16, Buildings and Construction,
and Title 17, Environmental Regulations, as follows:
Chapter 6.24, Garbage, Non-Organic Recycling and Organic Waste Recycling Collection and Disposal.
This chapter includes Section 6.24.037, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, which includes
a list of requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, and state
organic recycling laws.
Chapter 14.02, Transportation Impact Fee Program. This chapter recognizes that there will be
additional demand on the City’s existing transportation infrastructure and therefore created the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-16 APRIL 2024
Transportation Impact Fee Program to generate revenue that the City can use as a funding source for
the costs of the transportation improvements required to serve new development.
Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees . Protects, preserves, and replenishes healthy and valuable trees in the
city for the health and welfare of residents and to counteract air pollutants and maintain climatic
balances, among reasons.
Chapter 16.28, Expedited Permit Process for Small Rooftop Solar Systems and Electric Vehicle Charging
Systems. This chapter streamlines rooftop solar permitting processes that complies with the Solar
Rights Act and AB 2188. The Ordinance encourages the use of solar systems by removing
unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the City, and expanding the ability of
property owners to install solar energy systems.
Chapter 16.32, Energy Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Energy Code and each and all
of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code and requires newly constructed
buildings in the City to be all-electric, with varying exceptions for non-residential occupancies.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Green Building
Standards Code and includes local amendments regarding the local water and efficient landscape
ordinance, electric vehicle charging, and space design for different types of new construction.
Section 16.58.400, Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging – Residential. Outlines the requirements and
installation process of EV chargers in residential areas.
Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Salvaging of Construction and Demolition Debris. Requires the recycling of
65 percent of construction and demolition debris to help the City reduce landfill waste, foster resource
conservation, and help the City meet and exceed an overall diversion rate of 50 percent.
Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittals Requirements. Requires
every project to implement standard environmental protection permit submittal requirements prior
to the issuance of permits by the City unless they are not applicable to the project.
Section 17.04.050(C), Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Permit Requirements. Outlines how
the project applicant shall complete the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan – Development
Project Consistency Checklist, for review and approval by the City Environment and Sustainability
Department prior to issuance of the first permit, to demonstrate how the project is consistent
with the Cupertino Climate Action Plan, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, in
order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy.
Climate Action Plan 2.0
Adopted in August 2022, the City of Cupertino CAP 2.0 is an updated roadmap of specific actions to
reduce GHG emissions, achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040, and increase community
resilience, and capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. 20 The CAP 2.0 allows City decision-
makers and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG emissions and
identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the City will use to achieve targets
20 City of Cupertino, 2022, August, Climate Action 2.0,
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on January 20, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-17
consistent with State recommendations of 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, 4.3 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per person by 2030, and 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. The
CAP 2.0 adopted in 2022 updated and expanded the City’s goals from the 2015 CAP, it also details
strategies for Cupertino to prepare for and mitigate approaching risks from climate change.
4.7.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), addresses
the impacts to GHG emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan at a program level. The setting
for GHG emissions is described in the General Plan EIR in Section 4.6.1.2, Existing Conditions.
The General Plan EIR identified that potential future development and land use activities as a result of
implementation of the Approved Project would meet the 6.6 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions
threshold for year 2020 and the 3.1 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions threshold for year 2040
with implementation of goals and policies that aim to reduce GHG emissions throughout the Study Area.
Therefore, the Approved Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction target of AB 32 as well as
the long-term GHG reduction goal of EO S-03-05. In addition, the Approved Project would not conflict
with the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan. As the Approved Project would comply with all State standards and
would implement policies to ensure consistency with state and regional GHG reduction planning efforts,
the Approved Project also would not conflict with ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area. The Approved Project
impacts would be less than significant.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, new policies and programs have since been adopted that
have affected GHG emissions in the Study Area. One specific program that has been adopted since the
adoption of the General Plan EIR is the CAP 2.0, which sets new GHG reduction targets. One of the larger
targets that was address was for Cupertino to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, which translates into
reducing 108,380 MTCO2e by 2030, and 323,743 MTCO2e by 2040.21
Another plan that was adopted which affects GHGs is Plan Bay Area 2050. As described in Section 4.7.1.2,
Regulatory Framework, this plan introduces PDAs and TPAs. In Cupertino, there are four TPAs and two
PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South
DeAnza. 22,23
21 City of Cupertino, August 2022, Climate Action 2.0,
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on July 20, 2023.
22 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transit Priority Areas (2021), 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.328339%2C-
122.044206%2C14.00, accessed on January 20, 2024
23 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Priority Development Areas – Plan Bay Area 2050, 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/explore?location=37.319615%2C-
122.033008%2C14.71, accessed on January 20, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-18 APRIL 2024
California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution
In 2021, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2019 emissions using the GWPs
in IPCC’s AR4.24 Based on these GWPs, California produced 418.2 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2019.
California’s transportation sector was the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 39.7
percent of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent, and electric
power generation made up 14.1 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG
emissions include commercial and residential buildings (10.5 percent), agriculture and forestry (7.6
percent), high GWP (4.9 percent), and recycling and waste (2.1 percent).25
Since the peak level in 2004, California’s GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In
2016, California statewide GHG emissions dropped below the AB 32 target for year 2020 of 431 MMTCO2e
and have remained below this target since then. In 2019, emissions from routine GHG-emitting activities
statewide were almost 13 MMTCO2e lower than the AB 32 target for year 2020. Per capita GHG emissions
in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 MTCO2e per person to 10.5 MTCO2e per person in
2019, a 25 percent decrease.
Transportation emissions continued to decline in 2019 statewide as they had done in 2018, with even
more substantial reductions due to a significant increase in renewable diesel. Since 2008, California’s
electricity sector has followed an overall downward trend in emissions. In 2019, solar power generation
continued its rapid growth since 2013. Emissions from high-GWP gases comprised 4.9 percent of
California’s emissions in 2019. This continues the increasing trend as the gases replace ozone-depleting
substances being phased out under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Overall trends in the inventory also
demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollution per million
dollars of gross domestic product) has declined 45 percent since the 2001 peak, though the state’s gross
domestic product grew 63 percent during this period.26
4.7.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant GHG
emissions impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
GHG-1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment? LTS SU
GHG-2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? LTS SU
GHG-3. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions? LTS SU
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
24 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013, Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
25 California Air Resources Board (CARB), July 2021, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2019 Emissions Trends and Indicators
Report. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf.
26 California Air Resources Board (CARB), July 2021, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2019 Emissions Trends and Indicators
Report. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-19
BAAQMD Significance Criteria
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects
and Plans (2022) contains instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate GHG emission impacts
generated from land use development projects and plans. For purposes of this analysis, the City of
Cupertino is using the BAAQMD’s current GHG emission plan-level significance thresholds to evaluate the
proposed Modified Project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts
BAAQMD, in its Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts
from Land Use Projects and Plans (2022) (GHG Justification Report),27 recommends the use of one of two
plan-level criteria to determine the GHG emission impact resulting from a proposed plan.
A. The Plan must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b); or
B. The Plan must meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030
and carbon neutrality by 2045.
The City’s CAP 2.0 is currently the City’s local GHG reduction strategy, which meets the criteria under State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and includes a two-step
process for ensuring project consistency. Step 1 consists of an evaluation of whether the project would be
consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning designation. If a project is
inconsistent with the site’s General Plan land use or zoning designations, then that project’s GHG
emissions would need to be quantified and shown to be less than the emissions estimates contained the
CAP. Step 2 consists of a consistency evaluation using a compliance checklist developed by the City to
ensure project consistency with the CAP and its emissions targets. Because the City ’s CAP 2.0 compliance
checklist is intended for individual project assessments, the City’s CAP 2.0 consistency checklist is not
utilized in this analysis.
The proposed Modified Project would reach full implementation in 2040, which is after the State’s 2030
emissions target and well before the State’s carbon neutrality goal in 2045 and the City’s carbon neutrality
goal in 2040, and the proposed Modified Project would facilitate future potential individual projects that,
if subject to CEQA, would need to go through their own CEQA environmental review. In addition, the
proposed Modified Project is not a plan that encompasses the entire jurisdiction of Cupertino and instead
specifically addresses the changes that have occurred to the Housing Element as part of the City’s 6th
Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031), the associated amendments to Land Use and Community Design
Element for internal consistency, and updates to the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Title 19, Zoning, for
internal consistency between the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code. Given the lack of communitywide
emissions data and how the proposed Modified Project ’s resulting changes in land use patterns would
27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022, April. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of
Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-
thresholds-2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en .
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-20 APRIL 2024
affect the City’s long-term communitywide emissions inventory and reduction targets, a net zero
emissions threshold is considered for the proposed Modified Project.
Net Zero Threshold
To provide a conservative analysis of the proposed Modified Project’s impacts in relation to the State’s
2045 carbon neutrality goal and the City’s 2040 carbon neutrality goal,28 the City has identified a no net
increase threshold of zero (0 MTCO2e). Appendix D of the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan recognizes that
achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may
be an appropriate overall objective. Therefore, the zero threshold is consistent with the State’s carbon
neutrality goals under AB 1279 and provides the most conservative threshold for GHG emissions impacts
under CEQA for the proposed Modified Project.
Mass Emissions and Health Effects
On December 24, 2018, in Sierra Club et al. v. County of Fresno et al. (Friant Ranch), the California
Supreme Court determined that the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch project failed to adequately
analyze the project’s air quality impacts on human health. The EIR prepared for the project, which
involved a master-planned retirement community in Fresno County, showed that project-related mass
emissions would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regional significance
thresholds. In its findings, the California Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Court of Appeal that
EIRs for projects must not only identify impacts to human health, but also provide an “analysis of the
correlation between the project's emissions and human health impacts” related to each criterion air
pollutant that exceeds the regional significance thresholds or explain why it could not make such a
connection. In general, the ruling focuses on the correlation of emissions of toxic air contaminants and
criteria air pollutants and their impact to human health.
In 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding for six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) in
order to regulate GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The endangerment finding is based on
evidence that shows an increase in mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average
temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves and ozone levels. Though identified effects
such as sea level rise and increased extreme weather can indirectly impact human health, neither the EPA
nor CARB has established ambient air quality standards for GHG emissions. The State’s GHG reduction
strategy outlines a path to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change and includes goals and
objectives that are based on the State’s path toward reducing statewide cumulative GHGs as outlined in
AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.
28 The 2022 Scoping Plan update includes statewide measures to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goals under AB 1279,
such as carbon dioxide removal, that are not applicable to local governments. Carbon neutrality goals are a “no impact” level and
not a “less than significant” impact level for climate change effects. There are presently no reliable means of forecasting how
future technological developments related to carbon dioxide removal may affect future emissions in a jurisdiction. Therefore,
carbon neutrality targets are not directly applicable to local governments or CEQA projects to mitigate GHG emissions impacts of
a proposed project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-21
As described above, the two significance thresholds that the City uses to analyze GHG impacts are based
on achieving the statewide GHG reduction goals based on a no net increase in GHG emissions (GHG-1)
and consistency with policies or plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions (GHG-2). Further, because no
single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentration of GHG emissions,
climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. Without federal or State
ambient air quality standards for GHG emissions, and given the cumulative nature of GHG emissions and
the City’s significance thresholds that are tied to reducing the State’s cumulative GHG emissions, it is not
feasible at this time to connect the project’s specific GHG emissions to the potential health impacts of
climate change.
4.7.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
METHODOLOGY
Impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from implementation (construction and operation) of the
proposed Modified Project are described below. To determine the increase in emissions as a result of the
proposed Modified Project, the maximum allowable residential dwelling units envisioned by the proposed
Modified Project (3,312 units) were estimated by calculating the net new change from the Approved
Project to the potential future development under the proposed Modified Project in 2040. Due to a lack
of available information on existing housing units on sites identified to accommodate the envisioned
3,312 dwelling units through 2040, all 3,312 dwelling units are considered to be a net increase in housing
supply in the city. While the proposed Modified Project would have a buildout horizon year of 2040, the
updates to the General Plan included in the proposed Modified Project in part is in response to the
current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle, which has a horizon of 2031. Therefore, a
buildout year of 2031 was used in emissions and energy consumption estimates for a conservative
assessment and efficiencies are expected to improve through 2040 and the 3,312 net new residential
units are identified for the RHNA cycle through 2031.
CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions of GHG emissions associated with
implementation of the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Data, of this EA). Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and
Table 3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), in
Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, identify the sites intended to accommodate the housing supply
growth envisioned by the proposed Modified Project. Based on the housing density data from these
tables, all new housing units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise,” “Apartments Mid-Rise,”
Condos/Townhouse,” and “Single-Family Housing” categories. Consistent with the Transportation Analysis
prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Modified Project (Appendix E), modeling for weekday rates
used the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for Approved Project cumulative conditions and cumulative
conditions with project implementation. Saturday and Sunday trip generation and VMT were calculated
from the ratio CalEEMod default Saturday and Sunday trip rates to the weekday rate. All vehicle trips
represented in the emissions modeling were assigned to be 100-percent primary, meaning no trip
distance or generation discounts were applied for pass-by or diverted trips to provide a conservative
emissions estimate.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-22 APRIL 2024
Consistent with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood -Burning Devices, no new dwelling units
modeled with CalEEMod were assumed to contain any wood-burning devices. In addition, the per-
dwelling unit indoor and outdoor water consumption rates as well as the solid waste generation and
energy consumption rates reflect use of CalEEMod default rates.
GHG-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
As described in the General Plan EIR, potential future development and land use activities as a result of
implementation of the Approved Project would meet the 6.6 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions
threshold for year 2020 and the 3.1 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions threshold for year 2040
with implementation of goals and policies that aim to reduce GHG emissions throughout the Study Area.
Therefore, the Approved Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction target of AB 32 as well as
the long-term GHG reduction goal of EO S-03-05. As the Approved Project would achieve the 2020 and
2035 performance criteria, the short-term and long-term GHG emissions impacts of the Approved Project
were found to be less than significant.
A Housing Element does not directly result in development without additional approvals. Before any
development can occur in the city, it must be analyzed for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Code
requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA;
and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.
Emissions Forecast
The proposed Modified Project guides the City’s policies to encourage housing that meets the needs of all
residents in the region through 2040. The proposed Modified Project is a focused effort, with particular
emphasis on compliance with state housing mandates. The GHG emissions forecast for buildout of the
proposed Modified Project is shown in Table 4.7-3, Operational GHG Emissions – Housing Element
Update. Potential future development of up to 3,312 new dwelling units facilitated by the proposed
Modified Project result in an estimated increase of 84,142 MTCO2e GHG emissions per year. As shown
therein, the increase in residential units and population associated with the proposed Modified Project
results in an increase in residential building energy use, mobile emissions, solid waste, water use and
wastewater generation, and refrigerant use.
TABLE 4.7-3 OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS – HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Emission Source City of Cupertino GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Mobile 79,853
Area 211
Energy 3,084
Water 237
Solid Waste 753
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-23
TABLE 4.7-3 OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS – HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Emission Source City of Cupertino GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Refrigerants 4
Total Net Emissions 84,142
New Residents 9,737
New Resident Per Capita Emissions 8.64
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Emissions above represent a conservative estimate of net emissions as it does not
account for the existing housing supply in the City due to a lack of available information.
Source: Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this EA.
Because the exact conditions of sites identified to accommodate the additional housing supply envisioned
by the proposed Modified Project are largely unknown, the annual GHG emissions displayed in Table 4.7-3
conservatively represent net new GHG emissions beyond existing community emissions. As such, for the
purposes of this analysis, the proposed Modified Project would result in the addition of 84,142 MTCO2e
per year beyond existing conditions.
It should be noted that the energy-source emissions shown in Table 4.7-3 represent new housing units
that are designed as mixed-fuel, meaning they are equipped with natural gas plumbing and appliances.
While Chapter 16.32 of the CMC would require newly constructed buildings to be all-electric, with most of
the code exceptions applying only to nonresidential occupancies, an all-electric building would avoid
natural gas consumption but would result in greater electricity consumption. Because the site-specific
details, such as square footage, orientation, and mechanical and envelope design of each new housing
unit that would be accommodated by the proposed Modified Project is unknown at this time, the change
in energy resource consumption resulting from compliance with Chapter 16.32 of the CMC is unknown.
Therefore, the energy-source emissions shown in Table 4.7-3, while based on the consumption of both
natural gas and electricity, is used to represent total energy-source emissions even assuming development
under the proposed Modified Project would be all-electric.
Moreover, as shown in Table 4.7-3, Operational GHG Emissions – Housing Element Update, the majority of
annual GHG emissions generated by development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project are the
result of vehicle use. Table 4.7-3 does not include reductions from State measures targeting mobile and
energy sources that have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions, such as:
The RPS requires increases in renewable electricity supplies.
The Clean Car Standards require increased fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles and decreased carbon
intensity of vehicle fuels.
The updated Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require new buildings to achieve increased
energy efficiency targets.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) mandates reduced carbon intensity of fuels used in off-road
equipment.
The General Plan EIR also found that the General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design (LU),
Housing (HE), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and the Infrastructure (INF)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-24 APRIL 2024
Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts that development could have related to GHG emissions. Like the Approved Project, the
following existing General Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies
as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also help minimize GHG emissions to help meet the
State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction targets.
Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a
half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)
Policy LU- 3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network
of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space
and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas
and corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
Policy LU-13.5. Land Use. The Heart of the City area allows a mix of retail, commercial, office and
residential uses. Specific uses are provided in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. See Figure LU-2 for
residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-13.6. Building Form. Buildings should be high-quality, with pedestrian-oriented and active
uses along the street.
Policy HE-1.3: Mixed-Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near transportation
facilities and employment centers.
Policy HE-4.1. Energy And Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all
existing and new residential development.
Strategy HE-4.1.1. Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for
energy conservation and will evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in the
Environmental Resources/ Sustainability element.
Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape
Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies
primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant
improvements of ten or more units. To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the
City will evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy
conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or new) with fewer than ten units
to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. This City will also
implement the policies in its climate action plan to achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas
emission reductions and further these community energy and water conservation goals.
Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning
processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and
to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address
regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.
Policy M-3.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master
plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create
a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.
Policy M-3.8. Bicycle Parking. Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and
private bicycle parking.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-25
Policy M-4.8: Micro-Transit. Continue to support a local micro-transit option, such as the Silicon Valley
Hopper or similar service.
Policy M-8.1. Transportation. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Strategy M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies. Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation
infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and
optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
Strategy M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers. Require major and large employers, including colleges
and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their
employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.
Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with
specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program
to ensure implementation.
Policy M-8.3. Alternative Fuel Charging Stations. Develop a city-wide strategy to encourage the
construction of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle charging/ fueling stations.
Policy M-9.2. Reduced Travel Demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new
development.
Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s
planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of
future generations.
Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to
attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This
qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future
project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.
Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.
Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources.
Strategy ES-1.1.2. CAP and Sustainability Strategies Implementation. Periodically review and report on
the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the strategies in this Element.
Institutionalize sustainability by developing a methodology to ensure all environmental, social and
lifecycle costs are considered in project, program, policy and budget decisions.
Strategy ES-1.1.3. Climate Adaptation and Resiliency. Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and
set preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human health and community assets susceptible
to the impacts of a changing climate (e.g., increased drought, wildfires, flooding). Incorporate these
into all relevant plans, including the Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam
Failure Plan, Climate Action Plan, Watershed Protection Plan, and Energy Assuredness Plan.
Policy ES-1.2. Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional
agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Regional Housing
Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA), One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-26 APRIL 2024
Strategy ES-1.2.1. Local Plan Consistency with Regional Plans. Update and maintain local plans and
strategies so they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for State transportation and project
CEQA streamlining.
Policy ES-2.1. Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources. Encourage the maximum feasible
conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing
residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.
Strategy ES-2.1.1. Coordination. Continue to evaluate and revise, as necessary, applicable City plans,
codes, and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State, and regional requirements and conservation
targets.
Strategy ES-2.1.2. Comprehensive Energy Management. Prepare and implement a comprehensive
energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy
goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as
part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally
Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and
construction practices.
Strategy ES-2.1.3. Energy Efficient Replacements. Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify
City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to
benchmark and showcase City energy efficiency achievements (i.e., EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide
Green Business Program).
Strategy ES-2.1.4. Incentive Program. Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory
requirements and promote incentives from state, county, and federal governments for improving
energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations.
Strategy ES-2.1.5. Urban Forest. Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees, vegetated
stormwater treatment and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in development projects.
Strategy ES-2.1.6. Alternate Energy Sources. Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable
energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs, and incentives.
Strategy ES-2.1.7. Energy Co-Generation Systems. Encourage the use of energy co-generation systems
through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users
and public facilities.
Strategy ES-2.1.8. Energy Audits and Financing. Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’
programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial
and City facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities
for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits
to include emerging online and applications-based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share
residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach
events and civic media assets.
Strategy ES-2.1.9. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient
transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and
vanpooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes to
schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment,
development incentives, and community education.
Strategy ES-2.1.10. Community Choice Energy. Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate
feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-27
Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building.
Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building
ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings
projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection
and building design.
Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs,
and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external
trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater,
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).
Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green
Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry,
land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building
maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.
Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve
third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of
creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.
Strategy ES-4.2.4. Fuel-efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement, and ongoing
use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to
require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related
funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to
support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant
funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs.
Policy INF-2.5. Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan. for citywide access to recycled water and
encourage its use.
Strategy INF-2.5.1. Availability. Expand the availability of a recycled water system through public
infrastructure projects and development review.
For a complete list of policies and strategies aimed at reducing VMT, please see Impact Discussion TRANS-
2, in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. While the policies and strategies listed here and in Chapter
4.14 would reduce energy- and mobile-source GHG emissions, the proposed Modified Project would
result in an estimated net new 84,142 MTCO2e per year, which would exceed the net zero threshold. As
such, this impact would be potentially significant. Because the General Plan EIR concluded that the
Approved Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions, the proposed
Modified Project would result in more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would exceed the net zero greenhouse
gas emission threshold under Executive Order B-55-18.
Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. As previously stated, potential future
development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would experience emission reductions
from implementation of State measures and strategies to reduce statewide GHG emissions, such as
the LCFS mandate or RPS requirements. In addition, the General Plan policies and strategies of the
proposed Modified Project would serve to further support potential GHG reductions for individual
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-28 APRIL 2024
development projects facilitated by the proposed Modified Project. Nonetheless, because emissions
from the potential development under the proposed Modified Project collectively would exceed the
net-zero emissions threshold, GHG emissions impacts resulting from the proposed Modified Project
would be significant and unavoidable.
GHG-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project could conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would achieve the AB 32 reduction targets and
all new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen, the Approved Project would not conflict with the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan. In addition, as the
Approved Project would comply with all State standards and would implement policies to ensure
consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts, the Approved Project also would not
conflict with ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area. The General Plan EIR, therefore, concluded that the Approved
Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to consistency with plans or policies adopted
for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan,
ABAG’s/MTC’s Plan Bay Area, and the City of Cupertino CAP. A consistency analysis with these plans is
presented below.
CARB Scoping Plan
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan has been adopted. The CARB
2022 Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities or counties and
individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies,
programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State
agencies from the 2022 Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. So local
jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the
building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions
inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS mandate
and changes in the CAFE standards.
Future potential development accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be required to
adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the 2022 Scoping Plan and implemented by State,
regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.
Future development projects would be required to comply with these State GHG emissions reduction
measures because they are statewide strategies. For example, potential future development associated
with land uses accommodated by implementing the proposed Modified Project would be required to
meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for
building permits. Furthermore, as described under the Impact Discussion for GHG-1, the proposed
Modified Project includes General Plan policies and strategies that would help reduce GHG emissions and
therefore help achieve GHG reduction goals.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-29
Though statewide efforts could provide downstream reductions at the local level, the 2022 Scoping Plan
identifies three priority areas for local actions that would support and amplify the overall state efforts to
reduce GHG emissions and achieve the long-term climate goals: (1) transportation electrification, (2) VMT
reduction, and (3) building decarbonization. Table 4.7-4, Proposed Modified Project Consistency with
Scoping Plan Priority Areas, evaluates consistency of the proposed Modified Project with these three
Scoping Plan local action priorities and their attributes.
TABLE 4.7-4 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SCOPING PLAN PRIORITY AREAS
Priority Area Priority Area Attributes Project Consistency
Transportation
Electrification
Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at a
minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary
standards in the California Green Building
Standards Code at the time of project approval.
Inconsistent: The proposed Modified Project does
not include provisions in the Design Standards or
Design Guidelines that require compliance with the
CALGreen nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 EV
parking standards.
VMT Reduction Meets local jurisdiction adopted SB 743 threshold
for VMT.
Inconsistent: As described in Chapter 4.14,
Transportation, of this EA, the proposed Modified
Project would result in increases in total VMT in the
City and would exceed the City’s threshold for VMT
reductions.
Building
Decarbonization
Use all electric appliances without any natural gas
connections and does not use propane or other
fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or
indoor cooking.
Consistent: The proposed Modified Project would
be subject to CMC Chapter 16.32, Energy Code,
which in most cases requires newly constructed
buildings to be designed as all-electric.
Source: California Air Resources Board, December 2022, Draft 2022 Scoping Plan, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf,
accessed January 23, 2024.
As described in Table 4.7-4, the proposed Modified Project would generally be inconsistent with the
priority areas pertaining to transportation electrification. It should be noted that CMC Section 16.58.400
includes EV charging standards which currently match the Tier 2 CALGreen voluntary standards for
residential development, which are currently the most ambitious voluntary EV charging standards;
however, the CMC does not refer to compliance with the Tier 2 CALGreen and instead stipulates standards
independent of Tier 2 CALGreen standards. Because the proposed Modified Project would facilitate
individual development projects through 2040, the Tier 2 CALGreen EV charging standards, which are
updated every 18 months, would continue to change and improve through the horizon of the proposed
Modified Project. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be required to ensure that future
development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project complies with the most ambitious voluntary EV
charging standards in CALGreen at the time each individual project is proposed. Thus, although the
proposed Modified Project would adhere either directly or indirectly to statewide strategies, because it
would not meet two of the three local action priority areas, it is considered inconsistent with the Scoping
Plan. Unlike the Approved Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project could conflict with
the objectives of the CARB Scoping Plan. This impact would be potentially significant.
Plan Bay Area
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, Plan Bay Area 2050 has been adopted. Plan Bay Area is the
Bay Area’s regional transportation plan to achieve the passenger vehicle emissions reductions identified
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-30 APRIL 2024
under SB 375. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the current SCS for the Bay Area, which was adopted October 21, 2021.
In addition to significant transit and roadway performance investments to encourage focused growth, Plan
Bay Area 2050 directs funding to neighborhood active transportation and complete streets projects, climate
initiatives, lifeline transportation and access initiatives, safety programs, and PDA planning.29 In In the Study
Area, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors
& Station Areas, and South DeAnza. 30, 31
The proposed Modified Project would redesignate and rezone to accommodate residential development,
primarily in infill locations, suitable within the Study Area to meet the City’s RHNA. Thus, the proposed
Modified Project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 in concentrating new
development in locations where there is existing infrastructure and transit. Therefore, the proposed
Modified Project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050 and impacts
would be less than significant.
Furthermore, as described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EA, implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would induce population and housing growth necessary to meet the
population growth and housing needs in the Study Area. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would provide more housing for residents to both live and work in the Study Area
instead of commuting to other areas, which would contribute to minimizing VMT and reducing VMT per
service population. Therefore, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would not
interfere with ABAG’s/MTC’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Plan Bay Area. The proposed
Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts
compared to the General Plan EIR.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has adopted the Cupertino CAP 2.0. Pursuant to
the CAP 2.0, future potential development projects would be considered consistent with the Cupertino
CAP if they do not conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the CAP. A consistency
evaluation for the adopted CAP 2.0 GHG reduction measures are shown in Table 4.7-5, Cupertino Climate
Action Plan 2.0 Consistency Matrix.
29 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October. Plan Bay Area 2050.
/https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 23,
2024.
30 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transit Priority Areas (2021), 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.328339%2C-
122.044206%2C14.00, accessed on January 20, 2024
31 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Priority Development Areas – Plan Bay Area 2050, 2024,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/explore?location=37.319615%2C-
122.033008%2C14.71, accessed on January 20, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-31
TABLE 4.7-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
Measure BE-1 Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2
percent for residential and 10 percent for
commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040.
Consistent. Future potential development under the proposed Modified
Project would comply with the current California Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards to reduce energy consumptions.
Measure BE-4 Require new residential and
commercial development to be all-electric at time
of construction.
Consistent. The City of Cupertino requires all newly constructed
buildings to be all-electric buildings and has adopted the California Energy
Code (CMC Chapter 16.32). Therefore, the proposed Modified Project
would comply with this measure.
Measure TR-1 Develop and implement an Active
Transportation Plan to achieve 15 percent of active
transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent
by 2040.
Consistent. As stated in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not include
modifications to the roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian network. In
addition, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project
would also be consistent with the City of Cupertino’s Pedestrian
Transportation Plan with Pedestrian Guidelines and Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The proposed Modified Project would also
implement the policies and strategies to encourage active
transportation throughout the City, and is most exemplified through
Policy M-3.1, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which would see to
the adoption and maintenance of a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan
to create a safe way for citizens to bike and walk on a daily basis. Other
policies include Policy LU- 3.1, Site Planning, which would ensure project
sites are planned so that there is a network of connected streets to
improve pedestrian and bicycle access; Strategy LU-8.3.3, Infrastructure
and Streetscape Improvements, which would encourage redevelopment
of areas throughout the City to be pedestrian oriented; Strategy LU-
19.1.7, Existing Streets, which would improve Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Wolfe Road to become more bike and pedestrian-friendly; as well as
Policy M-1.3, Regional Trail Development, to implement best practices
on streets to reduce speeds to accommodate for alternative modes of
transportation. Compliance with these policies and strategies would
reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels throughout the
Study Area.
Measure TR-2 Implement public and shared transit
programs to achieve 29 percent of public transit
mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040.
Consistent. As described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would implement
strategies and policies such as Policy LU-1.1, Land Use and
Transportation, which would concentrate higher land use intensities
within a half-miles of public transit services, and Policies LU-20.2,
Streetscape and Connectivity for North Vallco Park Special Area, and LU-
21.3, Streetscape and Connectivity for North De Anza Special Area,
which would improve transit connections for future roadway
improvements and specifically for North Vallco Park and North De Anza.
These policies would also include Policy M-4.4, Transit Facilities
With New Development, which would ensure that all future potential
development would include amenities to support public transit and
space for transit vehicles. Compliance with these policies and strategies
would reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels throughout
the Study Area. As such, the proposed Modified Project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure TR-3 Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
adoption to 35 percent for passenger vehicles and
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would
result in an increase in land use intensity throughout the Study Area that
has access to existing transportation infrastructure and services. Future
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-32 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.7-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
20 percent for commercial vehicles by 2030 and
100 percent for all vehicles by 2040.
potential development under the proposed Modified Project would at
least comply with the CALGreen requirements for electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations. In addition, as seen in Chapter 3, Project Description,
Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-based ride
sharing program that provides transportation anywhere in the city. Via
plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years,
which would support Measure TR-3. Implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.
Measure TR-4 Re-focus transportation
infrastructure away from single occupancy gasoline
vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian, public
transit, and ZEV goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and
TR-3.
Consistent. The proposed Modified Project would implement policies
and strategies to encourage active transportation throughout the Study
Area, such as redevelopment of areas to be pedestrian oriented or
connecting streets to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. In addition,
future potential development under the proposed Modified Project
would concentrate higher land use intensities near public transit
services, which could reduce the need for single-occupancy trips for
gasoline fueled vehicles. Furthermore, as seen in Chapter 3, Project
Description, Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-
based ride sharing program that provides transportation anywhere
inside the city. Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in
the coming years, which would support Measure TR-4. The proposed
Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.
Measure W-1 Implement SB 1383 requirements
and reduce communitywide landfilled organics 75
percent by 2025 and inorganic waste 35 percent by
2030 and reduce all waste 90 percent by 2040.
Consistent. Future potential development throughout the Study Area
under the proposed Modified Project would include compost and green
waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South
Bay. The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler.
The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation
of this measure.
Measure W-2 Reduce overall waste disposed to
garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15
percent by 2035.
Consistent. Future potential development throughout the Study Area
under the proposed Modified Project would include compost and green
waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South
Bay. The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler.
The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation
of this measure.
Measure W-3 Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled
organics products procurement requirements and
sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per
person by through 2045.
Consistent. Future potential development throughout the Study Area
under the proposed Modified Project would include compost and green
waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South
Bay. The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler.
The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation
of this measure.
Measure WW-2 Reduce per capita water
consumption 15 percent compared to 2019 levels
by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would
comply with SB X7-7, which requires California to achieve a 20 percent
reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 and would implement
best management practices for water conservation to achieve the City’s
water conservation goals. Furthermore, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would also comply with the
Cupertino Municipal Code, in particular, Chapter 15.32, Water
Conservation, which establishes water conservation measures to reduce
the consumption of water, prevent water waste, and maximize the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-33
TABLE 4.7-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
efficient use of water in the Study Area. All landscape zones would also
be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and
water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards,
which requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce
water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed Modified Project
would not conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure CS-1 Increase carbon sequestration
through tree planting by developing and
implementing an Urban Forest Management Plan.
Consistent. Future potential development under the proposed Modified
Project would comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program C.3 and CMC Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention and Watershed Protection, to ensure ongoing compliance
with the City’s municipal storm water and urban runoff requirements.
The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation
of this measure.
Notes: Measures BE-2 and BE-3 apply to existing development and are not applicable. Measure CS-2 is for open space projects that can sequester CO2,
and therefore, is not directly applicable to the project.
Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022, August 16. City of Cupertino, Climate Action Plan 2.0.
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000
Development in Cupertino, including future potential new residences facilitated by the proposed Modified
Project, would be required to adhere to City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the
adopted CAP 2.0. Section 17.04.050(C) of CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, ensures that the provisions of the CAP 2.0 are incorporated into projects and permits as
part of development review and through consistency with the Development Project Consistency Checklist.
In addition, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would result in
construction of new energy-efficient structures that achieve the most current Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards to decrease GHG emissions.
In addition to the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, and the CAP 2.0, the General Plan 2040
Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and
Sustainability (ES), and the Infrastructure (INF) Elements contain the following policies and strategies that
would support the reduction of GHG emissions from future potential development under both the
Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project:
Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a
half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)
Policy LU- 3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network
of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space
and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas
and corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
Policy LU-13.5. Land Use. The Heart of the City area allows a mix of retail, commercial, office and
residential uses. Specific uses are provided in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. See Figure LU-2 for
residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-13.6. Building Form. Buildings should be high-quality, with pedestrian-oriented and active
uses along the street.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-34 APRIL 2024
Policy HE-1.3: Mixed-Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near transportation
facilities and employment centers.
Policy HE-4.1. Energy And Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all
existing and new residential development.
Strategy HE-4.1.1. Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for
energy conservation and will evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in the
Environmental Resources/ Sustainability element.
Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape
Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies
primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant
improvements of ten or more units. To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the
City will evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy
conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or new) with fewer than ten units
to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. This City will also
implement the policies in its climate action plan to achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas
emission reductions and further these community energy and water conservation goals.
Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning
processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and
to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address
regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.
Policy M-3.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master
plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create
a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.
Policy M-3.8. Bicycle Parking. Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and
private bicycle parking.
Policy M-8.1. Transportation. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Strategy M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies. Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation
infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and
optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
Strategy M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers. Require major and large employers, including colleges
and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their
employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.
Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with
specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program
to ensure implementation.
Policy M-8.3. Alternative Fuel Charging Stations. Develop a city-wide strategy to encourage the
construction of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle charging/ fueling stations.
Policy M-9.2. Reduced Travel Demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new
development.
Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s
planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-35
greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of
future generations.
Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to
attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This
qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future
project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.
Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.
Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources.
Strategy ES-1.1.2. CAP and Sustainability Strategies Implementation. Periodically review and report on
the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the strategies in this Element.
Institutionalize sustainability by developing a methodology to ensure all environmental, social and
lifecycle costs are considered in project, program, policy and budget decisions.
Strategy ES-1.1.3. Climate Adaptation and Resiliency. Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and
set preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human health and community assets susceptible
to the impacts of a changing climate (e.g., increased drought, wildfires, flooding). Incorporate these
into all relevant plans, including the Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam
Failure Plan, Climate Action Plan, Watershed Protection Plan, and Energy Assuredness Plan.
Policy ES-1.2. Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional
agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Regional Housing
Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA), One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Strategy ES-1.2.1. Local Plan Consistency with Regional Plans. Update and maintain local plans and
strategies so they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for State transportation and project
CEQA streamlining.
Policy ES-2.1. Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources. Encourage the maximum feasible
conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing
residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.
Strategy ES-2.1.1. Coordination. Continue to evaluate and revise, as necessary, applicable City plans,
codes, and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State, and regional requirements and conservation
targets.
Strategy ES-2.1.2. Comprehensive Energy Management. Prepare and implement a comprehensive
energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy
goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as
part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally
Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and
construction practices.
Strategy ES-2.1.3. Energy Efficient Replacements. Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify
City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to
benchmark and showcase City energy efficiency achievements (i.e., EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide
Green Business Program).
Strategy ES-2.1.4. Incentive Program. Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory
requirements and promote incentives from state, county, and federal governments for improving
energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-36 APRIL 2024
Strategy ES-2.1.5. Urban Forest. Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees, vegetated
stormwater treatment and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in development projects.
Strategy ES-2.1.6. Alternate Energy Sources. Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable
energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs, and incentives.
Strategy ES-2.1.7. Energy Co-Generation Systems. Encourage the use of energy co-generation systems
through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users
and public facilities.
Strategy ES-2.1.8. Energy Audits and Financing. Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’
programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial
and City facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities
for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits
to include emerging online and applications-based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share
residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach
events and civic media assets.
Strategy ES-2.1.9. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient
transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and
vanpooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes to
schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment,
development incentives, and community education.
Strategy ES-2.1.10. Community Choice Energy. Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate
feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program.
Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building.
Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building
ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings
projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection
and building design.
Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs,
and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external
trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater,
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).
Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green
Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry,
land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building
maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.
Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve
third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of
creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.
Strategy ES-4.2.4. Fuel-efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing
use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to
require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related
funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-37
support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant
funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs.
Policy INF-2.5. Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan for citywide access to recycled water and encourage
its use.
Strategy INF-2.5.1. Availability. Expand the availability of a recycled water system through public
infrastructure projects and development review.
Summary
While the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the overall goals of the Plan Bay Area and
the Cupertino Climate Action Plan, because the proposed Modified Project would not provide EV charging
infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards in CALGreen at the time
of project approval and would result in increases in total VMT in the City and would exceed the City’s
threshold for VMT reductions, impacts are considered potentially significant with respect to be consistent
with the CARB Scoping Plan.
Impact GHG-2: The proposed Modified Project would not meet California Green Building Standards Code
nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle parking standards and would exceed the City of Cupertino’s
vehicle miles traveled reduction threshold, and therefore be inconsistent with the California Air Resources
Board Scoping Plan.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Future development projects in the City of Cupertino shall comply with
the voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards under the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen) version that is applicable at the time of permit applications and shall illustrate
compliance with Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards on the site plans submitted to
the City of Cupertino Planning Department. Additionally, the City of Cupertino shall amend the
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, of the Cupertino Municipal Code
(CMC) to require that new parking amenities included in individual development projects install
electric vehicle spaces in compliance with the voluntary Tier 2 standards under the CALGreen version
that is applicable at the time of permit applications. The amended CMC shall require that all site plans
submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning Department shall illustrate compliance with Tier 2
CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards.
Significance with Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. The proposed Modified Project has the
potential to be inconsistent with the Scoping Plan priority areas. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be
required to ensure that new parking amenities constructed as part of the proposed Modified Project
meets the most ambitious voluntary electric vehicle charging standards in CALGreen, ensuring that
the proposed Modified Project meets the Scoping Plan objectives for transportation electrification
which would render this consistency component to a less-than-significant level. Nonetheless, as
discussed in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, the proposed Modified Project would continue
to result in a substantial increase in total VMT in the city and would exceed the City’s VMT threshold.
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project remains inconsistent with the Scoping Plan priority for VMT
reductions. Because the proposed Modified Project would exceed the City’s VMT threshold, the
proposed Modified Project would conflict with the Scoping Plan after the incorporation of mitigation,
and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-38 APRIL 2024
GHG-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions.
As stated in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would achieve the 2020 and 2035 performance
criteria, which would ensure that the City is on a trajectory that is consistent with the statewide GHG
reduction goals. In addition, the Approved Project would not conflict with the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan or
ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area.
The General Plan 2040 is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and
development. A General Plan does not directly result in development without approval. Any development
in the Study Area is required to be analyzed for its conformance with the General Plan 2040, Zoning Code
requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA;
and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Future potential development under the proposed
Modified Project would result in 3,312 net new residential units, which would generate an estimated
additional 8.63 MTCO2e per year per capita over the Approved Project. As the proposed Modified Project
would meet the population growth and housing needs in the City and would implement existing federal,
State, and local strategies and policies to reduce community-wide GHG emissions, it would be consistent
with ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2050. However, because the new residential units would result in VMT
which exceeds the City’s reduction target, the proposed Modified Project would have the potential to
exceed the conflict with the State’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal and impacts would be potentially
significant.
Impact GHG-3: The proposed Modified Project would result in vehicle miles traveled that would exceed
the City of Cupertino’s reduction target, and therefore conflict with the California Air Resources Board
Scoping Plan and Executive Order B-55-18.
Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2.
Significance with Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would ensure
that potential future development of the Housing Element sites would provide the necessary design
elements that would lay a foundation to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and contribute their “fair
share” to achieving the State’s climate goals. However, GHG emissions associated with the proposed
Modified Project are considered significant because the proposed Modified Project collectively would
result in emissions which exceed the no net emissions threshold and project-induced VMT would
exceed the City’s reduction target. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-1
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This chapter describes the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and
baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the
potential hazards and hazardous materials, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that
could minimize any potentially significant impacts. A description of wildland fire hazards is in Chapter
4.18, Wildfire, of this Environmental Assessment (EA).
4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.8.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates
hazardous materials and waste. In general, the EPA works to develop and enforce regulations that
implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and
setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, delegating the responsibility for
issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance to states and Native American tribes. EPA
programs promote handling hazardous waste safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing waste
volumes through such strategies as recycling. California falls under the jurisdiction of EPA Region 9. Under
the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in cooperation with State and
tribal partners, the EPA Region 9 Waste Management and Superfund Divisions manage programs for site
environmental assessment and cleanup, hazardous and solid waste management, and underground
storage tanks.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Federal hazardous waste laws are generally promulgated under the RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. These laws provide for the “cradle to grave” regulation of
hazardous waste. Any business, institution, or other entity that generates hazardous waste is required to
identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for implementing the RCRA program as
well as California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are collectively known as the Hazardous Waste
Control Law.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
commonly known as “Superfund,” on December 11, 1980. CERCLA established prohibitions and
requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-2 APRIL 2024
responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for
cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) amended the CERCLA on October 17, 1986. SARA stressed the importance of permanent
remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites, required Superfund
actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and federal environmental laws
and regulations, provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools, increased State involvement
in every phase of the Superfund program, increased the focus on human health problems posed by
hazardous waste sites, encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should
be cleaned up, and increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion.
The Stafford Act
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) of 1988, as amended,
authorizes federal government assistance for emergencies and disasters when State and local capabilities
are exceeded. The Stafford Act forms the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities,
especially as they relate to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA programs.
State Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency
One of the primary State agencies that regulate hazardous materials is the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA). CalEPA is authorized by the EPA to enforce and implement certain federal
hazardous materials laws and regulations. The California DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, protects
California and its population from exposure to hazardous waste, primarily under the authority of the RCRA
and the California Health and Safety Code.1 The DTSC requirements include the need for written programs
and response plans, such as Hazardous Materials Management Plans. The DTSC programs include dealing
with aftermath clean-ups of improper hazardous waste management; evaluation of samples taken from
sites; enforcement of regulations regarding use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials; and
encouragement of pollution prevention.
Additionally, CalEPA has delegated enforcement authority to the Santa Clara County Fire Department for
State law regulating hazardous waste producers or generators in Cupertino under the Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA) program.2 A CUPA is an agency of a county or city that administers several State
programs regulating hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The CUPA staff review plans for new
underground storage tanks (USTs); inspect UST sites during several construction phases to ensure
installation standards are met; and conduct annual inspections to verify that operating requirements are
met. All UST owners must possess a valid operating permit; conduct routine testing; maintain equipment;
prepare an approved leak-response plan; and upgrade tank systems, as required.
1 Hazardous Substance Account, Chapter 6.5 (Section 25100 et seq.) of the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Chapter 6.8
(Section 25300 et seq.) of the Health and Safety Code.
2 County of Santa Clara Hazardous Materials Compliance Division, 2024, Programs and Services,
https://hazmat.sccgov.org/programs-and-services#1849274314-1684959077, accessed January 26, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-3
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at the federal level, the California Division
of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) is the responsible State-level agency for ensuring workplace
safety. CalOSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding
workplace safety and safety practices. In the event that a work site is contaminated, a Site Safety Plan
must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of workers. Site Safety Plans establish policies,
practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous
materials originating from the contaminated site or building.
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) was established as part of the Governor’s Office on
January 1, 2009. It was created pursuant to Assembly Bill 38, which merged the duties, powers, purposes,
and responsibilities of the former Governor’s Emergency Management Agency with those of the
Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency
response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the
State’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards—natural, human-made, emergencies, and
disasters—and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and
hazard mitigation efforts.
California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California High Patrol (CHP) are the two
State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding
to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of
California’s highways and freeways, provides intercity rail services, permits more than 400 public-use
airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans is also the first
responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on highways, freeways, and intercity rail
lines.
The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to
prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in
the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container
identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts
regular inspections of licensed transporters to ensure regulatory compliance. In addition, the State of
California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating or passing through the state.
Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to Section 32000 of the California Vehicle Code. This
section requires licensing every motor (common) carrier who transports, for a fee, more than 500 pounds
of hazardous materials at one time and every carrier, if not for hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds
of hazardous material of the type requiring placards. Common carriers conduct a large portion of the
business in the delivery of hazardous materials.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-4 APRIL 2024
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24, Part 2, of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC
is updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to
further modification based on local conditions. The City of Cupertino regularly adopts each new CBC
update under the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.04, Building Code. Commercial and
residential buildings are plan-checked by local City and County building officials for compliance with the
typical fire safety requirements of the CBC, including the installation of sprinklers in all buildings; the
establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire doors and building materials; and the clearance of
debris and vegetation near occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and CCR Title 19, Section 2729, set out the minimum
requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require
businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a
hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on site. A
business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and
implement a management plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC takes a multipronged approach to regulating more than 100,000 entities to prevent the release of
hazardous waste, clean-up contamination, and ensure hazardous waste is handled safely. They conduct
inspections, provide emergency response, remove waste and update EnviroStor, DTSC’s data management
system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste
facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reasons to investigate further.
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), along with the nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards, protect California’s water quality. The SWRCB has created GeoTracker, a data management system
for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on
groundwater. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as permitted
facilities, including Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas production, operating Permitted USTs, and Land Disposal
Sites.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) protects people from the release of
“regulated substances” into the environment. Regulated substances are chemicals that pose a major
threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or
explosive; such substances include ammonia, chlorine gas, hydrogen, nitric acid, and propane.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-5
Businesses subject to CalARP must develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for handling an accidental
release; the RMP ensures that businesses have the proper information to give emergency response teams
if an accidental release occurs. RMPs describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated
substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals, and childcare facilities. RMPs must include
procedures for keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff,
maintaining equipment, safe storage of substances, and responding to an accidental release.3
Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and divided the State into nine
regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The San
Francisco Bay RWQCB, Region 2, regulates water quality in the Study Area. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB
has the authority to require groundwater investigations and/or remedial action if the quality of
groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has primary responsibility for control of air
pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products. The latter are typically the
responsibility of CalEPA and the California Air Resources Board. The BAAQMD is responsible for
preparation of attainment plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant
sources, and issuance of permits for activities, including demolition and renovation activities affecting
asbestos-containing materials (District Regulation 11, Rule 2) and lead (District Regulation 11, Rule 1).
Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the
impact of disasters. The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was prepared
and adopted in October 2017 for the purpose of identifying, assessing, and reducing the long-term risk to
life and property from hazard events. The adopted HMP was approved by FEMA. The document provides
more than 344 mitigation actions for implementation by individual planning partners, including the City of
Cupertino. The HMP includes a risk assessment and mitigation actions for each of the jurisdictions in the
planning partnership. The Cupertino Jurisdictional Annex of the HMP provides an assessment of hazards
and vulnerabilities, and a set of mitigation actions for Cupertino specifically while considering the results
from the countywide effort. In the context of an HMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates
long-term risk to people and property from hazards, including wildfire.
The HMP must be reviewed and approved by FEMA every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster
relief funding. As part of this process, Cal OES reviews all local HMPs in accordance with the Disaster
3 San Mateo County Health, 2023, The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP),
https://www.smchealth.org/cupa/calarp, accessed May 29, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-6 APRIL 2024
Management Act of 2000 regulations, and coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with
FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide.
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Program (Unified Program), and most of the City
of Cupertino’s hazardous materials programs are administered and enforced under the Unified Program.4
The CalEPA has granted responsibilities to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) for implementation and enforcement of hazardous
material regulations under the Unified Program as a CUPA. The HMCD also enforces additional hazardous
materials storage requirements in accordance with the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Storage
Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance.5
Under authority from the RWQCB, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
implements the Local Oversight Program (LOP) to oversee the investigation and remediation of leaking
underground storage tanks (LUSTs) in Santa Clara County, including the City of Cupertino.
Businesses storing hazardous materials over threshold quantities are required to submit Hazardous
Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) to the HMCD. An HMBP must include measures for safe storage,
transportation, use, and handling of hazardous materials. An HMBP must also include a contingency plan
that describes the facility’s response procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Health and Safety (HS) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals, policies, and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials are identified in Section 4.8.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to hazards and hazardous materials in
Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to hazards and
hazardous materials are included in Title 6, Franchises; Title 9, Health and Sanitation; and Title 17,
Environmental Regulations:
Chapter 6.24, Garbage, Non-Organic Recycling and Organic Waste Recycling Collection and Disposal.
Section 6.24.100, Disposal of Explosive or Hazardous Material Restrictions, states that no person shall
deposit in any garbage organic waste or non-organic recycling containing any explosive, highly
inflammable, or otherwise hazardous material or substance.
4 California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404-25404.8.
5 Santa Clara County Ordinance Code, Division B11, Chapters XIII – XIV.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-7
Chapter 9.12, Hazardous Materials Storage. This chapter outlines the general provisions for managing
and storing hazardous materials, the materials regulated, the containment standards, and
requirements for hazardous materials management plans.
Chapter 9.20, Off-Site Hazardous Waste Facilities. This chapter establishes standards for controlling
the location, design, maintenance, and safety of off-site hazardous waste treatment, storage, transfer,
and disposal facilities.
Chapter 16.04, Building Code. This chapter adopts the 2022 CBC as the rules, regulations, and
standards within the city as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC. Provisions of
the CBC include ensuring proper hazardous materials storage facilities are used and appropriate
permits are obtained when working with potentially hazardous materials.
Chapter 16.40, Fire Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Fire Code as the rules, regulations,
and standards in the city as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC. As stated in
Section 16.40.220, Hazardous Materials – General Provisions, where required by the fire code official,
facilities shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements . The purpose of this chapter is to
identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet,
including, but not limited to, environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental
documents required as part of a General Plan update.
Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials. This section includes specific requirements for
evaluating and mitigating hazardous materials.
B. Hazardous Materials. Manage Soil and/or Groundwater Contamination. Projects that involve
tree removal only are not subject to this Section B. For projects that involve a change of land
use (e.g., commercial to residential), development of uses that will be occupied or used by
sensitive receptors, development of a net new residential unit (not including a Junior
Accessory Dwelling unit or Accessory Dwelling unit), new construction of nonresidential
and/or mixed-use development, or subdivisions, except as provided for in Section B.3, the
project applicant shall complete Sections B.1 and B.2, as required, prior to approval of the
project.
1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Retain the services of a qualified environmental
consultant with experience preparing Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) to
prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standards on Environmental Site Assessments, ASTM E 1527-13 (ASTM 1527-13)
and in accordance with the EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 312), published November 2005, as subsequently
revised, supplemented, or replaced. The goal of an ASTM Phase I ESA is to
evaluate site history, existing observable conditions, current site use, and current and
former uses of surrounding properties to identify the potential presence of Recognized
Environmental Conditions (RECs) as defined in ASTM E 1527-13, associated with the site.
If the Phase I ESA does not identify any RECs, then no further action is needed. If the
Phase I ESA identifies RECs, then a Phase II ESA shall be prepared, as described in Section
B.2.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-8 APRIL 2024
2. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. A Phase II ESA shall be prepared by a qualified
environmental consultant and signed and stamped by a Professional Geologist or
Professional Engineer hired by the project applicant. The Phase II ESA shall include the
collection and analysis of samples designed to evaluate RECs identified in the Phase I ESA,
in compliance with ASTM standards, and a health risk assessment to evaluate whether
the RECs pose an unacceptable or potentially unacceptable health risk to future users of
the site. Depending on the health risks identified in the Phase II ESA, the project applicant
shall proceed as follows:
a. If the Phase II ESA identifies no unacceptable or potentially unacceptable health risk
associated with the RECs, then no further action is needed.
b. If the Phase II ESA identifies an unacceptable or a potentially unacceptable health
risk, the requirements related to soil remediation in Section 17.04.050B shall apply.
3. Focused Phase I and II ESAs. Projects that are on sites that are known to have current or
former orchards or other irrigated agricultural activities that were active in 1950 or later are
assumed to contain RECs associated with organic pesticides and are required to prepare a
Focused Phase I ESA that addresses only RECs other than those associated with organic
pesticides. Depending on the contaminants found in the Focused Phase I ESA, the project
applicant shall proceed as follows:
a. If the Focused Phase I ESA identifies no other unacceptable or potentially unacceptable
health risks, then the project applicant shall prepare a Focused Phase II ESA that
addresses only the potential hazards associated with organic pesticides.
b. If the Focused Phase I ESA identifies RECs other than organic pesticides, then the project
applicant shall prepare the Phase II ESA, as described in Section B.2 to address both the
organic pesticides RECs and all other RECs.
Section 17.04.050(B), Hazardous Materials Permit Requirements. Soil Remediation Required. If a
Focused or other Phase II ESA, as required pursuant to Section 17.04.040(B)(1), identifies an
unacceptable or a potentially unacceptable health risk, the project applicant shall, depending on
the contaminant, contact either the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or local Certified
Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The project applicant shall enter into a regulatory agency
oversight program with an appropriate regulatory agency, or an established voluntary oversight
program alternative with an appropriate regulatory agency, as determined by the City, and follow
the regulatory agency’s recommended response actions until the agency reaches a no further
action determination, prior to issuance of any permit for a project that allows ground disturbing
activity.
Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Management is responsible for coordinating agency response
to disasters or other large-scale emergencies in Cupertino. The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan
(EOP) establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities
within the city. The EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications
with County and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and
management of volunteers, as well as identifies the location of the Emergency Operations Center. The
EOP uses the Standardized Emergency Management System as required by California Government Code
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-9
Section 8607(a) for managing responses to multiagency and multi-jurisdiction emergencies in California,
including those related to hazardous materials.
4.8.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
addresses the impacts to hazardous resources associated with implementation of the Approved Project at
a program level. The setting for hazards and hazardous materials is described in detail in General Plan EIR
Section 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions. The Fire Prevention division of the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (SCCFD) continues to provide hazardous materials inspection, services for building
construction, annual building inspection, and hazardous materials regulation.6
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations equivalent to the General
Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental
Protection Requirements, as described under the Municipal Code heading in Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory
Framework. CMC Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials, incorporates these mitigation measures into
the CMC and requires a Phase I and II ESA to be prepared to evaluate potential residual contamination
during new development. Section 17.04.050(B), Hazardous Materials Permit Requirements, requires soil
remediation if a Phase II ESA identifies an unacceptable health risk on a project site.
Additionally, since the certification of the General Plan EIR, new hazardous waste sites have been
identified and some of the previous hazards waste sites have become inactive or closed. Table 4.8-1,
Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area, identifies the active sites in the Study Area as of July 20,
2023.
TABLE 4.8-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES IN THE STUDY AREA
Map
ID Site Name Address Site Type Cleanup Status
DTSC EnviroStor Sites
1 Westwood Elementary School 435 Saratoga Avenue School Investigation Active
2 New Laurelwood Elementary
School
1095 & 1055 Dunford Way,
1380 Rosalia Avenue School Investigation Active
3 Cupertino Village Cleaners 10989 North Wolfe Road Voluntary Cleanup Active
4 Delia's Cleaners 7335 Bollinger Road Voluntary Cleanup Active
5 Sedgwick Elementary School
Expansion Project 10480 Finch Avenue School Cleanup Certified
6 Orchard Farm Shopping Center 6150 Bollinger Road State Response
Certified Operations and
Maintenance - Land Use
Restrictions Only
7 Hewlett Packard CO 5301 Stevens Creek Blvd Non-Operating Protective Filer
8 Anderson Chevrolet Dealership
(now Whole Foods)
20955 Stevens Creek
Boulevard Evaluation Refer: 1248 Local Agency
6 Santa Clara County Fire Department, Fire Prevention, https://www.sccfd.org/fire-prevention/fire-prevention-overview/,
accessed on July 19, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-10 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.8-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES IN THE STUDY AREA
Map
ID Site Name Address Site Type Cleanup Status
9 American Microsystems, Inc. 3800 Homestead Road State Response Refer: Regional Water
Quality Control Board
10 Vallco Building 80 (now Apple) 10432 North Tantau Avenue Evaluation Refer: Regional Water
Quality Control Board
11 Ampex Cupertino Facility (now
Apple) 10435 North Tantau Avenue Evaluation Refer: Regional Water
Quality Control Board
12 Intersil (now Apple/Panasonic) 10910 North Tantau Avenue Federal Superfund Refer: Regional Water
Quality Control Board
SWRCB GeoTracker Sites
13 19720 Stevens Creek Boulevard. 19720 Stevens Creek
Boulevard Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment &
Interim Remedial Action
14 Apple - Former HP - Wolfe Road 10900 North Wolfe Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation
15 Bubb Road Property - The Driving
Machine 10100 Bubb Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Long Term
Management
16 District McClellan Homes 20860 McClellan Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment
17 East Vallco Mall Site 10123 North Wolfe Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment
18 Intersil (DTKM) (now Apple) 10900 North Tantau Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation - Land
Use Restrictions
19 McClellan Square Cleaners 10477 South De Anza
Boulevard Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment &
Interim Remedial Action
20 Residence - 11226 Bubb Road 11226 Bubb Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment
21 Siemens (SMI Holding Llc) (now
Kaiser) 19000 Homestead Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation - Land
Use Restrictions
22 Vallco Town Center 10123 North Wolfe Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation
Sources: Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=cupertino, accessed July
20, 2023; State Water Resources Control Board, 2022, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed July 20, 2023.
4.8.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant hazards
and hazardous materials impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
HAZ-1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? LTS LTS
HAZ-2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.?
LTS LTS
HAZ-3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school? LTS/M LTS
HAZ-4. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
LTS/M LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-11
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant hazards
and hazardous materials impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
HAZ-5. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
NI NI
HAZ-6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? LTS LTS
HAZ-7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? LTS LTS
HAZ-8. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hazards and
hazardous materials? LTS/M LTS
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of
this EA. Because wildfire has been added as a separate impact category to Appendix G, this EA includes a complete description of wildfire impacts in
Chapter 4.16, Wildfire, of this EA.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
4.8.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
HAZ-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
As described in the General Plan EIR, commercially available hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, solvents,
paints, and some consumer electronics) would be used at various new construction sites under the
Approved Project and may generate small amounts of hazardous waste, but the waste would be handled
in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regulations. Additionally, the
Approved Project has office, commercial, and residential land uses and, therefore, would not include
manufacturing or research processes that generate substantial quantities of hazardous materials.
Like the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would
include only residential development and would not include manufacturing or research processes that
would generate substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Future potential development under the
proposed Modified Project would also use commercially available hazardous materials but would be
required to comply with the same federal, State, and local laws and regulations as the proposed Modified
Project.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies that require
local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Like the Approved Project, the following
existing General Plan 2040 policies, and updated policies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would
also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials for future potential development:
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-12 APRIL 2024
Policy HS-6.1. Hazardous Materials Storage and Disposal. Require the proper storage and disposal of
hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fire or the release of harmful fumes.
Maintain information channels to the residential and business communities about the illegality and
danger of dumping hazardous material and waste in the storm drain system or in creeks. (General
Plan EIR Policies 6-27 and 6-32)
Policy HS-6.2. Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials. Assess future residents’ exposure to
hazardous materials when new residential development or sensitive populations are proposed in
existing industrial and manufacturing areas. Do not allow residential development or sensitive
populations if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk. (General
Plan EIR Policy 6-28)
Policy HS-6.4. Educational Programs. Continue to encourage residents and businesses to use non- and
less hazardous products, especially less toxic pest control products, to slow the generation of new
reduce hazardous waste requiring disposal through the county-wide program. (General Plan EIR Policy
6-30).
Policy HS-6.5. Hazardous Waste Disposals. Continue to support and facilitate, for residences and
businesses, a convenient opportunity to properly dispose of hazardous waste. (General Plan EIR Policy
6-31).
As with the future potential development under the Approved Project, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and
design standards governing the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as necessary.
Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in new or more severe hazards to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would facilitate new development, including
residential, mixed-use, and commercial uses, within Cupertino. Some of the potential future development
could occur on properties that are contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing
corrective action, as indicated in Table 4.7.2, Hazardous Materials and LUST Sites, of the General Plan EIR.
Demolition of existing structures and construction of new buildings could potentially result in the release
of hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos, lead paint) into the environment. However, compliance
with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding handling of these materials and
compliance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices, would ensure
future development under the Approved Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-13
Like the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project could
occur on properties that contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing corrective
action, as indicated in Table 4.8-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area. As with the future
potential development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards
governing the release of hazardous materials into the environment, including the General Plan 2040
policies listed under Impact Discussion HAZ-1 and compliance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan and Best Management Practices. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe hazards to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
As described in the General Plan EIR, several public and private schools, including preschools, elementary,
middle, and high schools, are within one-quarter mile of known hazardous wastes sites that may be
redeveloped as part of the Approved Project. The SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division
coordinate the review of building permits to ensure that hazardous materials use requirements are met
prior to construction, including required separation between hazardous materials and sensitive land uses,
and proper hazardous materials storage facilities. Development under the Approved Project would be
required by the HMCD and the City of Cupertino to store, manage, and dispose of the materials in
accordance with the Unified Program. While compliance with existing regulations would reduce the
potential for school children to be exposed to hazardous materials during both construction and
operation from future development under the Approved Project, impacts were found to be potentially
significant in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the General Plan EIR included the Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a
and HAZ-4b to render these impacts to a less-than-significant level. As previously stated in Section 4.8.1.2,
Existing Conditions, these mitigation measures have been codified in CMC Chapter 17.04 and apply to all
potential future development in Cupertino. Specifically, Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials,
includes specific requirements for evaluating and mitigating hazardous materials by requiring the
preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to evaluate site history, existing observable
conditions, current site use, and current and identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs).
If the Phase I ESA identifies RECs, then a Phase II ESA shall be prepared to mitigate any potential impacts.
As with the General Plan Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, the Phase II ESA could require
construction at the sites with known contamination to be conducted under a project-specific
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is prepared in consultation with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or the Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) as determined appropriate by the City and in
compliance with the requirements of CMC Chapter 17.04. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect
construction workers, the general public, the environment, and future site occupants from subsurface
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-14 APRIL 2024
hazardous materials previously identified at the site and to address the possibility of encountering
unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater
analytical data collected on the project site during past investigations; identify management options for
excavated soil and groundwater, if contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and
identify monitoring, irrigation, or other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local,
State, and federal laws, policies, and regulations. The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing,
and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP
shall: 1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and
groundwater during project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe required
worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for
implementation of the ESMP.
For those sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for
redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a
licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential
for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor controls or
source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor
mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting. The vapor
intrusion assessment and associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP.
CMC Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials, and Section 17.04.050, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, would prohibit all future potential development projects under the Approved Project and
Modified Project from emitting hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project could include potential future development on
known hazardous wastes sites within one-quarter mile of a school. Thus, as with the development
assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project
would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing the release of
hazardous materials into the environment, including the General Plan 2040 policies listed under Impact
Discussion HAZ-1 and CMC Sections 17.04.040 (B) and 17.04.050(B). Based on these considerations,
overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in
new or more severe hazards to schools through emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be on a site
that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Table 4.7-2, Hazardous Materials and LUST Sites, of the General Plan EIR identified the LUST sites within
the Study Area. Because hazardous materials were known to be present in soil, soil gas, and/or
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-15
groundwater due to past land uses at certain sites that may be redeveloped as part of the Approved
Project, the direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials could potentially cause adverse
health effects to construction workers and future site users. The severity of health effects would depend
on the contaminant(s), concentration, use of personal protective equipment during construction, and
duration of exposure. The disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities, if
present, could pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the environment. Thus, the
General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b. However, as listed under Impact
Discussion HAZ-3, the intent of these mitigation measures has been codified into CMC Sections 17.04.040
(B) and 17.04.050(B), and therefore all potential future development under both the Approved Project
and proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with these regulations. Like the Approved
Project, the proposed Modified Project could include potential future development on known LUST sites,
as shown in Table 4.7-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area, of this EA. Thus, as with the
development assessed under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards
governing the release of hazardous materials into the environment, including the General Plan 2040
policies listed under Impact Discussion HAZ-1, and CMC Sections 17.04.040 (B) and 17.04.050(B). Based
on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in new or more severe hazards to the public or the environment beyond what
was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not, for a
project within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area.
As described in the General Plan EIR, Cupertino is not within two miles of a public airport or within any
protected airspace zones defined by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and
there are no private airstrips or heliports listed by the Federal Aviation Administration in Cupertino. Thus,
overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in
new or more severe impacts that result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area due to being within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, beyond what was evaluated in
the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-16 APRIL 2024
HAZ-6 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
As explained in the General Plan EIR, the City of Cupertino Emergency Management Division is
responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of
Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management and the SCCFD.
The Cupertino EOP establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and
recovery activities within the city. The Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to
maintain communications with County and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the
extent of damage and management of volunteers.
The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities within
the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element
(2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the
proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project. Future potential
development under the Modified Project would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in
the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or near
existing residential and residential-serving development in already urbanized areas. Thus, the City of
Cupertino Office of Emergency Management would still be responsible for coordinating agency response
to disasters or other large-scale emergencies.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Like the Approved Project, the following existing
General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed
Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on projects in an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan:
Strategy HS-1.1.1. Monitoring and Budgeting. Monitor and evaluate the success of the LHMP,
including local strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex Section 11). Working with Santa Clara
County, ensure that strategies are prioritized and implemented through the Capital Improvement
Program and provide adequate budget for on-going programs and department operations. (Strategy 1
of General Plan EIR Policy 6-1)
Policy HS-2.1. Promote Emergency Preparedness. Distribute multi-hazard emergency preparedness
information for all threats identified in the emergency plan. Information will be provided through
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), First Aid and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
training, lectures and seminars on emergency preparedness, publication of monthly safety articles in
the Cupertino Scene, posting of information on the Emergency Preparedness website and
coordination of video and printed information at the library. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-33)
Strategy HS-2.2.1. Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Review options to provide functional and
seismic upgrades to the EOC facility at City Hall or explore alternative locations for the EOC. (General
Plan EIR Policy 6-38)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-17
Policy HS- 2.4. Emergency Public Information. Maintain an Emergency Public Information program to
be used during emergency situations. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-39)
Policy HS-3.3. Emergency Access. Ensure adequate emergency access is provided for all new hillside
development.
Strategy HS-3.3.1. Roadway Design. Create an all-weather emergency road system to serve rural areas.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-13)
Strategy HS- 3.3.2: Dead-End Street Access. Allow public use of private roadways during an emergency
for hillside subdivisions that have dead-end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a secondary
means of access. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-14)
Strategy HS-3.3.3. Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade
breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-15)
Strategy HS-3.3.4. Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new hillside development to upgrade existing
access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-16)
Policy HS-3.4. Private Residential Electronic Security Gates. Discourage the use of private residential
electronic security gates that act as a barrier to emergency personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-17)
Policy HS-7.1. Evacuation Map. Prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the flood
hazard areas and distribute it to the general public. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-42)
Policy HS-7.2. Emergency Response to Dam Failure. Ensure that Cupertino is prepared to respond to a
potential dam failure.
As with the development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards
governing adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans, as necessary. Based on
these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to the implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond what was evaluated in
the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-7 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not expose
people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
As described in the General Plan EIR, according to CAL FIRE, there are no very high fire hazard severity
zones within the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino. Additionally, because the development under
the Approved Project would be in highly urbanized areas, away from regional open space areas, wildland
fires are less likely to occur.
Like the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would
occur in highly developed areas, away from open spaces. Further, the General Plan EIR also found that the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-18 APRIL 2024
Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts due to wildland fires. Like the Approved Project, the following
existing General Plan 2040 policies would, and updated policies as part of the proposed Modified Project,
also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on people or structures due to wildland fires:
Policy HS-3.1. Regional Coordination. Coordinate wildland fire prevention efforts with adjacent
jurisdictions. Encourage the County and the Midpeninsula Open Space District to implement
measures to reduce fire hazards, including putting into effect the fire reduction policies of the County
Public Safety Element, continuing efforts in fuel management, and considering the use of “green” fire
break uses for open space lands. (General Plan EIR Policies 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7)
Policy HS-3.2. Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all
projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-8)
Policy HS- 3.5. Multi-Story Buildings. Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design of
multi-story buildings and require on-sire fire suppression materials and equipment. (General Plan EIR
Policy 6-11)
As with the development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards
governing fire risk, as necessary. Additionally, wildfire impacts are addressed further in Chapter 4.16,
Wildfire, of this EA. Based on these considerations and the conclusions in Chapter 4.16, overall impacts
from implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-8 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hazards and
hazardous materials.
As described in the General Plan EIR, potential cumulative hazardous impacts could arise from a
combination of future potential development of the Approved Project together with the regional growth
in the immediate vicinity. Development allowed by the Approved Project would not result in significant
impacts from the increased use of hazardous household materials and would not interfere with the
implementation of emergency response plans. In addition, potential project-level impacts associated with
hazards and hazardous materials would be further reduced through compliance with General Plan policies
and strategies; other local, regional, State, and federal regulations; and with implementation of CMC
Sections 17.04.040 (B) and 17.04.050(B).
Similar to the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant impacts from the increased use of hazardous household materials and
would not interfere with the implementation of emergency response plans. Further, future potential
development under the proposed Modified Project and other projects would be required to comply with
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-19
applicable laws, policies, design standards, and mitigation measures governing hazards and hazardous
materials, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe
cumulatively considerable impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-20 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-1
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This chapter describes the potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality that are associated
with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the
regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance,
provides an analysis of the potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, and identifies General
Plan 2040 policies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for water
quality management and the Clean Water Act (CWA ) is the principal statute governing water quality. It
establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States
and gives the EPA authority to implement pollution control programs. In California, the authority is
delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs).
The CWA regulates direct and indirect discharge of pollutants; sets water quality standards for all
contaminants in surface waters; and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a
point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates
permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges; requires states to establish site-specific water quality
standards; and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of
wetlands. The CWA also provides loans for the construction of wastewater treatment plants as well as
nonpoint source pollution control and estuary protection projects through the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
Under federal law, the EPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all
surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two
elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and (2) criteria that protect the
designated uses. Section 304(a) requires the EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately
reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may
be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards
must protect the most sensitive use.
When water quality does not meet CWA standards and compromises designated beneficial uses of a
receiving water body, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that water body be identified and listed as
“impaired.” Once a water body has been designated as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
must be developed for the impairing pollutant(s). A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-2 APRIL 2024
from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable
water quality standards, with a factor of safety included. Once established, the TMDL allocates the loads
among current and future pollutant sources to the water body.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the CWA
to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States, including discharges
from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Federal NPDES permit regulations have been
established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and
nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits
on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions
on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by
the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other
activities. Under the NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the U.S. are
required to obtain an NPDES permit.
Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program. In California, the NPDES
permit program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs. The City of Cupertino lies
within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2) and is subject to the waste discharge
requirements of the Phase I MS4 Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018; NPDES No. CAS612008) that regulates
stormwater discharges from the cities, towns, and agencies within Alameda County, Contra Costa County,
Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Solano County. The City of Cupertino, in addition to the cities
of Campbell, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga,
and Sunnyvale; the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos; the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and Santa
Clara County form the Santa Clara permittees under the MS4 permit
Under Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit, New Development and Redevelopment, the permittees use their
planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and storm water treatment
measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble storm
water runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and
redevelopment projects. The goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low
impact development (LID) techniques. In addition, new development or redevelopment projects that
create or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces are required to comply with hydromodification
requirements specified in the C.3.g provisions of the MS4 permit. These requirements include
implementing stormwater control measures such that post-development stormwater runoff rates and
durations must match pre-project runoff rates and durations from 10 percent of the pre-project 2-year
peak flow, up to the pre-project 10-year peak flow.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting
development in floodplains. FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify which land
areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-3
community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of
flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a
1-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year. Under the proposed Modified Project, new housing could
be placed within a 100-year floodplain.
As required by the FEMA regulations, all development constructed within the 100-year floodplain (as
delineated on the FIRM) must be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the base flood elevation
level. Local cities and counties have the authority to require the lowest floor to be at a higher elevation
than the FEMA requirements to account for climate change and sea level rise. The term “development” is
defined by FEMA as any human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not
limited to, buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling
operations, and storage of equipment or materials. Per these regulations, if development in these areas
occurs, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed prior to the start of development and must
demonstrate that the development does not cause any rise in base flood elevation levels. Following
completion of any development that changes existing 100-year floodplain boundaries, the NFIP directs all
participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM
revision as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data become available.
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water
quality control law for California. This act established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional
basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for
the protection of California’s water quality and groundwater supplies. The RWQCBs carry out the
regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required
to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in
existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water, and local water quality
conditions and problems. As described previously, the City of Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of the
San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2).
The Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce WDRs, NPDES
permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. Other State agencies with jurisdiction
over water quality regulation in California include the SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water, which regulates
public drinking water systems; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which regulates projects
that could impact streams and rivers; and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, which oversees
cleanup of hazardous waste on contaminated properties.
State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB has broad authority over water quality control issues in California. The SWRCB is responsible
for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the
federal government under the CWA. It also regulates public drinking water systems, NPDES wastewater
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-4 APRIL 2024
discharges, water quality monitoring, water recycling programs, landfill disposal, water rights, and
implements drought restrictions.
Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. Regional
boundaries are based on watersheds and water quality requirements are based on the unique differences
in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology for each watershed. Each RWQCB makes water quality
decisions for its region, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements, determining
compliance with these requirements, and taking appropriate enforcement actions. The regional boards
are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish
water quality objectives in the plans. The City of Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco
Bay RWQCB (Region 2), which regulates surface water and groundwater quality in the watershed that
encompasses all or part of the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.
SWRCB Construction General Permit
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must
comply with the requirements of the newly reissued SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order WQ
2022-0057-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002), which was adopted on September 8, 2022, and becomes
effective on September 1, 2023. Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration
Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent,
risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed
certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple
Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.
Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMPs ) and
prepare a SWPPP containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed
buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and
after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be
implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could
contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a weekly visual monitoring
program, a sampling program to ensure compliance with water quality standards, and on-site collection of
samples and inspection of BMPs prior to, during, and after qualifying precipitation events. Water quality
monitoring has a schedule based on the risk level of the site.
In addition, the City under Municipal Code 16.08.110 has the authority to require submittal of an interim
and final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for projects that require grading permits. The ESCP
must describe the location and types of erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented
during the construction phase, vegetative measures such as erosion control planting and seeding, and
calculation of maximum surface runoff amounts from the construction site. Projects subject to the SWRCB
Construction General Permit may include the ESCP provisions within the SWPPP.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-5
SWRCB Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters
of California to control trash. In addition, the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters,
Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California added Part 1, Trash Provisions. Together, they are collectively
referred to as “the Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments apply to all surface waters of California
and include a land-use-based compliance approach to focus trash controls on areas with high trash-
generation rates. Areas such as high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public
transportation stations are considered priority land uses. There are two compliance tracks for Phase I and
Phase II MS4 permittees:
Track 1: Permittees must install, operate, and maintain a network of certified full capture systems in
storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses.
Track 2: Permittees must implement a plan with a combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit
projects, institutional controls, and/or other treatment methods that have the same effectiveness as
Track 1 methods.
The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement their provisions. Full
compliance must occur within 10 years of the permit, and permittees must also meet interim milestones
such as average load reductions of 10 percent per year. The Trash A mendments require municipalities to
install certified trash control systems, such as filters, on all catch basins no later than December 2, 2030.1
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
In the midst of a major drought in 2014, a three-bill legislative package consisting of Assembly Bill (AB)
1739, Senate Bill (SB) 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA), was signed into law on September 16, 2014.2 The Governor ’s signing message
states “a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is
best accomplished locally.” Under SGMA, in groundwater basins that are designated as medium and high
priority, local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) must assess conditions in
their local groundwater basins and then prepare groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs ).
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act includes the State of California’s Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), which requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation
ordinances. The MWELO was revised in July 2015 via Executive Order B-29-15 to address the ongoing
drought and to build resiliency for future droughts. State law requires all land use agencies, which includes
cities and counties, to adopt a WELO that is at least as efficient as the MWELO prepared by DWR.
1 State Water Resources Quality Control Board, September 2024, Storm Water Program - Trash Implementation Program.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implementation.html, accessed January 12, 2024.
2 Department of Water Resources, 2024, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA),
https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/sgma-groundwater-management, accessed January 12, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-6 APRIL 2024
The 2015 revisions to the MWELO improve water savings in the landscaping sector by promoting efficient
landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The revisions increase water-efficiency
standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage,
and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf.
New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to these
requirements and also rehabilitated landscape projects with an area equal to or greater than 2,500 square
feet. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit,
plan check, or design review.3 The City of Cupertino has adopted its own Landscape Ordinance, Chapter
14.15 of the Municipal Code, that complies with and is more stringent than the MWELO.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
The CDFW protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the streambed alteration
agreement process under Sections 1600 to 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Fish and
Game Code stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or
substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW,
incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a streambed alteration agreement. CDFW’s jurisdiction
extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation.
Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
As stated previously, the City of Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB
(Region 2). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB addresses region-wide water quality issues through the creation
and triennial update of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The
Basin Plan was adopted in 1993 and most recently amended in 2023. The Basin Plan designates beneficial
uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve
those objectives for all waters designated in the Basin Plan.4 The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also
administers the MS4 permit for Santa Clara County and the municipalities within the county, including the
City of Cupertino.
Regional Stormwater MS4 Permit
Municipal stormwater discharge in the City of Cupertino is subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs) of the MS4 Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018 and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). Provision C.3 of
the MRP requirements applies to all new development that create or replace 5,000 square feet of
impervious surfaces and single-family homes that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious
surface. Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit also mandates that new development and redevelopment
projects must: (1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment on-site; (2) minimize
the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge; and (3) minimize the rate
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, Section 490.1, Applicability.
4 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2024, Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San
Francisco Bay Basin, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html, accessed January 11, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-7
and volume of stormwater runoff under post-development conditions. Low-impact development (LID)
methods are the primary mechanisms for implementing such controls.
New development projects must design and construct stormwater treatment systems that capture a
percentage of the flow rate or volume from a specified storm event based on the sizing criteria described
in the C.3 provisions of the MRP. The treatment systems use LID measures that include rainwater
harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment/bioretention.
In order to comply with Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit, regulated projects would be required to submit a
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and a completed Provision C.3 Data Form with building plans, to
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The SWMP must be prepared under the
direction of and certified by a licensed and qualified professional, which includes civil engineers,
architects, or landscape architects.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water)
The Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water, is a water resources agency responsible
for balancing flood protection needs with the protection of natural watercourses and habitat in the Santa
Clara Valley. Founded in 1929, the SCVWD serves all of Santa Clara County, including 15 cities and 2 million
residents, provides wholesale water supply, groundwater management, operates three water treatment
plants and a recycled water purification center, manages ten dams and water reservoirs and 400 acres of
groundwater recharge ponds, and provides flood protection along the creeks and rivers in the county.
The Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program was first approved by voters in Santa Clara
County in 2000 and renewed in November 2020 and creates a countywide special parcel tax to fund
projects that deliver safe, clean water, natural flood protection, and environmental stewardship to all
communities within the county. The six priorities are to:5
Ensure a safe, reliable water supply
Reduce toxins, hazard, and contaminants in our waterways
Protect our water supply and dams from earthquakes and other natural disasters
Restore wildlife habitat and provide open space
Provide flood protection to homes, businesses, schools, streets, and highways
Support public health and public safety for our community.
Completed projects include programs to restore stream habitats, conduct environmental education
seminars, development of trails and open space, and the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project. In
progress are the Permanente Creek, San Francisquito Creek, and Upper Llagas Creek flood protection
projects.
In addition, Valley Water has developed a Water Supply Master Plan, which is updated approximately
every five years. This long-range plan assesses future countywide water demands and evaluates and
recommends water supply and infrastructure projects to meet those demands. The most recent plan,
5 Valley Water, 2024. Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program. https://www.valleywater.org/safe-clean-
water-and-natural-flood-protection-program, accessed January 11, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-8 APRIL 2024
Water Supply Master Plan 2040, was adopted in 2019 and addresses water demands and supply through
the year 2040.6
Groundwater in the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasin is also managed by Valley Water as per SGMA
requirements. Valley Water is the designated Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for these
groundwater subbasins and has a Department of Water Resources (DWR) approved Alternative to a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).7
Valley Water also prepares Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) every five years that provides
information on water supply sources, historical water usage, water conservation programs, demand
projections, water shortage contingencies, and water quality. The latest Valley Water UWMP is dated
2020.8
Valley Water also reviews plans for development projects near streams to ensure that the proposed storm
drain systems and wastewater disposal systems will not adversely impact water quality in the streams. In
addition, Valley Water reviews projects for conformance to flood control design criteria, stream
maintenance and protection plans, and groundwater protection programs.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP)
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) is an association of 13
cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley, together with the County of Santa Clara and Valley Water. The
RWQCB has conveyed responsibility for implementation of storm water regulations to the member
agencies of SCVURPPP. The SCVURPPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed
at improving the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of the Santa Clara Valley to
reduce pollution in urban runoff to the “maximum extent practicable.” The SCVURPPP maintains
compliance with the MS4 Permit and promotes storm water pollution prevention within that context.
Participating agencies (including the City of Cupertino) must meet the provisions of the Santa Clara
County permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate water quality impacts to
storm water runoff both during the construction and operation of projects.9
The SCVURPPP has also developed the Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan that describes a
comprehensive plan to identify and prioritize potential stormwater and dry weather runoff capture
projects in the Santa Clara Basin. It also provides information for the development and implementation of
Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GFI) plans that municipalities within Santa Clara County are required to
implement with the help of State grant funding.10
In addition, the SCVURPPP has developed the C.3 Stormwater Handbook that provides guidance to
developers, builders, and project applicants to ensure compliance with the requirements of the MS4
6 Valley Water, 2019. Water Supply Master Plan.
7 Valley Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
8 Valley Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
9 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), 2024. About SCVURPPP.
https://scvurppp.org/about-scvurppp/ accessed on January 13, 2024.
10 EOA, Paradigm, and Lotus Water, 2019. Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-9
permit and implement appropriate post-construction stormwater control measures for new development
and redevelopment projects. The document describes the applicable site design measures, source control
measures, and stormwater treatment measures that are required to be implemented for all regulated
projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces. In addition, projects
that create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces are required to also implement
hydromodification measures.11 The City’s Public Works Department reviews SWMPs to ensure compliance
with the C.3. provisions of the MS4 permit.
Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative
The Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) was initiated in 1996 by the EPA, the SWRCB, and the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB to address all sources of pollution that threaten the Bay and to protect water
quality throughout Santa Clara Basin watersheds. In the past, specific issues affecting watersheds had
been addressed by separate regulatory actions, resulting in a "patchwork" approach. A major aim of the
WMI is to coordinate existing regulatory activities on a basin-wide scale, ensuring that problems are
addressed efficiently and cost-effectively.
The Santa Clara Basin WMI consists of collaborative groups from regional and local public agencies; civic,
environmental, resource conservation and agricultural groups; professional and trade organizations;
business and industrial sectors; and the general public. The purpose of the WMI is “to develop and
implement a comprehensive watershed management program – one that recognizes that healthy
watersheds mean addressing water quality problems and quality of life issues for the people, animals, and
plants that live in the watershed.” The WMI has continued to develop its foundation by producing a
watershed characteristics report (2003), a watershed assessment report (2003), a watershed action plan
(2003), a zero litter initiative (2021), plastics pollution prevention summit (2011), impacts of
homelessness on creeks (2011), and educational materials to reduce water usage by the general public.12
Santa Clara County General Plan
The Santa Clara County General Plan contains the goals, strategies, policies, and implementing actions
that guide in the overall land use development of the county. Unincorporated lands within Santa Clara
County that are within Cupertino’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) are subject to land use jurisdiction and
regulatory authority by the County. In addition, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Santa Clara
Basin Watershed Management Initiative have jurisdiction for streams and watersheds within the city limits
and the SOI. Therefore, the Santa Clara County General Plan goals and policies relevant to hydrology and
water quality are listed in Table 4.9-1.
11 SCVURPPP, 2016. C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Requirements for New
Development and Redevelopment Projects. Dated June 2016.
12 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (WMI), 2024. http://www.scbwmi.org/index.htm accessed January
13, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-10 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.9-1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Number Policies and Strategies
Strategy #1 Reduce non-point source pollution.
Policy C-RC 22
Countywide, compliance should be achieved with the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges into S.F. Bay, and to that end, the
Countywide Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program should receive the full support and
participation of each member jurisdiction.
Policy C-RC 23 The Countywide Storm Water Management Plan should be routinely reviewed and updated as
additional information is collected on the effectiveness of prescribed control measures.
Policy C-RC 24 Efforts to increase public awareness and education concerning nonpoint source pollution control
should be encouraged.
Strategy #2 Restore wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats which improve Bay water quality.
Policy C-RC 25
Wetlands restoration for the purpose of enhancing municipal wastewater treatment processes,
improving habitat and passive recreational opportunities should be encouraged and developed
where cost-effective and practical.
Strategy #3 Prepare and implement comprehensive watershed management plan.
Policy C-RC 26
Comprehensive watershed management plans should be developed and implemented through
intergovernmental coordination. Water supply watersheds should receive special consideration and
additional protection.
Source: Santa Clara County General Plan, 1994, https://plandev.sccgov.org/ordinances-codes/general-plan accessed on January 13, 2024.
Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and all incorporated cities in Santa Clara
County collaborated to prepare a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. The Hazard Mitigation Plan
focuses on protecting communities and residents in Santa Clara County from risks associated with hazards
such as earthquakes, flood, fires, drought, dam failure and other hazards.13 The City of Cupertino has
prepared an annex to the Hazard Mitigation Plan that describes the natural hazard events that have
occurred in the past within the City and what actions the City is taking to minimize potential impacts from
natural disasters. Flooding is considered a medium risk, and the City is developing a GIS map that shows
localized flooding “hot spots” throughout the City.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), Health and Safety (HS), and Infrastructure Elements
of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts to hydrology and water quality. Applicable policies and
strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality are identified in
Section 4.9.3, Impact Discussion.
13 Office of Emergency Services, County of Santa Clara & Santa Clara County Fire. 2017. Santa Clara County Operational Area
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-11
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to
hydrology and water quality and soils in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section.
Most provisions related to hydrology and water quality are included in Title 3, Revenue and Finance, Title
9, Health and Sanitation, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, and Title 16, Building and
Construction, as follows:
Chapter 3.36, Storm Drainage Service Charge, outlines the requirements for the payment of fees to
conserve and protect the City’s storm drainage system from the burden placed on it by the increasing
flow of nonpoint source runoff and to otherwise meet the requirements developed by the Santa Clara
Va lley Non-Point Source Control and Storm Water Management Program established to comply with
the CWA, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) regulations and the City’s NPDES
permits. The specific purpose of the storm drainage service charges established pursuant to this
chapter is to derive revenue which shall only be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
maintenance, and operation of the storm drainage system of the City to repay principal and interest
on any bonds which may hereafter be issued for said purposes, to repay loans or advances which may
hereafter be made for said purposes and for any other purpose set forth in Section 3.36.160.
However, said revenue shall not be used for the acquisition or construction of new local street storm
sewers or storm laterals as distinguished from main trunk, interceptor, and outfall storm sewers.
Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, provides regulations and
gives legal effect to the MRP issued to the City of Cupertino and ensures ongoing compliance with the
most recent version of the City of Cupertino's NPDES permit regarding municipal storm water and
urban runoff requirements. This chapter applies to all water entering the storm drain system
generated on any private, public, developed, and undeveloped lands lying within the city. The code
contains permit requirements for construction projects and new development or redevelopment
projects to minimize the discharge of storm water runoff.
Chapter 9.19, Water Resources Protection, requires property owners to obtain permits for any
modifications to properties adjacent to a stream except when: 1) less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork
is planned provided it does not damage, weaken, erode or reduce the effectiveness of the stream to
withhold storm and flood waters; 2) a fence 6 feet or less in height; 3) an accessory structure 120
square feet or less in size; 4) interior or exterior modification within the existing footprint; or
5) landscaping on existing single-family lots.
Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping
Act of 2006 by establishing new water-efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. In general,
any building or landscape projects that involve more than 2,500 square feet of landscape area are
required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal to the Director of Community Development for
approval. Existing and established landscapes over 1 acre, including cemeteries, are required to
submit water budget calculations and audits of established landscapes.
Chapter 16.18, Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, requires preparation of an Interim Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan. Specifically, Section 16.18.110 states that the Plan shall be either
integrated with the site map/grading plan or submitted separately, to the Director of Public Works
that calculates the maximum runoff from the site for the 10-year storm event and describes measures
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-12 APRIL 2024
to be undertaken to retain sediment on the site, a brief description of the surface runoff and erosion
control measures to be implemented, and vegetative measures to be undertaken.
Chapter 16.52, Prevention of Flood Damage, applies to all areas of special flood hazard (i.e. 100-year
floodplain) within the City. A development permit must be obtained and reviewed by the Director of
Public Works before new construction, substantial improvements or development (including the
placement of prefabricated buildings and manufactured homes) begins within any area of special
flood hazard. The chapter also contains construction standards that must be implemented within the
100-year floodplain to protect buildings and improvements from flood damage.
Storm Drain Master Plan
The capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino was evaluated and documented in
the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan.14 While most areas within the City provide adequate stormwater
conveyance for the 10-year rainfall event, there are areas that would benefit from improvements to the
stormwater conveyance capacity. There are also regions within the City that lack a formal drainage system
and would require improvements.
The City collects Storm Drain Fees for new construction projects to fund improvements to the storm drain
system. The next storm drain improvements that are scheduled to be implemented, as described in the
Capital Improvement Program (2021-2022), include storm drain improvements at Pumpkin Drive, Fiesta
Lane, September Drive, and Festival Drive (scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2021-2022).15 These areas
were listed as high priority for improvement in the Storm Drain Master Plan.
Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan
The Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan was prepared by the Santa Clara County Fire Department for the
City of Cupertino and passed and adopted by the City of Cupertino under Resolution Number 12-124 on
October 16, 2012.16 The Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan was created pursuant to the Emergency
Services Act. In accordance with the intent of the Emergency Services Act, future reviews and/or updates
of this plan are to be undertaken every two years or as needed. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office,
Santa Clara County Fire Department, as well as the Cupertino Disaster Council, will provide reviews and
updates to the Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan.
The Stevens Creek Dam and Reservoir is owned by Valley Water, which is regulated by DWR Division of
Safety of Dams (DSOD). Valley Water is required by the Emergency Services Act, Section 8589.5(b) and
California Water Code, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 6002 to take all necessary actions to protect
life and property in inundation areas and to provide inundation maps to DWR.
14 City of Cupertino, 2018. City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan. Prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler. Dated September
2018.
15 City of Cupertino, 2021. Capital Improvement Program, FY 2021-2022.
16 Santa Clara Fire Department, 2012. Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan. Adopted by City of Cupertino Resolution No.
12-124.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-13
The Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan addresses the potential failures (full or partial) of the Stevens
Creek Dam and Reservoir that could impact the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Los
Altos. The plan is designed to:
Provide guidelines to the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Mountain View, affected public
and private agencies, special districts, non-governmental organizations, and mutual aid emergency
organizations in the event of a potential or imminent/actual failure of the dam.
Assign planning and functional responsibilities.
Outline public notification and information strategies.
Identify resources to ensure a swift, coordinated response.
Outline recovery strategies for psychological and physical health effects, repairing infrastructure,
debris removal, and rebuilding.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the hydrology and water
quality-related impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. Impacts
were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The setting for
hydrology and water quality is described in detail in General Plan EIR Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations equivalent to the General
Plan mitigation measures to reduce impacts in the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 17.04,
Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. Although no mitigation measures were included in the
Hydrology and Water Quality section of the General Plan EIR, the City has the following requirement in
Chapter 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements:
Control Stormwater Runoff Contamination. The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) of the Cupertino Municipal
Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino. All identified stormwater runoff control measures
shall be included in the applicable construction documents.
Additional CMC code requirements that pertain to hydrology and water quality are provided in the
Municipal Code section provided above.
4.9.2 Standards of Significance
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant hydrology
and water quality impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project
(General Plan
2040 EIR)
Impact of
the
Proposed
Modified
Project
HYD-1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? LTS LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-14 APRIL 2024
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant hydrology
and water quality impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project
(General Plan
2040 EIR)
Impact of
the
Proposed
Modified
Project
HYD-2. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
LTS LTS
HYD-3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows
LTS LTS
HYD-4. In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation? LTS LTS
HYD-5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan? LTS LTS
HYD-6. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hydrology and water
quality? LTS LTS
Notes: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of
this EA. Revisions were made to each of the questions, and as such this EA only analyzes the current questions HYD-1through HYD-5 shown here.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
4.9.3 Impact Discussion
HYD-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
The General Plan 2040 EIR found that future proposed development would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality. Water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the SCVURPPP and the City of Cupertino
in compliance with the C.3 provisions of the MS4 permit adopted by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The
proposed Modified Project would also be required to comply with these regulatory provisions.
Adherence to these permit conditions requires all future potential development or redevelopment
projects under the General Plan 2040 and the proposed Modified Project to incorporate stormwater
treatment measures, provide ongoing operation and maintenance for perpetuity, and implement other
appropriate source control and site design features that reduce pollutants in runoff. Low impact
development (LID) practices such as the use of onsite infiltration that reduce pollutant loading.
Incorporation of these measures can even improve stormwater quality as compared to existing conditions.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-15
In addition, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to
comply with the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed
Protection, and implement a construction SWPPP that require the incorporation of BMPs to control
sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Element
contains policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts
that development could have on water quality. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General
Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed
Modified Project, would also protect water quality and reduce potential impacts to water quality.
Policy ES-5.1: Urban Ecosystem. Manage the public and private development to ensure the protection
and enhancement of its urban ecosystem.
Strategy ES-5.1.1: Landscaping. Ensure that the City’s tree planting landscaping and open space
policies enhance the urban ecosystem by encouraging medians, pedestrian crossing curb extensions
planting that is native, drought tolerant, treats stormwater and enhances urban plant aquatic and
animal resources in both private and public development.
Strategy ES-5.1.2: Built Environment. Ensure that sustainable landscaping design is incorporated in the
development of City facilities, parks, and private projects with the inclusion of measures such as tree
protection, stormwater treatment and planting of native, drought tolerant landscaping that is
beneficial to the environment.
Policy ES-5.2: Development near Sensitive Areas. Encourage the clustering of new development away
from sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space
preserves and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have a harmonious landscaping plan
approved prior to development.
Strategy ES-5.2.1: Riparian Corridor Protection. Require the protection of riparian corridors through
the development approval process.
Policy ES-5.3: Landscaping in and Near Natural Vegetation. Preserve and enhance existing natural
vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development is proposed within existing
natural areas. When development is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the landscaping to
be consistent with the palate of vegetation found in the natural vegetation.
Strategy ES-5.3.1: Native Plants. Continue to emphasize the planting of native, drought tolerant, pest
resistant, non-invasive, climate appropriate plants and ground covers, particularly for erosion control
and to prevent disturbance of the natural terrain. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-10)
Strategy ES-5.3.2: Hillsides. Minimize lawn area in the hillsides.
Strategy ES-5.6.1: Creek and Water Course Identification. Require identification of creeks, water
courses and riparian areas on site plans and require that they be protected from adjacent
development.
Policy ES-7.1: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. In public and private development, use
Low Impact Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by mimicking natural hydrology,
minimizing grading, and protecting or restoring natural drainage systems. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-
18)
Strategy ES-7.1.1: Development Plans. Continue to require topographical information, identification of
creeks, streams, and drainage area; and grading plans for both public and private development
proposals to ensure protection and efficient use of water resources.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-16 APRIL 2024
Policy ES-7.2: Reduction of Impervious Surfaces. Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts
resulting from development and use low impact development (LID) designs to treat stormwater or
recharge groundwater. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-19)
Strategy ES-7.2.1: Lot Coverage. Consider updating lot coverage requirements to include paved
surfaces such as driveways and on-grade impervious patios to incentivize the construction of pervious
surfaces.
Strategy ES-7.2.2: Pervious Walkways and Driveways. Encourage the use of pervious materials for
walkways and driveways. If used on public or quasi-public property, mobility and access for the
disabled should take preference. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-19)
Strategy ES-7.2.3: Maximize Infiltration. Minimize impervious surface areas and maximize on-site
filtration and the use of on-site retention facilities.
Policy ES-7.3: Pollution and Flow Impacts. Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are
reduced through development review and voluntary efforts. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-20)
Strategy ES-7.3.1: Development Review. Require LID designs such as vegetated stormwater treatment
systems and green infrastructure to mitigate pollutant loads and flows.
Strategy ES-7.3.2: Creek Clean Up. Encourage volunteer organizations to help clean creek beds to
reduce pollution and help return waterways to their natural state. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-18)
Policy ES-7.4: Watershed Based Planning. Review long-term plans and development projects to ensure
good stewardship of watersheds.
Strategy ES-7.4.1: Storm Drainage Master Plan. Develop and maintain a Storm Drainage Master Plan
which identifies facilities needs to previous “10-year” event street flooding and “100-year” event
structure flooding and integrate green infrastructure to meet water quality protection needs in a cost
effective manner. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-22)
Strategy ES-7.4.2: Watershed Management Plans. Work with other agencies to develop broader
Watershed Management Plans to model and control the City’s hydrology.
Strategy ES-7.4.3: Development. Review development plans to ensure that projects are examined in
the context of impacts on the entire watershed, in order to comply with the City’s non-point source
Municipal Regional Permit.
Policy ES-7.5: Groundwater Recharge Sites. Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts to find
and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino and provide public recreation where
possible. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-32)
Policy ES-7.6: Other Water Sources. Encourage the research of other water sources, including water
reclamation.
Policy ES-7.8: Natural Water Courses. Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses
and associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and
assist in groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of such areas.
Strategy ES-7.8.1: Inter-Agency Coordination. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by
use of flow increase mitigation measures, such as hydromodification controls as established by the
Municipal Regional Permit.
With implementation of these General Plan policies and strategies, in conjunction with the SCVURPPP and
MS4 permit requirements, potential future development pursuant to the proposed Modified Project
would not violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements for both construction and
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-17
operational phases. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of
the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts regarding violating water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
The impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYD-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
The General Plan 2040 EIR found that future potential development would not substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Similarly, the proposed
Modified Project, which would only add 3,312 new dwelling units, would not impact groundwater supplies
or recharge, as discussed below.
Groundwater Recharge
Most of the potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would occur on infill sites,
most of which have already been developed and have a high percentage of impervious surfaces. New
projects would be required to implement LID measures, including on-site infiltration, where feasible,
which would increase the potential for groundwater recharge. The SCVURPPP guidance document and the
MS4 permit require site design measures, source control measures, LID standards, and hydromodification
measures to be included in potential future development projects and a SWMP must be submitted to and
approved by the City prior to construction. These measures would contribute to groundwater recharge
and minimize stormwater runoff by including pervious pavements, drainage to landscaped areas and
bioretention areas, and the collection of rooftop runoff in rain barrels or cisterns. Also, compliance with
the General Plan policies listed in Impact Discussion HYD-1 and herein would facilitate groundwater
recharge efforts:
Strategy ES-7.2.3: Maximize Infiltration. Minimize impervious surface areas and maximize on-site
filtration and the use of on-site retention facilities.
Policy ES-7.5: Groundwater Recharge Sites. Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts to find
and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino and provide public recreation where
possible.
Policy ES-7.8: Natural Water Courses. Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses
and associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and
assist in groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of such areas.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-18 APRIL 2024
Almost all of Cupertino is within the Santa Clara Subbasin recharge area. The McClellan Ponds recharge
facility is in Cupertino, and the creeks that flow through the city provide seepage and natural groundwater
recharge. The proposed Modified Project would not place potential new development in close proximity
to the McClellan Ponds recharge facility or the creeks and streams that run through the city, as per
Chapter 9.19 of the CMC and the General Plan policies.
Groundwater Supply
San Jose Water Company and California Water Service Company are the water purveyors for the City of
Cupertino. They obtain their water supplies from groundwater wells and purchases from Valley Water,
which is the wholesale water provider and groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County. A
detailed discussion of water supply impacts is provided in Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of
this SEIR.
Valley Water’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan indicates that there is a sufficient supply of water
through 2045 during normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years.17 Groundwater conditions in
the Santa Clara Subbasin are sustainable with managed and in-lieu recharge programs maintaining
adequate storage to meet annual water supply needs and provide a buffer against drought conditions.
Valley Water operates and maintains an active groundwater recharge program with 18 major recharge
systems, over 70 off-stream ponds with a combined surface area of more than 320 acres, and over 30
local creeks. Runoff is captured in Valley Water’s reservoirs and released into both in-stream and off-
stream recharge ponds for percolation into the groundwater basin. In addition, imported water is
delivered by the raw water conveyance system to streams and ponds. Because Valley Water has a surplus
water supply, even during drought conditions, the proposed Modified Project, which would add only
3,312 new dwelling units, would not substantially interfere with groundwater supplies.
Compliance with the MS4 requirements for new construction and water efficient landscaping, as well as
implementation of the General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies, would further protect
groundwater resources. Therefore, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to groundwater recharge beyond what
was evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
17 Valley Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-19
HYD-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i)
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows.
Erosion and Siltation
Potential future development and changes in land use pursuant to the Modified Project could result in an
increase in impervious surfaces. This, in turn, could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak
discharges to storm drains, and the potential to cause erosion or siltation in streams. Increases in tributary
flows can exacerbate creek bank erosion or cause destabilizing channel incision.
All future potential development pursuant to the Modified Project would be required to implement
construction-phase BMPs as well as post-construction site design, source control measures, and
treatment controls in accordance with the requirements of the CGP, the CMC, the MS4 Permit, and the
City’s Construction Best Management Practices. Typical construction BMPs include silt fences, fiber rolls,
catch basin inlet protection, water trucks, street sweeping, and stabilization of truck entrance/exits. Each
new potential development or redevelopment project that disturbs one or more acre of land would be
required to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the SWRCB that describes the measures to control erosion
and sedimentation due to construction activities.
Once future potential development projects have been constructed, the MS4 permit requirements for
new development or redevelopment projects must be implemented and include site design measures,
source control measures, LID, and treatment measures that address stormwater runoff and would reduce
the potential for erosion and siltation. Site design measures include limits on clearing, grading, and soil
compaction; minimizing impervious surfaces; conserving the natural areas of the site as much as possible;
complying with stream setback ordinances; and protecting slopes and channels from erosion. LID
measures include the use of permeable pavements, directing runoff to pervious areas, and the
construction of bioretention areas. The SWMP submitted to the City must also include operation and
maintenance procedures and an agreement to maintain any stormwater treatment and control facilities
for perpetuity. Adherence to the streambed alteration agreement process under Sections 1601 to 1606 of
the California Fish and Game Code would further reduce erosion and siltation impacts that may occur due
to streambed alterations. Projects subject to hydromodification must also maintain the pre-project creek
erosion potential by implementing various control measures. Compliance with these regional and local
regulatory requirements would ensure that erosion and siltation impacts from future potential
development and redevelopment projects would be less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-20 APRIL 2024
Flooding On- and Off-Site
Future potential development and changes in land uses pursuant to the proposed Modified Project could
result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which in turn could result in an increase in stormwater runoff,
higher peak discharges to drainage channels, and the potential to cause nuisance flooding in areas
without adequate drainage facilities. However, all future potential development must comply with the
requirements of the MS4 Permit and the SCVURPPP and City’s stormwater requirements for construction
and operation. Regulated projects must implement BMPs, including LID measures and site design BMPs,
which effectively minimize imperviousness, retain or detain stormwater on-site, decrease surface water
flows, and slow runoff rates. Projects that create and/or replace one acre of impervious surface must also
adhere to the hydromodification requirements of the MS4 permit and the to ensure that the post-project
runoff does not exceed the pre-project runoff by more than 10 percent. In general, new housing units
under the proposed Modified Project would replace existing land uses, and compliance with these
requirements should result in lower stormwater runoff rates compared to existing conditions. Therefore,
future projects under the proposed Modified Project would not result in flooding on- or off-site, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Storm Drain System Capacity
As stated in the impact discussions above, an increase in impervious surfaces with future potential
development pursuant to the proposed Modified Project could result in increases in stormwater runoff,
which in turn could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Projects that involve the creation and/or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces
and single-family homes that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces
would trigger the implementation of stormwater treatment measures to reduce stormwater runoff, as per
the MS4 Permit and the SCVURPPP requirements. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City would
require completion and submittal of a SWMP and Provision C.3 Data Form for review and approval to
ensure that these requirements are met. Stormwater treatment measures are required to temporarily
detain site runoff, using specific numeric sizing criteria based on volume and flow rate. Implementation of
these stormwater measures would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff that is ultimately discharged
to the City’s storm drain system and the creeks that run through Cupertino. Projects that create and/or
replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces must also adhere to the hydromodification requirements
of the MS4 permit to ensure that post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff by more than 10
percent. Most of the new housing units under the proposed Modified Project would be replacing existing
land uses that are already connected to the City’s storm drain system. Implementation of these MS4 and
County and City stormwater requirements would typically result in less stormwater runoff as compared to
existing conditions.
Also, as part of the permitting process, future potential development projects would be required to pay a
storm water assessment, as per CMC Chapter 3.36, Storm Drainage Service Charge, which is designed to
mitigate the impacts of stormwater that is discharged into the creeks and waterways in Cupertino. The
assessments are used to evaluate and maintain the storm drain system, implement flood control
improvements, respond to flooding issues, and restore creeks and habitat.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-21
The proposed Modified Project would not create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. During
the construction phase, projects would be required to prepare SWPPPs, thus limiting the discharge of
pollutants from the site. During operation, projects must implement BMPs and LID measures that
minimize the amount of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants.
With implementation of these provisions for future potential development and redevelopment projects
and the construction of regional detention basins, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
significant increases in runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain facilities,
and the impact is less than significant.
Redirecting Flood Flows
The discussion above regarding on- and off-site flooding is also applicable to the analysis of impeding or
redirecting flood flows. Since new development projects are required to comply the MS4 Permit and
retain stormwater on-site via the use of bioretention facilities or other stormwater treatment measures,
any flood flows would also be retained for a period of time on-site, which would minimize the potential
for flooding impacts. Impact Discussion HYD-4 describes the potential for impeding or redirecting flood
flows with development in areas within the 100-year floodplain. Based on these discussions, impacts
related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant
In addition to the General Plan 2040 Elements listed in Impact Discussion HYD-1, the General Plan EIR also
found that the Infrastructure (INF) Element contains policies and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on flood flows and storm drain
capacities. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and
updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize
adverse impacts to flood flows and storm drain capacity:
Policy INF-1.1: Infrastructure Planning. Upgrade and enhance the City’s infrastructure through the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and requirements for development.
Strategy INF-1.1.1: Capital Improvement Program. Ensure that CIP projects reflect the goals and
policies identified in Community Vision 2040.
Strategy INF-1.1.2: Design Capacity. Ensure that the public infrastructure is designed to meet planned
needs and to avoid the need for future upsizing. Maintain a balance between meeting future growth
needs and over-sizing of infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts or impacts to other goals.
Strategy INF-1.1.3: Coordination. Require coordination of construction activity between various
providers, particularly in City facilities and rights-of-way, to ensure that the community is not
unnecessarily inconvenienced. Require that providers maintain adequate space for all utilities when
planning and constructing their infrastructure. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-34)
Policy INF-1.2: Maintenance. Ensure that existing facilities are maintained to meet the community’s
needs. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-49)
Policy INF-1.3: Coordination. Coordinate with utility and service providers to ensure that their
planning and operations meet the City’s service standards and future growth.
Policy INF-1.4: Funding. Explore various strategies and opportunities to fund existing and future
infrastructure needs.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-22 APRIL 2024
Strategy INF-1.4.1: Existing Infrastructure. Require developers to expand or update existing
infrastructure to increase capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.
Strategy INF-1.4.2: Future Infrastructure Needs. For new infrastructure, require new development to
pay its fair share of, or to extend or construct, improvements to accommodate growth without
impacting service levels.
Strategy INF-1.4.3: Economic Development. Prioritize funding of infrastructure to stimulate economic
development and job creation in order to increase opportunities for municipal revenue.
Policy INF4.1: Planning and Management. Create plans and operational policies to develop and
maintain an effective and efficient stormwater system. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-49)
Strategy INF-4.1.1: Management. Reduce the demand on storm drain capacity through
implementation of programs that meet and even exceed on-site drainage requirements.
Strategy INF-4.1.2: Infrastructure. Develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City’s storm
drain infrastructure that meets the current and future needs of the community.
Strategy INF-4.1.3: Maintenance. Ensure that the City’s storm drain infrastructure is appropriately
maintained to reduce flood hazards through implementation of best practices.
Policy INF-4.2: Funding. Develop permanent sources of funding storm water infrastructure
construction and maintenance.
Strategy INF-4.2.1: Ongoing Operations. Review other funding strategies to pay for the ongoing
operations and maintenance of the storm drain system per State and regional requirements.
After compliance with the MS4 permit; the City’s stormwater requirements; and General Plan 2040 goals,
policies, and strategies, future development under the proposed Modified Project would not result in
substantial erosion or siltation and would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff that would
result in flooding, impede or redirect flood flows, or exceed the capacity of the drainage system. Based on
these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to flooding and stormwater flow beyond what
was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYD-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation.
Pollutant Release in Flood Hazard Zones
None of the proposed housing sites pursuant to the proposed Modified Project would place residential
structures in existing FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains or Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs).
Therefore, there would not be the potential for the release of pollutants due to the placement of
structures in flood hazard zones.
However, in the unlikely event that new housing units are placed in a SFHA or 100-year floodplain, the
construction would be governed by CMC, Chapter 16.52, Prevention of Flood Damage. This chapter sets
forth construction standards that would minimize flood hazard risks, including anchoring and flood-
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-23
proofing, and the placement of fill to elevate structures above the 100-year floodplain elevation. The
creeks that flow through the city pose little risk of flooding as the result of efforts by the City and Valley
Water to modify, restore, and improve the flow channels and implement erosion control measures to
reduce impacts from flooding. In addition, the General Plan 2040 Strategy HS-7.4.1, Dwellings in Flood
Plains, listed below, discourages new residential development in floodplains.
Because the proposed Modified Project would not include the placement of housing in the 100-year
floodplain and new construction would require compliance with General Plan policies, the CMC, and
Santa Clara County water course protection requirements, which limit construction in close proximity to a
stream, the potential for flood hazards would be less than significant.
Pollutant Release in Dam Inundation Zones
The northern portion of Cupertino above Interstate 280 and areas along Stevens Creek are within the dam
inundation zone of Stevens Creek Dam. However, the probability of dam failure is low, and the City and
Santa Clara County have never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are
required to maintain emergency action plans (EAPs) that include procedures for damage assessment and
emergency warnings. An EAP identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned
actions to help minimize property damage and loss of life should those conditions occur. EAPs contain
procedures and information that instruct dam owners to issue early warning and notification messages to
downstream emergency management authorities. Santa Clara County in collaboration with the City and
others have developed the Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan, which identifies how the cities in Santa Clara
County, public and private agencies, special districts, non-governmental organizations, and mutual aid
organizations would prepare, respond, recover, and mitigate a failure of the Stevens Creek Dam. The
General Plan 2040 policies HS-7-1 and HS 7-2, listed below, specifically address this possibility. Because
the likelihood of catastrophic dam failure is very low, impacts related to the release of pollutants due to
dam inundation are not considered to be significant.
Pollutant Releases from Tsunamis and Seiches
Cupertino is more than eight miles south of San Francisco Bay and more than 100 feet above sea level and
is not within any mapped tsunami inundation zone. Therefore, there is no potential for the release of
pollutants due to a tsunami.
Although seiches could theoretically occur at Stevens Creek Reservoir, the wave heights are usually one
foot or less and dams are typically designed with a freeboard height of at least three feet. Therefore, it is
unlikely that a seiche would cause overtopping of the dam, resulting in downstream flooding or the
release of pollutants. Aboveground water storage tanks in the city could experience a seiche associated
with a large earthquake. However, the tanks are constructed to withstand seismic events and would not
result in failure that would cause significant flooding or the release of pollutants.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have
on flooding. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, in
addition to those listed in the previous impact discussion, and updated policies and strategies as part of
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-24 APRIL 2024
the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize the potential for flooding and the release of
pollutants:
Policy HS-1.1: Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning. Coordinate with Santa Clara County and local
agencies to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara
County. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-32)
Strategy HS-1.1.1: Monitoring and Budgeting. Monitor and evaluate the success of the LHMP,
including local strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex (Section 11). Working with Santa Clara
County, ensure that strategies are prioritized and implemented through the Capital Improvement
Program and provide adequate budget for on-going programs and department operations.
Strategy HS-1.1.2: Mitigation Incorporation. Ensure that mitigation actions identified in the LHMP are
being incorporated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where appropriate.
Strategy HS-1.1.3: Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendments and Updates. Support Santa Clara County in
its role as the lead agency that prepares and updates the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. (General Plan
EIR Policy 6-1)
Policy HS-1.2: Sea Level Rise Protection. Ensure all areas in Cupertino are adequately protected for the
anticipated effects of sea level rise. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-35)
Strategy HS-1.2.1: Monitor Rising Sea Level. Regularly coordinate with regional, state and federal
agencies on rising sea levels in the San Francisco Bay and major tributaries to determine if additional
adaptation strategies should be implemented to address flooding hazards. This includes monitoring
FEMA flood map updates to identify areas in the City susceptible to sea level rise, addressing changes
to state and regional sea and bay level rise estimates, and coordinating with adjacent municipalities
on flood control improvements, as appropriate. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-35)
Strategy HS-1.2.2: Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Provide to the public, as available, up-to-date Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify rising sea levels and changing flood conditions. (General
Plan EIR Policy 6-35)
Policy HS-7.1: Evacuation Map. Prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the flood
hazard areas and distribute it to the general public.
Policy HS-7.2: Emergency Response to Dam Failure. Ensure that Cupertino is prepared to respond to a
potential dam failure. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-43)
Strategy HS-7.2.1: Emergency and Evacuation Plan. Maintain and update a Stevens Creek Dam Failure
Plan, including alert warning and notification systems and appropriate signage. (General Plan EIR
Policy 6-43)
Strategy HS-7.2.2: Inter-Agency Cooperation. Continue to coordinate dam-related evacuation plans
and alert/notification systems with the City of Sunnyvale, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
Santa Clara County to ensure that traffic management between the agencies facilitates life safety. Also
work with other neighboring cities to enhance communication and coordination during a dam-related
emergency. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-43)
Policy HS-7.3: Existing Non-Residential Uses in the Flood Plain. Allow commercial and recreational uses
that are now exclusively within the flood plain to remain in their present use or to be used for
agriculture, provided it doesn’t conflict with Federal, State, and regional requirements.
Policy HS-7.4: Construction in Flood Plains. Continue to implement land use, zoning and building code
regulations limiting new construction in the already urbanized flood hazard areas recognized by the
Federal Flood Insurance Administrator.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-25
Strategy HS-7.4.1: Dwelling in Flood Plains. Discourage new residential development in regulated
flood plains. Regulate all types of redevelopment in natural flood plains. This includes discouraging fill
materials and obstructions that may increase flood potential or modify the natural riparian corridors.
Strategy HS-7.4.2: Description of Flood Zone Regulation. Continue to maintain and update a map of
potential flood hazard areas and a description of flood zone regulations on the City’s website.
Strategy HS-7.4.3: National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System. Continue to
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS).
The General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies listed herein address the potential for flooding, dam
inundation, and seiches. In conjunction with the implementation of the City’s floodplain management
requirements and activation of the City’s emergency response system in the case of a dam failure, the
potential for a release of pollutants from flooding, tsunamis, or seiches would be less than significant.
Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts from the potential for a release of
pollutants from flooding, tsunamis, or seiches beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYD-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.
Adherence to the State CGP, the CMC, the MS4 Permit, and City’s stormwater and water course protection
requirements would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during
construction and operation of future potential development pursuant to the proposed Modified Project.
As a result, site development would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the San Francisco
Bay RWQCB’s Basin Plan. Groundwater conditions in Santa Clara County have been sustainable for many
decades due to Valley Water’s activities that protect and augment groundwater supplies. The Santa Clara
Subbasin is not in critical overdraft and Valley Water uses local and imported surface water to replenish
groundwater through recharge facilities, including ponds and creeks. Valley Water also implements an “in-
lieu” recharge program, including treated water deliveries, water conservation, and water recycling. These
activities reduce demands on the groundwater subbasin. Valley Water has prepared an Alternative to a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan, which has been approved by DWR under the SGMA regulations. And
Valley Water’s 2020 UWMP states that there are sufficient water supplies to serve Santa Clara County
during normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years. With adherence to the General Plan goals,
policies, and strategies listed in Impact Discussion HYD-2, and continued compliance with State, County,
and City regulatory requirements, the proposed Modified Project would not obstruct or conflict with a
water quality control plan or groundwater management plan and would not result in new or more severe
impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-26 APRIL 2024
HYD-6 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hydrology and water
quality.
The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment to hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water
quality is the watersheds that encompass Cupertino and the surrounding areas: Lower Peninsula
Watershed and West Valley Watershed. Future potential development in these watersheds could increase
impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into the storm drainage systems. Potential future
development would be required to comply with the MS4 Permit, implement BMPs that direct drainage to
landscaped areas, and integrate bioretention facilities into the site design. Implementation of these BMPs
on a regional basis would reduce cumulative impacts to hydrology and drainage to less than significant.
All projects would be required to comply with the CMC and various water quality regulations that control
construction-related and operational discharge of pollutants into stormwater. The water quality
regulations implemented by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB take a basinwide approach and consider water
quality impairment in a regional context. For example, the MS4 Permit ties receiving water limitations and
basin plan objectives to terms and conditions of the permit, and the MS4 Permit requires all of the
municipalities and permittees to manage stormwater systems and be collectively protective of water
quality. Projects in these watersheds would implement structural and nonstructural source-control BMPs
that reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff, and treatment control BMPs that remove
pollutants from stormwater. Therefore, cumulative water quality impacts would be less than significant
after compliance with these permit requirements, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Projects in the watersheds may be constructed within 100-year flood zones or dam inundation zones.
Projects within the 100-year flood zone would be mandated to purchase flood insurance through the
National Flood Insurance Program. In addition, Santa Clara County and other municipalities within these
watersheds regulate development within flood zones in a similar manner as CMC Chapter 16.52,
Prevention of Flood Damage, and in compliance with FEMA standards to limit cumulative flood hazard
impacts.
There have been no dam failures in Cupertino or Santa Clara County, and the risk of a catastrophic dam
failure causing flooding to downstream residents is low. In addition, in the case of an imminent dam
failure of Stevens Creek Reservoir, Santa Clara County and Cupertino’s Office of Emergency Management
would activate the provisions in the Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan to ensure that residents and
businesses are notified and, if necessary, evacuated in a timely manner. Therefore, overall impacts from
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe
cumulative impacts to hydrology, drainage, and flooding beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan
EIR. Cumulative impacts to hydrology, drainage, and flooding would be less than significant, and impacts
of the proposed Modified Project would not be cumulatively considerable.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-1
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This chapter describes the potential impacts related to land use and planning that are associated with the
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory
framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an
analysis of the potential impacts related to land use and planning, and identifies General Plan 2040
policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8 contain California Housing Element Law, including
provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of local government general plans. Among
these requirements, some of the necessary parts include an assessment of housing needs and an
inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. Additionally, to ensure that
counties and cities recognize their responsibilities for contributing to the attainment of the State housing
goals, this section of the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions to plan for and allow the
construction of a share of the region’s projected housing needs, known as the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation. The City of Cupertino Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and integrated into General
Plan 2040.
Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area is the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy mandated by the
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (Senate Bill 375). Plan Bay Area lays out a
development scenario for the nine-county Bay Area region that works to align transportation and land use
planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled through modified land use patterns. The current Plan Bay Area
forecasts growth and development patterns through 2050 and was recently adopted in October 2021.1
Plan Bay Area is prepared and regularly updated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
Association of Bay Area Governments, in partnership with Bay Area Air Quality District and the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission. Plan Bay Area designates Priority Development Areas (PDA)
and Transit Priority Areas (TPA) throughout the region. PDAs are areas along transportation corridors that
are served by public transit and allow opportunities for development of transit-oriented, infill
development in communities that are expected to host most future development. TPAs are similar in that
they are formed within one-half mile around an existing or planned major transit stop, designated in a
1 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050,
accessed March 29, 2023, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.10-2 APRIL 2024
Regional Transportation Plan, such as a transit center or rail line. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority
Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the Study Area has
one PDA—the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores Corridors & Station Areas, which
overlays Stevens Creek Boulevard and North De Anza Boulevard. The TPAs in Cupertino are based upon
two future transit investments included in Plan Bay Area 2050:
Stops along a future VTA Light Rail route on Stevens Creek at Stelling, DeAnza, and Wolfe (RTP ID 21-
T10-088, on page 10 of the Plan’s Project List)
A future Regional Express bus route stop at Wolfe and 280 (RTP ID 21-T12-126, on p. 14 of the Plan
Bay Area 2050 Project List).
Plan Bay Area distributes future growth across the San Francisco Bay Area region to meet its GHG
emissions reduction, housing, and other performance targets, but it is not intended to override local land
use control. In addition to funding transportation and planning projects in PDAs, Plan Bay Area sets the
stage for cities and counties to increase the efficiency of the development process, if they choose, for
projects consistent with Plan Bay Area and other state legislation.2
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
Though the City has other local regulations that regulate land use and guide land use decisions, all specific
plans, master plans, and zoning in the city must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan is
the community’s overarching policy document that defines a vision for future change and sets the
“ground rules” for locating and designing new projects that enhance the character of the community,
expanding the local economy, conserving and preserving environmental resources, improving public
services and safety, minimizing hazards, and fostering community health. The General Plan, which
includes a vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and strategies, functions as the City’s primary land use
regulatory tool. It provides a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects
are in harmony with City goals. It is the constitution for future change in Cupertino. The General Plan must
be used as the basis for all planning-related decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and
the City Council. Other decision-making bodies that rely on the General Plan to guide future decisions
include the Arts and Culture Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Housing Commission, Library
Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Safety Commission, Sustainability Commission, and
Public Works Department.
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES),
Health and Safety (HS), and Recreation, Parks, and Community Services (RPC) Elements of the General
Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts to land use and planning. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize
potential adverse impacts to land use and planning are identified in Section 4.10.3, Impact Discussion.
2 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2022, “Frequently Asked Questions:
Does Plan Bay Area Override Local Land Use Control?” accessed March 29, 2023, https://www.planbayarea.org/2040-plan/quick
-facts/faq-page#n4851.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-3
Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) is the primary tool that regulates
physical development in Cupertino. The CMC contains all ordinances for the city, and identifies land use
categories, site development regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between
the General Plan and proposed development projects. The CMC contains all ordinances for the city and is
organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to land use and planning are included in
Title 19, Zoning.
Title 19, Zoning . This section of the municipal code sets forth the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the primary
purpose of which is “to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort,
convenience, and general welfare.” The City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance is the mechanism used to
implement the land use goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and to regulate all land use
within the City. The zoning ordinance describes zoning designations and contains development
standards for the zoning designations.
Section 19.168, Architectural and Site Review. This chapter provides an orderly process to review the
architectural and site designs of buildings, structures, signs, lighting, and landscaping for prescribed
types of land development within the city to promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the General Plan EIR, addresses impacts to land use and planning
associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for land use and
planning is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions. Though the Land Use
and Community Design Element has not been updated since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the
South Vallco Connectivity Plan was finalized on December 11, 2014, and was not included in General Plan
EIR Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions. The South Vallco Connectivity Plan is an advisory document that
identifies broad goals, objectives, concepts, and design guidelines for the South Vallco Area, Study Area 6
of the General Plan EIR. It includes plans for a bicycle and pedestrian trail in the area and changes in the
connectivity of the mall.
4.10.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant land use
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
LU-1. Physically divide an established community? LTS LTS
LU-2. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
LTS LTS
LU-3. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to land use and
planning? LTS LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.10-4 APRIL 2024
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant land use
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of
this EA. The question regarding conflicting with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan is now only evaluated in BIO-6 in Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of this EA.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
4.10.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
LU-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not physically
divide an established community.
Any potential future development would result in a significant impact if it would lead to new development
or physical features that would divide existing communities. The physical division of an established
community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, interstate highway, or
railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair
mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas.
The General Plan EIR concluded that since the development proposed under the Approved Project would
be on sites already developed near residential development and would retain the existing roadway
patterns, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, future development would be required to be
consistent with the General Plan 2040, including the provision of connections between properties on the
same block (Strategy M-3.5.1), to promote cohesive and compatible neighborhoods and prevent new
development from dividing existing uses where different land uses abut one another.
The proposed Modified Project would also include potential future development in already developed
areas in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or
near existing residential and residential-serving development. Additionally, development under the
proposed Modified Project would only include residential development, whereas future potential
development under the Approved Project included residential, office, and commercial.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Mobility (M), Health and
Safety (HS), and Recreation, Parks, and Community Service (RPC) Elements contain goals, policies, and
strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development
could have on dividing the established community. Like the Approved Project, implementation of the
following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of
the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on the established
community:
Strategy LU-1.3.2. Public and Quasi-Public Uses. Review the placement of public and quasi- public
activities in limited areas in mixed-use commercial and office zones when the following criteria are
met:
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-5
1. The proposed use is generally in keeping with the goals for the Planning Area, has similar patterns
of traffic, population or circulation of uses with the area and does not disrupt the operations of
existing uses.
2. The building form is similar to buildings in the area (commercial or office forms). In commercial
areas, the building should maintain a commercial interface by providing retail activity, storefront
appearance or other design considerations in keeping with the goals of the Planning Area.
(General Plan EIR Policy 2-63)
Strategy LU-3.3.8. Drive-up Services. Allow drive-up service facilities only when adequate circulation,
parking, noise control, architectural features and landscaping are compatible with the expectations of
the Planning Area, and when residential areas are visually buffered. Prohibit drive- up services in areas
where they would conflict with pedestrian oriented activity, such as Heart of the City, North De Anza
Boulevard, Monta Vista Village and neighborhood center. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-35)
Policy LU -4.1. Street and Sidewalks. Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks and pedestrian and
bicycle amenities are consistent with the vision for each Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.
Strategy LU- 8.3.3. Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements. Consider infrastructure and
streetscape improvements in areas, such as the Crossroads or South Vallco area to encourage
redevelopment as a pedestrian oriented area that meets community design goals. (General Plan EIR
Policy 2-26 G)
Policy LU-13.1. Heart of the City Specific Plan. The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides design
standards and guidelines for this area, which promote a cohesive, landscaped boulevard that links its
distinct sub-areas and is accessible to all modes of transportation.
Policy LU-23.1. Conceptual Plan. Create a conceptual plan for the Homestead Road Special Area with a
cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and guidelines. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-24)
Policy LU - 25.1. Conceptual Plan. Continue to govern Monta Visita’s commercial area through the
Monta Vista Design Guidelines. The guidelines provide direction for architecture, landscaping and
public improvements. Create a Monta Vista Village Conceptual Plan to with a cohesive set of updated
regulations and guidelines for this area. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-30)
Policy LU- 25.2. Land Use. Require the commercial district to serve as a neighborhood commercial
center for Monta Vista Village and its adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed-use with residential is
encouraged. The industrial area should be retained to provide small-scale light industrial and service
industrial opportunities, while remaining compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial
uses. See General Plan Figure LU- 2 for residential densities and criteria. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-30)
Policy LU- 27.1. Compatibility. Ensure that new development within and adjacent to residential
neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-18)
Strategy LU-27.1.1 Regulations. Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single
family development that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. (General
Plan EIR Policy 2-8)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.10-6 APRIL 2024
Strategy LU-27.1.3. Flexibility. When neighborhoods are in transition, add flexibility for requirements
for new development that acknowledge the transition while continuing to respect the existing
neighborhood. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-18)
Policy LU- 27.7. Compatibility of Lots. Ensure that zoning, subdivision and lot-line adjustment requests
related to lot size or lot design consider the need to preserve neighborhood lot patterns. (General
Plan EIR Policy 2-19)
Policy M-2.2. Adjacent Land Use. Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking and
bicycle lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses in keeping with the vision
of the Planning Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand alternative transportation
options for all Planning Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods). Improvement standards shall also
consider the urban, suburban and rural environments found within the city. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-
10)
Policy M-3.2. Development. Require new development and redevelopment to increase connectivity
through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, shopping and
employment destinations throughout the city. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-2)
Strategy M-3.5.1. Shared Driveway Access. Require property owners to use shared driveway access
and interconnected roads within blocks, where feasible. Require driveway access closures,
consolidations or both when a site is remodeled or redeveloped.
Strategy M-3.5.2. Direct Access from Secondary Streets. Require properties with frontages on major
and secondary streets to provide direct pedestrian and vehicular access to driveways from the
secondary street.
Policy HS-8.5. Neighborhoods. Review residents’ need for convenience and safety and prioritize them
over the convenient movement of commute or through traffic where practical. (General Plan EIR
Policy 4-16)
Policy RPC-2.4. Connectivity and Access. Ensure that each home is within a half-mile walk of a
neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities; ensure that walking and biking
routes are reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic; provide pedestrian
links between parks, wherever possible; and provide adequate directional and site signage to identify
public parks. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-84)
The proposed Modified Project builds upon the Approved Project, and there are no dividing physical
features or removal of access included in the proposed Modified Project. As with the potential future
development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing land
use standards. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts that would physically divide
an established community beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-7
LU-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not cause a
significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the City of Cupertino General Plan 2040 is the primary planning
document for Cupertino. Thus, the Approved Project is intended to ensure consistency between the
general plan, housing element, zoning ordinance, and State law. Because the General Plan 2040 is the
overriding planning document, and because the project involves amending the General Plan or zoning to
increase consistency, the impact would be less than significant. Like the Approved Project, the proposed
Modified Project would ensure consistency between the general plan, housing element, zoning ordinance,
and State law.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Environmental Resources
and Sustainability (ES), and Health and Safety (HS) Elements contain policies that require local planning
and development decisions to consider conflicts that development could have on land use planning,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Like the
Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies, and updated policies as part of the
proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential conflicts with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation.
Policy LU-1.6. Jobs/Housing Balance. Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.
(General Plan EIR Policy 2-22)
Policy ES- 1.2. Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional
agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Regional Housing
Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA) One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). (General Plan EIR Policy 5-2)
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would ensure planning documents are
consistent with each other and State law. Future potential development under the proposed Modified
Project would be used to meet existing and projected future housing needs for all income levels in the
city. For a description of the consistency with Plan Bay Area as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions, see
Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EA. For a description of the consistency with the 2018
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan, see Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA.
As with the future potential development under the Approved Project assessed in the General Plan EIR,
future potential development under the proposed Modified Project, would be required to comply with
applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing land use standards. Based on these
considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new or more conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan
EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.10-8 APRIL 2024
LU-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to land use and
planning.
The General Plan EIR considers growth in Cupertino projected by the Approved Project in combination
with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and surrounding region, as forecast
by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The General Plan EIR concluded that the project does not
divide an established community or conflict with established plans, policies, and regulations in or outside
the city. Development is likely to continue to occur in surrounding cities and in the Santa Clara region as
well; however, such development is taking place in already urbanized areas as infill development and
would not require significant land use changes that would create land use conflicts, nor would it divide
communities.
The proposed Modified Project is consistent with the projected growth analyzed in Santa Clara County and
does not divide an established community or conflict with established plans, policies, and regulations in or
outside the city.
As with the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would
be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards. Based on these considerations,
the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution impact
related to land use beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-1
4.11 NOISE
This chapter describes the potential noise impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of
the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions,
identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential noise, and
identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant
impacts.
4.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
TERMINOLOGY
The following are definitions of terminology used in this section:
Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which when transmitted by pressure waves
through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by the human ear or a microphone.
Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Decibel (dB). A measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates
the frequency response of the human ear.
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level, energy averaged over the
measurement period.
Lmax. The maximum root-mean-square noise level during a measurement period.
Lmin. The minimum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.
Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample
period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is
exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period). This is also called the “median sound
level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the
maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded
90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise
level.”
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring
during a 24-hour period, with 10 dBA added to the sound levels occurring during the period from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels
occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dBA added to the levels occurring during the period from
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA added to the sound levels occurring during the period from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Note: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely
differ by more than 1 dBA. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be
equivalent/interchangeable.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-2 APRIL 2024
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak rate of speed at which soil particles move (e.g., inches per
second) due to ground vibration.
Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with
respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the United States, the standard reference velocity
is 1 micro-inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).
Noise-Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet
environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels
and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.
SOUND FUNDAMENTALS
Noise can be generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source,
exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB), which is the
standard unit of sound amplitude measurement. The dB scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the
physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to
the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure
waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound.
Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of
a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of
frequencies varying in levels of magnitude. When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a
sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound
pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound
frequency/sound power level spectrum.
The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. Therefore,
when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes
the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s
decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high frequencies. This method of frequency
weighting is referred to as A weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency
A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically
applied to community noise measurements.
Noise Exposure and Community Noise
Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given
instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the
contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the
product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure,
with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical
day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such
as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day,
besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources
(e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-3
These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level
from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over time to legitimately
characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying
characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people.
Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on
people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day
when the noise occurs. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic,
community, and environmental noise include the average hourly noise level (in Leq) and the average daily
noise levels/community noise equivalent level (in Ldn/CNEL). The Leq is a measure of ambient noise, while
the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise.
Sound Measurement
As previously described, sound pressure is measured through the A-weighted measure to correct for the
relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and
very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de -emphasis of these frequencies.
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing
points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dBA is 10 times more intense
than 1 dBA, 20 dBA is 100 times more intense, and 30 dBA is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as
human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dBA. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a
rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear.
Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). When the standard
logarithmic dB is A-weighted (dBA), an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness.
For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.
When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a
given distance would be 3.0 dB higher than one source under the same conditions.1 For example, a 65-
dBA source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65 dBA source results in a sound amplitude
of 68 dBA, not 130 dBA (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound pressure by three dBA).
Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of five dBA.
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the
energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the
sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise
level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level
exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This level also represents the level exceeded
30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2,
8, and 25 percent of the time, or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These “Ln” values are typically used to
1 Federal Transit Administration, September 2018, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-
assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-4 APRIL 2024
demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city’s noise ordinance. Other values typically
noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum
root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at
night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time
noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-
Night Noise Level (Ldn). As described above, the CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5
dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA for the
hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology but only adds a 10 dBA
increment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with
the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher).
Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to
individual. Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by
median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are
generally considered low when the CNEL or Ldn is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and
high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low
as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45
dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or
semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may
consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier
urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to
80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted in understanding this
analysis:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by
humans.
Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.
A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response is
expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial.
A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost
certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
Table 4.11-1, Typical Noise Levels, shows typical noise levels from familiar noise sources.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-5
TABLE 4.11-1 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90
Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet
80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background)
20
Broadcast/Recording Studio
10
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: Caltrans 2013. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).
Hearing Loss
While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity
can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic
exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss
associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a noise exposure standard that is set at
the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable
level is 90 dBA, averaged over eight hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is
correspondingly shorter.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-6 APRIL 2024
Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into
homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes of annoyance
include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and
rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation between noise level and
the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft
noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance
of these different sources.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA
increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart, and the nervous
system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent
hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even
with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140
dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain.
Noise Propagation and Attenuation
Noise can be generated by several sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and
airplanes, as well as stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations.
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases
(attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6.0 dB (dBA) for each doubling of distance from a stationary or
point source.2 Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern,
often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3.0 dBA for
each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface
characteristics.3 No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water.
Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5
dBA per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3.0 dB
per doubling of distance is assumed.4
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of detached buildings
between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA,5 while a solid wall or
2 Federal Highway Administration, June 2017, Construction Noise Handbook,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook02.cfm.
3 Federal Highway Administration, June 2017, Construction Noise Handbook,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook02.cfm.
4 Federal Highway Administration, February 2017, Effective Noise Control During Nighttime Construction,
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/schexnayder_paper.htm.
5 Federal Highway Administration, 2006, Roadway Construction Noise Model.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-7
berm generally reduces noise levels by 10 to 20 dBA.6 However, noise barriers or enclosures specifically
designed to reduce site-specific construction noise can provide a sound reduction of 35 dBA or greater.7
To achieve the most potent noise-reducing effect, a noise enclosure/barrier must physically fit in the
available space, must completely break the “line of sight” between the noise source and the receptors,
must be free of degrading holes or gaps, and must not be flanked by nearby reflective surfaces. Noise
barriers must be sizable enough to cover the entire noise source and extend lengthwise and vertically as
far as feasibly possible to be most effective. The limiting factor for a noise barrier is not the component of
noise transmitted through the material, but rather the amount of noise flanking around and over the
barrier. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the "line
of sight" between the source and the receiver.
The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of
exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows.8 The exterior-to-interior
reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.9 Generally, in exterior noise
environments ranging from 60 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL, interior noise levels can typically be maintained
below 45 dBA, a typical residential interior noise standard, with the incorporation of an adequate forced
air mechanical ventilation system in each residential building, and standard thermal-pane residential
windows/doors with a minimum rating of Sound Transmission Class (STC) 28.10 In exterior noise
environments of 65 dBA CNEL or greater, a combination of forced-air mechanical ventilation and sound-
rated construction methods is often required to meet the interior noise level limit. Attaining the necessary
noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces is readily achievable in noise environments less than 75
dBA CNEL with proper wall construction techniques following California Building Code (CBC) methods, the
selections of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation
systems.
VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Vibration is an oscillating motion in the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but through
the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard.
Sources of earthborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea
waves, landslides) or humanmade causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment,
etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions).
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. As with
noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Several different methods are
typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root
mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is generally accepted as the most appropriate descriptor for evaluating
6 Federal Highway Administration, February 2017, Effective Noise Control During Nighttime Construction,
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/schexnayder_paper.htm.
7 Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory, Inc. 2000, Sound Transmission Sound Test Laboratory Report No. TL 96-186.
8 California Department of Transportation, 2002, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
9 Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.
10 STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. In the U.S., it is widely used to rate
interior partitions, ceilings, floors, doors, windows, and exterior wall configurations.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-8 APRIL 2024
the potential for building damage. For human response, however, an average vibration amplitude is more
appropriate because it takes time for the human body to respond to the excitation (the human body
responds to an average vibration amplitude, not a peak amplitude). Because the average particle velocity
over time is zero, the RMS amplitude is typically used to assess human response. The RMS value is the
average of the amplitude squared over time, typically a one-second period.11
Table 4.11-2, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings from Typical Vibration Levels, displays the
reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance
levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at
much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual.
To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level
vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or
stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is
very little risk of actual structural damage. In high-noise environments, which are more prevalent where
groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by
loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.
TABLE 4.11-2 HUMAN REACTION AND DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS FROM TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS
Peak Particle
Velocity (in/sec)
Vibration Velocity
Level (VdB) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019 64-74 Range of threshold of perception Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type
0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to extremely fragile
historic buildings, ruins, ancient
monuments
0.10 92
Level at which continuous vibrations
may begin to annoy people,
particularly those involved in vibration
sensitive activities
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to fragile buildings.
Virtually no risk of architectural damage to
normal buildings
0.25 94 Vibrations may begin to annoy people
in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to historic and some
old buildings
0.3 96 Vibrations may begin to feel severe to
people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to older residential
structures
0.5 103
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to new residential
structures and Modern
industrial/commercial buildings
Source: California Department of Transportation, April 2020, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Federal Transit Administration, September 2018,
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-
vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
11 Federal Transit Administration, September 2018, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-
assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-9
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Highway Administration
Proposed federal or federal-aid highway construction projects at a new location, or the physical alteration
of an existing highway that significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increases
the number of through-traffic lanes, requires an assessment of noise and consideration of noise
abatement pursuant to 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway
Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise
abatement criteria for sensitive receivers such as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport
areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals when “worst-hour”
noise levels approach or exceed 67 dBA Leq. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has
further defined approaching the noise abatement criteria to be 1 dBA below the noise abatement criteria
for noise sensitive receivers identified as Category B activity areas (e.g., 66 dBA Leq is considered
approaching the noise abatement criteria).12
United States Environmental Protection Agency
In addition to FHWA standards, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified
the relationship between noise levels and human response. The USEPA has determined that over a 24-
hour period, a Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss. Interference with activity and annoyance will
not occur if exterior levels are maintained at a Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. These
levels are relevant for planning and design and useful for informational purposes, but they are not land
use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the
community; therefore, they are not mandated. The USEPA has set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for exterior
residential noise intrusion. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program
requirements and goals, as well as difficulty of achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65 dBA
Ldn level as their standard. At 65 dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels
are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set the goal of 65 dBA Ldn as
a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding. (This level is
also generally accepted in the State of California.) Although HUD does not specify acceptable interior
noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings typically provides 20 dBA or more of
attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA.
12 California Department of Transportation, April 2020, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction,
Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-10 APRIL 2024
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) thresholds of significance assist in the evaluation of
increased traffic noise. The 2000 FICON findings provide guidance as to the significance of changes in
ambient noise levels due to transportation noise sources. FICON recommendations are based on studies
that relate aircraft and traffic noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise.
FICON’s measure of substantial increase for transportation noise exposure is as follows:
If the existing ambient noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential,
etc.) are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater
noise level increase and the resulting noise level would exceed acceptable exterior noise standards; or
If the existing noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates a barely perceptible
3 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase and the resulting noise level would exceed acceptable
exterior noise standards; or
If the existing noise levels already exceed 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates a community noise
level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
A division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), has established a construction-related noise level threshold as identified in the
Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared in 1998. NIOSH identifies a
noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The NIOSH construction-related
noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for every 3 dBA increase, the
exposure time is cut in half. This reduction results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4
hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to
100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. The intention of these thresholds is to protect people from
hearing losses resulting from occupational noise exposure.
Aircraft Noise Standards
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular Number 150 5020 2, Noise Assessment
Guidelines for New Helicopters, recommends the use of a cumulative noise measure, the 24-hour
equivalent sound level [Leq(24)], so that the relative contributions of the heliport and other sound sources
within the community may be compared. The Leq(24) is similar to the Ldn used in assessing the impacts of
fixed wing aircraft. The helicopter Leq(24) values are obtained by logarithmically adding the single-event
level (SEL) values over a 24-hour period. FAA Public Law 96 193 also directs the FAA to identify land uses
which are “normally compatible” with various levels of noise from aircraft operations. Because of the size
and complexity of many major hub airports and their operations, Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150
identifies many land uses and their attendant noise levels. These recommended noise levels are included
in Table 4.11-3, Federal Aviation Administration Normally Compatible Community Sound Levels.
TABLE 4.11-3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NORMALLY COMPATIBLE COMMUNITY SOUND LEVELS
Type of Area Leq (24)
Residential
Suburban
50
57
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-11
TABLE 4.11-3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NORMALLY COMPATIBLE COMMUNITY SOUND LEVELS
Type of Area Leq (24)
Urban
City
67
72
Commercial 72
Industrial 77
Notes: The Leq is the Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, which describes sound levels that vary over time, resulting in a single decibel value that takes into
account the total sound energy over the period of time of interest.
Source: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular Number 150 5020 2, 1983.
State Regulations
General Plan Guidelines
The State of California, through its General Plan Guidelines, describes how ambient noise should influence
land use and development decisions and includes a table of normally acceptable, conditionally
acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable uses at different noise levels, expressed in
CNEL. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use and
needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable
designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements.
The General Plan Guidelines provide cities with recommended community noise and land use
compatibility standards that can be adopted or modified at the local level based on conditions and types
of land uses specific to that jurisdiction.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24, Part 2, of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the “California Building Code” (CBC). The
CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to
further modification based on local conditions. The City of Cupertino regularly adopts each new CBC
update under the Cupertino Municipal Code Title 16, Building and Construction.
Airport Noise Standards
California Code of Regulations Title 21, Section 5012, establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the acceptable level of
aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally
incompatible in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL, unless an aviation
easement for aircraft noise has been acquired by the airport proprietor. Assembly Bill (AB) 2776 requires
any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties in an airport influence area to disclose that
fact to the person buying the property.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-12 APRIL 2024
Regional Regulations
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission
The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission was established to provide for appropriate
development of areas surrounding public airports in Santa Clara County. The Commission is responsible
for promoting land use compatibility around the County’s airports in order to minimize the public’s
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, and to ensure that the approaches to airports are kept
clear of structures that could pose an aviation safety hazard.
The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission has prepared five comprehensive land use plans to
cover all of the public airports in Santa Clara County, including the San Jose International Airport located
approximately 4.2 miles northeast of the city’s northern limit, the Moffet Federal Airfield located
approximately 4.6 miles north of the city’s northern limit, the Palo Alto Airport located approximately 9
miles northwest of the city, the Reid-Hillview Airport located approximately 9.6 miles east of the city’s
eastern limit, and the San Martin Airport, located approximately 27.8 miles south of the city. The
Commission’s five comprehensive land use plans identify noise compatibility zones in the form of airport
noise contour graphics that are intended to prevent development that is incompatible with airport
operations.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Desing (LU) and Health and Safety (HS) Elements of General Plan 2040
contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider
noise impacts. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse noise impacts are
identified in Section 4.11.3, Impact Discussion.
The most basic planning strategy to minimize adverse impacts on new land uses due to noise is to avoid
designating certain land uses at locations in the city that would negatively affect noise-sensitive land uses.
Uses such as schools, hospitals, childcare, senior care, congregate care, churches, and all types of
residential uses should be located outside of any area anticipated to exceed acceptable noise levels as
defined by the General Plan 2040 Figure HS-8, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments,
or should be protected from noise through sound attenuation measures such as site and architectural
design and sound walls.
The City has adopted guidelines as a basis for planning decisions and these guidelines are shown in Table
4.11-4, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments (Figure HS-8 of the General Plan). In a
case where the noise levels identified at a potential future development project site fall within levels
considered normally acceptable, the project is considered compatible with the existing noise
environment.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-13
TABLE 4.11-4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Land Uses
CNEL or Ldn (dBA)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential-Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential – Multiple Family Transient Lodging: Hotels and Motels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playground, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Commercial, and Professional Centers Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural
Normally Acceptable:
Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the
assumption that any buildings are of normal
conventional construction, without any special
noise insulation requirements.
Normally Unacceptable:
New construction or development should generally
be discouraged. If new construction or development
does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction
requirements must be made and needed noise
insulation features included in design.
Conditionally Acceptable:
New construction or development should be
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise
reduction requirements is made and needed
noise insulation features included in design.
Conventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air
conditioning, will normally suffice.
Clearly Unacceptable:
New construction or development should generally
not be undertaken.
Source: Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040.
Municipal Code
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-14 APRIL 2024
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse noise impacts in
Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to noise are
included in Title 10, Public Peace, Safety and Morals, and Title 17, Environmental Regulations, as follows:
Chapter 10.48, Community Noise Control. This chapter includes provisions for the noise control
program and provides procedures to implement and enforce the program. It also provides the
City’s maximum allowable noise levels, as shown in Table 4.11-5, Daytime and Nighttime
Maximum Noise Levels, unless stated otherwise.
TABLE 4.11-5 DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS
Land Use at Point of Origin
Maximum Noise Level at Complaint Site of Receiving Property
Nighttime Daytime
Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA
Non-residential 55 dBA 65 dBA
Note: ‘Nighttime’ is defined as periods of weekdays from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, and from midnight to 7:00 a.m., and
periods on weekends from 6:00 p.m. to midnight and from midnight to 9:00 a.m. ‘Daytime’ is defined as the period from 7:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and the period from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.
Source: City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 10.48.040
Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code also addresses construction noise, stating that grading,
construction, and demolition activities are allowed to exceed the noise limits identified in Table 4.11-
5 during daytime hours, provided that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and
abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two
criteria:
1. No individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet (7.5
meters); or
2. The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA.
Section 10.48.045, Interior Noise in Multiple-Family Dwellings, provides additional requirements for
noise from multiple-family units. This includes requirements for not producing noise levels exceeding
45 dBA five feet from any wall in any adjoining unit during the period between seven a.m. and ten
p.m. or exceeding 40 dBA during hours from ten p.m. to seven a.m. the following day.
In addition to the requirement to achieve these two criteria; grading, street construction, demolition,
or underground utility work within 750 feet of a residential area is prohibited within the city on
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and during the nighttime period unless it meets the nighttime
standards identified in Table 4.11-5.
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. The purpose of Chapter 17.04
of the Municipal Code is to identify standard environmental protection requirements that all
construction projects must meet, including but not limited to environmental mitigation measures
identified in any environmental documents required as part of a General Plan update. Chapter
17.04 includes specific requirements for noise and vibration.
Section 17.04.040(D)(1). Vibration Technical Report Requirements. Section 17.04.040(D)(1)
requires that the project applicant provide a vibration study to determine vibration levels due to
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-15
construction to the City, prior to approval of the project, when the following activities would
occur within the screening distance to buildings or structures: pile driving within 100 feet,
vibratory roller within 25 feet, or other heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozer) within 15 feet; and for
historical structures: pile driving within 135 feet, vibratory roller within 40 feet, or other heavy
equipment within 20 feet. If vibration levels due to construction activities exceeds 0.2 inches per
second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) at nearby buildings or structures, or 0.12 in/sec PPV at
historical structures, the project shall implement the following alternative methods/equipment:
a. For pile driving, one of the following options shall be used: caisson drilling (drilled piles),
vibratory pile drivers, oscillating or rotating pile installation methods, or jetting or partial
jetting of piles into place using a water injection at the tip of the pile.
b. For paving, use a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller.
c. For grading and earthwork activities, off-road equipment must be limited to 100 horsepower
or less.
Section 17.04.050(G)(1). Notice and Signage. Section 17.04.050(G)(1) provides the requirements
for notice and signage for noise and vibration permits, as follows:
a. At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or construction
activities, the project applicant must send notices of the planned activity by first class mail as
follows:
i. For projects on sites that are more than 0.5 acres or four or more residential units the notices
must be sent to off-site businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site;
ii. For projects on sites between 0.25 to 0.5 acres, or two or three residential units (not
including Accessory Dwelling Units) notices are required to be sent to off-site businesses and
residents within 250 feet of the project site; or
iii. For projects on sites less than 0.25 acres or one residential unit, the notices must be sent to
off-site businesses and residents within 100 feet of the project site.
The notification must include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the
hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification
should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives that are
assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. The project applicant is
required to provide the City with evidence of mailing of the notice, upon request.
b. At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign must be posted at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction
days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized
representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If
the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they are required to
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City within three
business days of receiving the complaint.
Section 17.04.050(G)(2). Manage Noise During Construction. Projects must implement the
following measures to reduce noise during construction and demolition activity:
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-16 APRIL 2024
a. The project applicant and contractors are required to prepare and submit a Construction
Noise Control Plan to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to
issuance of the first permit. The Construction Noise Plan must demonstrate compliance with
daytime and nighttime decibel limits pursuant to Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control).
The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan are required to be included in the
applicable construction documents and implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
Noise reduction measures selected and implemented must be based on the type of
construction equipment used on the site, distance of construction activities from sensitive
receptor(s), site terrain, and other features on and surrounding the site (e.g., trees, built
environment) and may include, but not be limited to, temporary construction noise
attenuation walls, high quality mufflers. During the entire active construction period, the
Construction Noise Control Plan is required to demonstrate that compliance with the
specified noise control requirements for construction equipment and tools will reduce
construction noise in compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits.
b. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the
City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction
phase.
c. Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and
along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All
other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
d. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise
producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning
purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically
adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and
replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and law.
Section 17.04.050(G)(3). Manage Vibrations During Construction. In the event pile driving is
required, the project applicant is required to:
a. Notify all vibration-sensitive receptors within 300 feet of the project site of the schedule 10
days prior to its commencement and include the contact information for the person
responsible for responding to complaints on site.
b. The project applicant is required to retain a qualified acoustical consultant or structural
engineer to prepare and implement a Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan, which is
subject to third-party peer review under the direction of the City at the applicant’s cost, for
areas within 100 feet for pile driving, 25 feet for vibratory roller, or 15 feet for other heavy
equipment (e.g., bulldozer); and for historical structures: within 135 feet for pile driving, 40
feet for vibratory roller, or 20 feet for other heavy equipment. The plan has to include
surveying the condition of existing structures; and determining the number, type, and
location of vibration sensors and establish a vibration velocity limit (as determined based on a
detailed review of the proposed building), method (including locations and instrumentation)
for monitoring vibrations during construction, location of notices displaying the contact
information for on-site coordination and complaints on site, and method for alerting
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-17
responsible persons who have the authority to halt construction should limits be exceeded or
damaged observed.
c. Submit final monitoring reports to the City upon completion of vibration related construction
activities.
d. Conduct a post-survey on any structure where either monitoring has indicated high vibration
levels or complaints that damage has occurred are received.
e. The project applicant shall be responsible for appropriate repairs as determined by the
qualified acoustical consultant or structural engineer where damage has occurred as a result
of construction activities.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), addresses noise impacts
associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for noise is described in
the General Plan EIR Section 4.10.1.3, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR
additional noise surveys have been conducted with the following results.
The dominant noise sources in Cupertino include community noise from automobile traffic. Traffic noise
levels depend primarily on the speed of traffic and volume of trucks. The primary source of noise from
automobiles is high-frequency tire noise, which increases with speed. Trucks and older automobiles
produce engine and exhaust noise, and trucks can also generate wind noise. Tire noise from cars is
produced at ground level (i.e., where the tire contacts the road), whereas truck noise can be generated at
a height of 10 to 15 feet above the road, depending on the height of the exhaust pipe(s) and engine. As a
result, sound walls are not as effective at reducing truck noise unless they are very tall.
As previously described, the dominant noise source within Cupertino is vehicle traffic on its roadways,
primarily Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead Road, and Foothill Boulevard. Existing
roadway noise levels were calculated for roadway segments throughout Cupertino. This task was
accomplished using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) (see Appendix
D, Noise, of this Draft EA) and traffic volumes from Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (Appendix E,
Transportation, of this EA). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on
traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions.
The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect
average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). The Caltrans data shows that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national
levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average
daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table 4.11-6, Baseline Roadway Noise
Levels.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-18 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.11-6 BASELINE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Volume
(Average Daily
Trips)
CNEL at 50
Feet
Distance to CNEL Contour (feet)
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Foothill Boulevard
Between Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Alpine Drive 20,878 68.0 - 100 ft 316 ft 1,000 ft
Bubb Road
Between Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Results Way 13,339 63.5 - - 112 ft 355 ft
Stelling Road
Between Gardena Drive and Alves
Drive 17,493 63.4 - 35 ft 109 ft 345 ft
Between Pepper Tree Lane and
McClellan Road 14,710 63.2 - - 104 ft 329 ft
Between McClellan Road and
Orogrande Place 14,710 62.7 - - 94 ft 297 ft
De Anza Boulevard
Between Homestead Road and I-
280 52,676 71.4 69 ft 218 ft 688 ft 2,176 ft
Between Mariani Avenue and
Lazaneo Drive 42,455 72.0 80 ft 252 ft 797 ft 2,522 ft
Between Scofield Drive and
Bollinger Road 43,216 70.5 - 179 ft 565 ft 1,785 ft
Between Rainbow Drive and
Prospect Road 15,856 67.4 - 86 ft 273 ft 863 ft
Blaney Avenue
Between Beekman Place and
Wheaton Drive 6,294 60.3 - - 54 ft 171 ft
Wolfe Road
Between Homestead Road and I-
280 Overpass 31,751 68.8 - 120 ft 380 ft 1,202 ft
Overpass at I-280 33,786 70.4 55 ft 173 ft 548 ft 1,732 ft
Between I-280 Overpass and
Stevens Creek Boulevard 34,200 69.1 - 129 ft 409 ft 1,295 ft
Miller Avenue
Between Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Bollinger Road 17,379 65.0 - 51 ft 160 ft 506 ft
Tantau Avenue
Between Homestead Road and I-
280 Overpass 6,839 60.7 - - 59 ft 185 ft
Lawrence Expressway
Between Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Mitty Way 47,363 73.2 105 ft 332 ft 1,048 ft 3,316 ft
Homestead Road
Between Tantau Avenue and Wolfe
Road 18,825 65.4 - 55 ft 175 ft 554 ft
Between Wolfe Road and Canary
Drive 22,895 66.3 - 67 ft 213 ft 674 ft
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-19
TABLE 4.11-6 BASELINE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Volume
(Average Daily
Trips)
CNEL at 50
Feet
Distance to CNEL Contour (feet)
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Between Canary Drive and Franco
Court 24,876 66.7 - 73 ft 232 ft 733 ft
Between Franco Court and New
Brunswick Avenue 20,933 65.9 - 62 ft 195 ft 616 ft
Between New Brunswick Avenue
and Mary Avenue 16,990 65.0 - 50 ft 158 ft 500 ft
Vallco Parkway
Between Tantau Avenue and Wolfe
Road 2,917 56.1 - - - 64 ft
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Between I-280 and Tantau Avenue 27,515 68.7 - 118 ft 373 ft 1,180 ft
Between Tantau and Portal Avenue 25,476 68.8 - 120 ft 378 ft 1,196 ft
Between Portal Avenue and Randy
Lane 30,348 68.1 - 103 ft 326 ft 1,032 ft
Between Randy Lane and De Anza
Boulevard 24,876 67.7 - 93 ft 293 ft 926 ft
Between De Anza Boulevard and
Stelling Road 28,730 68.5 - 12 ft 355 ft 1,123 ft
Between Stelling Road and Mary
Avenue 30,587 68.8 - 120 ft 378 ft 1,195 ft
Between Orange Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard 20,523 65.4 - 54 ft 172 ft 543 ft
Bollinger Road
Between Wunderlich Drive and
Miller Avenue 21,523 66.0 - 63 ft 200 ft 634 ft
Between Miller Avenue and De
Anza Boulevard 15,877 64.4 - - 139 ft 440 ft
Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by
Fehr & Peers. Refer to Appendix E, Transportation, of this EA for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.
Existing noise contours for the freeways and major arterials in the city are presented on Figure 4.11-1,
Existing Traffic Noise Contours. The noise contours shown on Figure 4.11-1 represent the predicted noise
level based on roadway volumes, the percentage of trucks, speed, and other factors.
Sources: ECORP Consulting, Inc. ESRI, Maxar (2022), TIGER, Butte County.
0
Scale (Miles)
1.5 Figure 4.11-1
Existing Traffic Noise Contours
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-21
4.11.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant noise
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
NOI-1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standard?
SU LTS
NOI-2. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LTS LTS
NOI-3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
NI NI
NOI-4. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to noise? SU LTS
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the General
Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of this EA.
Revisions were made to each of the questions, and as such this EA only analyzes the current questions NOI-1 through NOI-4 shown here.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
4.11.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
NOI-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in
generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or in other
applicable local, State, or federal standards.
Land Use Compatibility
By identifying noise-sensitive land uses and establishing compatibility guidelines for those land uses
(Figure HS-8 of General Plan 2040 and Table 4.11-4 of this EA), noise considerations would influence the
general distribution, location, and intensity of future land uses. The result is that effective land use
planning and project design can alleviate the majority of noise problems.
The General Plan EIR found that future development under the Approved Project would be subject to the
policies and regulations that would require new residential dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, and
school classrooms to meet the interior noise level threshold of 45 dBA Ldn. As shown in Health and Safety
Element Figure HS-8, Land Use Noise Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, of the General
Plan 2040, community noise exposure compatible with residential land uses would be less than 60 dBA Ldn
for low-density residential development and less than 65 dBA Ldn for multifamily residential development.
Community noise exposure would be conditionally acceptable up to 70 dBA Ldn with noise reduction
requirements and air conditioning systems for residential uses. Through adherence with the Land Use
Noise Compatibility for Community Noise Environment guidelines, residential development would be
prohibited in areas over 70 dBA Ldn unless future potential development demonstrates a 45 dBA Ldn noise
indoor noise level. Specific land uses that would be prohibited adjacent to residential development
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-22 APRIL 2024
include auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters, sports areas, and outdoor spectator sports. This would
apply to future development under the proposed Modified Project. Furthermore, maintenance and
continued enforcement of the CMC, including the Noise Ordinance and Zoning Code, would work in
tandem with and reinforce the policies in the General Plan, and any impact arising from violation of
applicable local standards would therefore be less than significant.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Health and Safety (HS)
Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider policy direction for minimizing noise impacts on the community and establishes noise-control
measures for construction and operation of land use projects. Like the Approved Project, the following
existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the
proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize adverse noise impacts.
Policy LU-27.8. Protection. Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually
intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building design,
setbacks, and other appropriate measures. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-6)
Policy HS-8.1. Land Use Decision Evaluation. Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments chart, the Future Noise Contour Map (see Figure D-1 in Appendix D [of the General
Plan]) and the City Municipal Code to evaluate land use decisions. (General Plan EIR Policies 6-64, 6-
65, and 6-66)
Strategy HS-8.2.2. Noise Control Techniques. Require analysis and implementation of techniques to
control the effects of noise from industrial equipment and processes for projects near low-intensity
residential uses.
Strategy HS-8.2.3. Sound Wall Requirements. Exercise discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure
that all other measures of noise control have been explored and that the sound wall blends with the
neighborhood. Sound walls should be designed and landscaped to fit into the environment.
Policy HS-8.4. Freeway Design and Neighborhood Noise. Ensure that roads and development along
Highway 85 and Interstate 280 are designed and improved in a way that minimizes neighborhood
noise.
A basic planning strategy to minimize adverse impacts on new land uses due to noise is to avoid
designating certain land uses at locations in the city that would negatively affect noise-sensitive land uses.
Uses such as schools, hotels, hospitals, nursing homes, recreational uses, churches, libraries, cemeteries,
and all types of residential uses must be outside of any area anticipated to exceed the noise levels as
defined by the Health and Safety Element Figure HS-8, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments. These land uses must also be protected from noise through sound attenuation measures,
such as site and architectural design and sound walls (Policy HS-8.1). Under both the Approved Project
and proposed Modified Project, General Plan 2040 Figure HS-8, Land Use Compatibility for Community
Noise Environments, would be used to determine whether the existing noise levels surrounding a
potential future development are consistent with the noise limits in General Plan 2040 and to identify
where a future proposed land use development project may need to incorporate noise mitigation
features. In a case where the noise levels identified at a future potential development project site under
both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project are in levels identified on General Plan 2040
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-23
Figure HS-8, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, the future potential development
would be considered compatible with the existing noise environment.
The acoustical analyses potentially triggered by the proposed Modified Project would be similar to that
under the Approved Project, and both would be required to conduct an existing conditions noise
measurement and comply with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements.
The location-specific existing noise measurements presented in the acoustical analyses would either
demonstrate the noise/land use compatibility between a proposed land use and location or assist with the
characterization of the ambient noise environment in a manner that allows for implementation of the
appropriate noise attenuation measures necessary to protect the new noise-sensitive land use. Examples
of noise attenuation measures include measures such as noise barriers, enhanced insulation, building
orientation, or setbacks. Similar to the Approved Project, the need for noise attenuation measures in
building construction and project design from any noise source and for all land uses would be determined
on a project-by-project basis at the time of future potential development under the proposed Modified
Project. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe noise/land use compatibility issues
beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Temporary Construction Noise
As described in the General Plan EIR, noise from construction equipment and various construction-related
activities is frequently a cause of temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. Therefore, by
restricting hours of construction and directing the City to review project noise impacts as part of the
planning process, noise impacts would be reduced.
Under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project, the primary source of temporary noise
in the city would be demolition and construction activities associated with future potential development
projects. Construction activities would involve both off-road construction equipment (e.g., excavators,
dozers, cranes) and transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites. Table 4.11-7,
Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels (50 Feet from Source), shows typical noise levels produced
by the types of off-road equipment that would likely be used during future construction in Cupertino.
Construction noise is a substantial source of temporary noise under the Approved Project and would
continue to be so under the proposed Modified Project. Noise levels near individual construction sites
associated with development and activities under the proposed Modified Project would not be
substantially different from what they would be under the Approved Project. Since specific future projects
in the city are unknown at this time, it is conservatively assumed that the construction areas associated
with these future projects could be within 50 feet of sensitive land uses. As depicted in Table 4.11-7,
Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels, noise levels generated by individual pieces of
construction equipment typically range from approximately 74 dBA to 101.3 dBA Lmax at 50 feet and 67.7
dBA to 94.3 dBA Leq at 50 feet. During each stage of construction, a different mix of equipment would
operate, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment on-site and the location of the
activity. Construction noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the
noise source and the receptor. Intervening structures or terrain would result in lower noise levels at
distant receivers.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-24 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.11-7 REFERENCE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS (50 FEET FROM SOURCE)
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from Source
Lmax Leq
Aerial Lift 74.7 67.7
Air Compressor 77.7 73.7
Backhoe 77.6 73.6
Blasting 94.0 73.0
Boring Jack (Power Unit) 83.0 80.0
Boring Jack (Horizontal) 82.0 76.0
Chain Saw 83.7 76.7
Compactor (Ground) 83.2 76.2
Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8 74.8
Concrete Mixer (Vibratory) 80.0 73.0
Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 79.4
Concrete Saw 89.9 82.6
Crane 80.6 72.6
Dozer 81.7 77.7
Drill Rig 84.4 77.4
Drill Rig Truck 79.1 72.2
Drum Mixer 80.0 77.0
Dump Truck 76.5 72.5
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Front End Loader 79.1 75.1
Generator 80.6 77.6
Grader 85.0 81.0
Hydraulic Break Ram 90.0 80.0
Impact Hammer/Hoe Ram (Mounted) 90.3 83.3
Jackhammer 88.9 81.9
Pavement Scarifier 89.5 82.5
Paver 77.2 74.2
Pile Driver (Impact) 101.3 94.3
Pile Driver (Vibratory) 100.8 93.8
Pneumatic Tools 85.2 82.2
Pumps 80.9 77.9
Rock Drill 81.0 74.0
Roller 80.0 73.0
Scraper 83.6 79.6
Tractor 84.0 80.0
Truck (Flat Bed) 74.3 70.3
Truck (Pick Up) 75.0 71.0
Vacuum Street Sweeper 81.6 71.6
Welder 74.0 70.0
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006, Roadway Construction Noise Model.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-25
The General Plan EIR found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider policy direction for minimizing noise
impacts on the community and establishes noise-control measures for construction and operation of land
use projects. Like the Approved Project, the following General Plan 2040 policy would serve to minimize
temporary adverse noise impacts under the proposed Modified Project:
Policy HS-8.3. Construction and Maintenance Activities. Regulate construction and maintenance
activities. Establish and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day, during weekdays weekends
and holidays for construction activities. Require construction contractors to use the best available
technology to minimize excessive noise and vibration from construction equipment such as pile
drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers. (General Plan EIR Policies 6-61 and 6-62).
Additionally, Chapters 10.48, Community Noise Control, and 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, of the CMC identify standard noise requirements that all construction projects must meet.
These requirements include limiting noise levels during daytime and nighttime hours, providing noise
noticing and signage, and managing noise during construction through preparation and implementation
of a Noise Control Plan.
Compliance with Chapters 10.48 and 17.04 of the CMC and General Plan 2040 Policy HS-8.3 would be
required under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project to ensure that noise
attenuation during construction of future potential development is provided to minimize temporary noise
impacts associated with construction. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe temporary
construction noise impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Traffic Noise
As described in the General Plan EIR, it is anticipated that projected increases in vehicle traffic would
result in substantial permanent increases to the ambient noise levels throughout Cupertino. The ambient
noise level increases shown in Table 4.10-10, Increases to Ambient Noise Levels Along Major Roadway
Segments- Proposed Project, of the General Plan EIR demonstrate that there would be multiple major
road segments that would experience substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels, including
at sensitive land uses under the Approved Project.
Future potential development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project are
expected to affect the community noise environment by generating additional traffic. Transportation-
source noise levels were calculated for this EA using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108) with traffic counts provided by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (as shown in
Appendix E, Transportation, of this EA). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations
based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The
average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average
vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data shows that California automobile
noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA
lower than national levels.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-26 APRIL 2024
As previously described, a 5 dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response
is expected. Based on this fact, a significant increase in traffic noise is considered to be an increase in the
existing ambient noise environment of at least 5 dBA CNEL. Future traffic noise contours are mapped on
Figure 4.11-2, Future Traffic Noise Contours. Table 4.11-8, Future (Modified Project Buildout) Roadway
Noise Levels, shows the calculated off-site roadway noise levels under Approved Project traffic levels
compared to future buildout under the proposed Modified Project. As reflected in Table 4.11-8, this
analysis included a large sample of local roadway segments but did not include all roadways in Cupertino.
The analyzed segments were selected to illustrate potential changes in roadway noise throughout
Cupertino. Therefore, additional roadways segments in Cupertino may experience increased traffic noise.
TABLE 4.11-8 FUTURE (MODIFIED PROJECT BUILDOUT) ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 Feet
Difference Significant
Increase?
Distance to CNEL Contour – General
Plan Buildout (feet)
Approved
Project
Proposed
Modified
Project
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Foothill Boulevard
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Alpine
Drive
68.0 68.0 0 No - 100 ft 318 ft 1,005 ft
Bubb Road
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Results
Way
63.5 63.6 +0.1 No - - 114 ft 359 ft
Stelling Road
Between Gardena Drive and
Alves Drive 63.4 63.4 0 No - 35 ft 110 ft 347 ft
Between Pepper Tree Lane
and McClellan Road 63.2 63.2 0 No - - 104 ft 330 ft
Between McClellan Road and
Orogrande Place 62.7 62.8 +0.1 No - - 94 ft 298 ft
De Anza Boulevard
Between Homestead Road
and I-280 71.4 71.5 +0.1 No 71 ft 224 ft 707 ft 2,236 ft
Between Mariani Avenue and
Lazaneo Drive 72.0 72.2 +0.2 No 82 ft 260 ft 821 ft 2,597 ft
Between Scofield Drive and
Bollinger Road 70.5 70.6 +0.1 - 182 ft 576 ft 1,822 ft
Between Rainbow Drive and
Prospect Road 67.4 67.4 0 No - 87 ft 274 ft 867 ft
Blaney Avenue
Between Beekman Place and
Wheaton Drive 60.3 60.4 +0.1 - - 54 ft 172 ft
Wolfe Road
Between Homestead Road
and I-280 Overpass 68.8 68.8 0 No - 121 ft 382 ft 1,208 ft
Overpass at I-280 70.4 70.4 0 No 55 ft 174 ft 551 ft 1,742 ft
Between I-280 Overpass and
Stevens Creek
Boulevard
69.1 69.2 +0.1 No - 131 ft 413 ft 1,306 ft
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-27
TABLE 4.11-8 FUTURE (MODIFIED PROJECT BUILDOUT) ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 Feet
Difference Significant
Increase?
Distance to CNEL Contour – General
Plan Buildout (feet)
Approved
Project
Proposed
Modified
Project
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Miller Avenue
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Bollinger
Road
65.0 65.1 +0.1 No - 51 ft 161 ft 508 ft
Tantau Avenue
Between Homestead Road
and I-280 Overpass 60.7 60.7 0 No - - 59 ft 186 ft
Lawrence Expressway
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Mitty
Way
73.2 73.2 0 No 105 ft 333 ft 1,054 ft 3,332 ft
Homestead Road
Between Tantau Avenue and
Wolfe Road 65.4 65.6 +0.2 - 57 ft 180 ft 568 ft
Between Wolfe Road and
Canary Drive 66.3 66.4 +0.1 No - 70 ft 220 ft 697 ft
Between Canary Drive and
Franco Court 66.7 66.8 +0.1 No - 76 ft 240 ft 758 ft
Between Franco Court and
New Brunswick Avenue 65.9 66.0 +0.1 No - 64 ft 201 ft 636 ft
Between New Brunswick
Avenue and Mary
Avenue
65.0 65.1 +0.1 No - 51 ft 161 ft 509 ft
Vallco Parkway
Between Tantau Avenue and
Wolfe Road 56.1 57.5 +1.4 - - 88 ft
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Between I-280 and Tantau
Avenue 68.7 68.9 +0.2 No - 122 ft 385 ft 1,218 ft
Between Tantau and Portal
Avenue 68.8 69.0 +0.2 No - 124 ft 393 ft 1,242 ft
Between Portal Avenue and
Randy Lane 68.1 68.3 +0.2 No - 106 ft 335 ft 1,060 ft
Between Randy Lane and De
Anza Boulevard 67.7 67.8 +0.1 96 ft 303 ft 957 ft
Between De Anza Boulevard
and Stelling Road 68.5 68.7 +0.2 No - 116 ft 367 ft 1,162 ft
Between Stelling Road and
Mary Avenue 68.8 68.9 +0.1 No - 122 ft 386 ft 1,222 ft
Between Orange Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard 65.4 65.4 0 No - 55 ft 173 ft 548 ft
Bollinger Road
Between Wunderlich Drive
and Miller Avenue 66.0 66.1 +0.1 No - 64 ft 201 ft 637 ft
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-28 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.11-8 FUTURE (MODIFIED PROJECT BUILDOUT) ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 Feet
Difference Significant
Increase?
Distance to CNEL Contour – General
Plan Buildout (feet)
Approved
Project
Proposed
Modified
Project
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Between Miller Avenue and
De Anza Boulevard 64.4 64.5 +0.1 No - 44 ft 140 ft 444 ft
Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by
Fehr & Peers. Refer to Appendix E, Transportation, of this EA for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.
As shown in Table 4.11-8, no city roadway segment would experience an increase of more than 5.0 dBA
CNEL over the Approved Project compared to buildout anticipated under the proposed Modified Project.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider policy direction for minimizing noise
impacts on the community and establishes noise-control measures for construction and operation of land
use projects. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategy, and
updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize
adverse noise impacts.
Policy HS-8.4. Freeway Design and Neighborhood Noise. Ensure that roads and development along
Highway 85 and Interstate 280 are designed and improved in a way that minimizes neighborhood
noise.
Policy HS-8.5. Neighborhoods. Review residents’ needs for convenience and safety and prioritize them
over the convenient movement of commute or through traffic where practical.
Policy HS-8.6. Traffic Calming Solutions to Street Noise. Evaluate solutions to discourage through
traffic in neighborhoods through enhanced paving and modified street design. (General Plan EIR
Policy 6-53)
Strategy HS-8.6.1. Local Improvement. Modify street design to minimize noise impact to neighbors.
Policy HS- 8.7. Reduction of Noise from Trucking Operations. Work to carry out noise mitigation
measures to diminish noise along Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevards from the quarry and cement
plant trucking operations. These measures include regulation of truck speed, the volume of truck
activity, and trucking activity hours to avoid late evening and early morning. Alternatives to truck
transport, specifically rail, are strongly encouraged when feasible. (General Plan EIR Policies 6-54, 6-
55, and 6-56)
All future potential projects subject to discretionary review under the proposed Modified Project would
be required to be evaluated for noise compatibility, including traffic noise compatibility, similar to the
Approved Project. The acoustical analyses potentially triggered by Health and Safety Element policy
provisions would include refined evaluation of noise/land use compatibility to more precisely identify the
existing ambient noise environment affecting the subject site, typically achieved through conducting
baseline noise measurements with a sound level meter, though this can also be achieved in many areas of
the city by referring to the General Plan 2040 noise contours (Figures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 of this EA) and/or
Table 4.11-6 or Table 4.11-8 of this EA.
Sources: ECORP Consulting, Inc. ESRI, Maxar (2022), TIGER, Butte County.
0
Scale (Miles)
1.5 Figure 4.11-2
Future Traffic Noise Contours
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-30 APRIL 2024
As shown in Table 4.11-8, no city roadway segment would experience an increase of more than 5.0 dBA
CNEL over the Approved Project when compared with buildout anticipated under the proposed Modified
Project. With implementation of General Plan 2040 policies identified, future development of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe traffic noise impacts beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
NOI-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels.
The General Plan EIR found that without specific development details of projects under the Approved
Project, it is not possible to quantify potential construction vibration impacts. Development under both
the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project could result in long-term, operations-related
vibration impacts to sensitive receptors, if sensitive land uses such as residential, educational facilities,
hospitals, or places of worship were to be in close proximity to industrial land uses that could have
equipment with the potential to generate significant vibration levels. Despite the potential for vibration
impacts from the juxtaposition of sensitive land uses and land uses with the potential to generate
vibration, appropriate setbacks, buffers, use restrictions, and/or other measures can largely eliminate
these impacts.
Future potential development activities under the proposed Modified Project would occur in a variety of
locations throughout the city and may require the use of off-road equipment known to generate some
degree of vibration, similar to the Approved Project. Construction activities that generate excessive
vibration, such as blasting, would not be expected to occur from future potential development due to the
urbanized nature of Cupertino and small number of undeveloped properties, which reduces the likelihood
of blasting during construction.
Receptors sensitive to vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people
(especially residents, the elderly, and the sick), and equipment (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging
equipment, high-resolution lithographic, optical, and electron microscopes). Regarding the potential
effects of groundborne vibration to people, except for long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels
rarely affect human health. Since most construction equipment is moved around a construction site,
depending on the specific construction activity, the distance between the equipment and adjacent
sensitive receptors varies. Since specific development projects under the proposed Modified Project are
unknown, it is conservatively assumed that construction sites could be within 50 feet of sensitive land
uses. The primary vibration-generating activities would occur during grading, placement of underground
utilities, and construction of foundations. Table 4.11-9, Representative Vibration Source Levels for
Construction Equipment, shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at 50
feet.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-31
TABLE 4.11-9 REPRESENTATIVE VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity at 50 Feet
(inches per second)
Vibration Level Vibration Velocity at
50 Feet (VdB)
Pile Driver (Impact) 0.225 95
Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.059 84
Vibratory Roller 0.073 85
Hoe Ram 0.031 78
Large Bulldozer 0.031 78
Caisson Drilling 0.031 78
Loaded Trucks 0.026 77
Jackhammer 0.012 70
Small Bulldozer 0.001 49
Source: California Department of Transportation, April 2020, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf, accessed April 11, 2023. Federal Transit
Administration, September 2018, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-
fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
As identified in Table 4.11-2, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings from Typical Vibration Levels, the
threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to historic and some old buildings is 0.25 PPV
(in/sec). The threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to older residential structures is 0.3
PPV (in/sec). This is also the threshold at which vibrations may begin to feel severe to people in buildings.
The threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to new residential structures and modern
industrial/commercial buildings is 0.5 PPV (in/sec).
The General Plan EIR found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Health and Safety (HS)
Elements contain policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider policy
direction for minimizing excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Like the Approved
Project, the following General Plan 2040 policies would also serve to minimize adverse vibration impacts
under the proposed Modified Project.
Policy LU-27.8. Protection. Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually
intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building design,
setbacks, and other appropriate measures. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-6)
Policy HS-8.1. Land Use Decision Evaluation. Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments chart, the Future Noise Contour Map (see Figure D-1 in Appendix D [of the General
Plan]) and the City Municipal Code to evaluate land use decisions. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-49)
Additionally, Chapter 17.04 of the CMC identifies standard vibration protection requirements that all
construction projects must meet. Section 17.04.040(D)(1), Vibration Technical Report Requirements,
requires that the project applicant provide the City with a vibration study to determine vibration levels
from construction prior to approval of the project, when the following activities would occur within the
screening distance to buildings or structures: pile driving within 100 feet, vibratory roller within 25 feet, or
other heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozer) within 15 feet; and for historical structures: pile driving within 135
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-32 APRIL 2024
feet, vibratory roller within 40 feet, or other heavy equipment within 20 feet. If vibration levels due to
construction activities exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV at nearby buildings or structures, or 0.12 in/sec PPV at
historical structures, the project must implement alternative methods/equipment, as described in detail
under Section 4.11.1.3, Vibration Fundamentals, of this EA. Furthermore, CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(3),
Manage Vibrations During Construction, contains vibration-limiting performance standards that must be
implemented in the event pile driving is required.
Adherence to the vibration-reducing measures in the CMC would ensure that vibration reduction is
provided to minimize the temporary impact under the proposed Modified Project. Based on these
considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new or more severe vibration-related impacts beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
NOI-3 For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels.
The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project was not in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport and thus would have no impact.
Cupertino receives some aircraft noise from facilities in the region, including San Jose International
Airport, Moffett Federal Airfield, and Palo Alto Airport. As previously described, the Santa Clara County
Airport Land Use Commission has prepared five comprehensive land use plans to cover all of the public
airports in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission is responsible for
promoting land use compatibility around the county’s airports to minimize public exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards, and the Commission’s comprehensive land use plans identify noise compatibility
zones in the form of airport noise contour graphics that are intended to prevent development that is
incompatible with airport operations. The Cupertino city limit does not fall within the identified noise
contours of any airport. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more airport
or aircraft noise impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
NOI-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to noise.
The General Plan EIR addressed cumulative impacts regarding noise, as well as groundborne noise and
vibration within the analysis of the Approved Project. Any measurement of sound or ambient noise,
whether for the purpose of evaluating land use compatibility, establishing compliance with exterior and
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-33
interior noise standards, or determining point-source violations of a noise ordinance, necessarily would
incorporate noise from all other nearby perceptible sources. As described in General Plan EIR Impact
Discussion NOI-3, transportation-related noise impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Construction Noise and Vibration
Construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to the construction site.
Development that could occur with implementation of the proposed Modified Project and cumulative
development in adjacent cities could be constructed contemporaneously and could result in construction
noise levels higher than those of development of under the proposed Modified Project alone at some
receptor locations. As described previously, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction
equipment typically range from approximately 74 dBA to 101.3 dBA Lmax at 50 feet and 67.7 dBA to 94.3
dBA Leq at 50 feet. The City of Cupertino has established and enforces noise standards for construction
activity. Therefore, while the potential exists for construction projects under the proposed Modified
Project and other foreseeable development to occur simultaneously and in proximity to one another,
construction equipment operations would operate within the constraints of the CMC and General Plan
Health and Safety Element, similar to the Approved Project.
The potential for a cumulative vibration-related damage impact is minimal as vibration impacts are based
on instantaneous PPV levels. Thus, worst-case groundborne vibration levels from construction are
determined by whichever individual piece of equipment generates the highest vibration levels. Unlike the
analysis for average noise levels, in which noise levels of multiple pieces of equipment can be combined to
generate a maximum combined noise level, instantaneous peak vibration levels do not combine in this
manner. Vibration from multiple construction sites, even if they are close to one another, would not
combine to raise the maximum PPV. Therefore, vibration impacts resulting from construction of future
development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project would not combine with
vibration effects from cumulative projects in the vicinity. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would
not result in new or more cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Cumulative Traffic Noise
Cumulative traffic noise levels throughout Cupertino were modeled based on the traffic volumes
identified by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (see Appendix E, Transportation, of this EA) to
determine the noise levels along Cupertino roadways under cumulative conditions. Table 4.11-10,
Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels, shows the calculated off-site roadway noise levels under cumulative
conditions under the Approved Project (Cumulative Plus Approved Project) compared to cumulative
conditions plus future buildout of the Modified Project (Cumulative Plus Proposed Modified Project). As
previously described, a 5 dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response is
expected. Based on this fact, a significant increase in traffic noise is an increase in the existing ambient
noise environment of at least 5 dBA CNEL.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-34 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.11-10 CUMULATIVE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 Feet
Change Significant
Increase?
Distance to CNEL Contour – General Plan
Buildout (feet)
Cumulative
Plus
Approved
Project
Cumulative
Plus
Proposed
Modified
Project
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Foothill Boulevard
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and
Alpine Drive
68.4 68.4 0 No - 11 ft 350 ft 1,105 ft
Bubb Road
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and
Results Way
63.9 64.0 +0.1 No - 40 ft 125 ft 397 ft
Stelling Road
Between Gardena Drive
and Alves Drive 63.8 63.8 0 No - 38 ft 121 ft 383 ft
Between Pepper Tree
Lane and McClellan
Road
63.6 63.6 0 No - - 115 ft 363 ft
Between McClellan
Road and
Orogrande Place
63.2 63.2 0 No - - 104 ft 328 ft
De Anza Boulevard
Between Homestead
Road and I-280 71.8 71.9 +0.1 No 77 ft 243 ft 770 ft 2,434 ft
Between Mariani
Avenue and
Lazaneo Drive
72.4 72.5 +0.1 No 89 ft 282 ft 891 ft 2,816 ft
Between Scofield Drive
and Bollinger Road 70.9 71.1 +0.2 No - 202 ft 638 ft 2,018 ft
Between Rainbow Drive
and Prospect Road 68.4 68.4 0 No - 110 ft 347 ft 1,096 ft
Blaney Avenue
Between Beekman
Place and Wheaton
Drive
59.4 59.4 0 No - - 43 ft 137 ft
Wolfe Road
Between Homestead
Road and I-280
Overpass
68.3 68.3 0 No - 107 ft 339 ft 1,073 ft
Overpass at I-280 71.3 71.3 0 No 68 ft 215 ft 681 ft 2,153 ft
Between I-280 Overpass
and Stevens Creek
Boulevard
70.7 70.7 0 No 59 ft 187 ft 591 ft 1,867 ft
Miller Avenue
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and
Bollinger Road
65.5 65.5 0 No - 56 ft 177 ft 559 ft
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-35
TABLE 4.11-10 CUMULATIVE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 Feet
Change Significant
Increase?
Distance to CNEL Contour – General Plan
Buildout (feet)
Cumulative
Plus
Approved
Project
Cumulative
Plus
Proposed
Modified
Project
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Tantau Avenue
Between Homestead
Road and I-280
Overpass
61.1 61.1 0 No - - 65 ft 205 ft
Lawrence Expressway
Between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and
Mitty Way
74.0 74.0 0 No 126 ft 398 ft 1,258 ft 3,977 ft
Homestead Road
Between Tantau Avenue
and Wolfe Road 66.4 66.4 0 No - 70 ft 221 ft 697 ft
Between Wolfe Road
and Canary Drive 66.8 66.9 +0.1 No - 77 ft 243 ft 769 ft
Between Canary Drive
and Franco Court 67.1 67.2 +0.1 No - 82 ft 261 ft 825 ft
Between Franco Court
and New
Brunswick Avenue
66.3 66.4 +0.1 No - 70 ft 221 ft 698 ft
Between New
Brunswick Avenue
and Mary Avenue
65.4 65.5 +0.1 No - 56 ft 176 ft 555 ft
Vallco Parkway
Between Tantau Avenue
and Wolfe Road 57.9 56.5 -1.4 No - - - 71 ft
Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Between I-280 and
Tantau Avenue 69.9 70.0 +0.1 No - 157 ft 495 ft 1567 ft
Between Tantau and
Portal Avenue 70.3 70.3 0 No - 170 ft 539 ft 1704 ft
Between Portal Avenue
and Randy Lane 68.9 69.0 +0.1 No - 127 ft 401 ft 1268 ft
Between Randy Lane
and De Anza
Boulevard
68.6 68.7 +0.1 No - 118 ft 375 ft 1185 ft
Between De Anza
Boulevard and
Stelling Road
69.0 69.0 0 No - 126 ft 399 ft 1263 ft
Between Stelling Road
and Mary Avenue 69.4 69.5 +0.1 No - 142 ft 449 ft 1420 ft
Between Orange
Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard
65.8 65.8 0 No - 60 ft 191 ft 603 ft
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.11-36 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.11-10 CUMULATIVE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 50 Feet
Change Significant
Increase?
Distance to CNEL Contour – General Plan
Buildout (feet)
Cumulative
Plus
Approved
Project
Cumulative
Plus
Proposed
Modified
Project
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Bollinger Road
Between Wunderlich
Drive and Miller
Avenue
66.4 66.5 0 No - 70 ft 222 ft 701 ft
Between Miller Avenue
and De Anza
Boulevard
64.9 64.9 0 No - 49 ft 154 ft 488 ft
Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by
Fehr & Peers. Refer to Appendix E, Transportation, of this EA for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.
As shown in Table 4.11-10, under cumulative conditions, no city roadway segment would experience an
increase of more than 5.0 dBA CNEL when comparing the Approved Project to the proposed Modified
Project cumulative conditions. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more
cumulative traffic noise impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-1
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This chapter describes the potential impacts on population and housing associated with the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework,
existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the
potential population and housing impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that
could minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
California Government Code Section 65580
California Government Code Section 65580 to 65589.8 contains California Housing Element Law, which
includes provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of local government General Plans.
Among these requirements, some of the necessary parts include an assessment of housing needs and an
inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. Additionally, to assure that
counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing
goals, this section of the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions to plan for, and allow the
construction of, a share of the region’s projected housing needs.
Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was passed in 1982 and amended under Assembly Bill 678 and
Senate Bill 167 in 2017 with the aim to limit the ability of local government to restrict the development of
new housing. Specifically, the HAA prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in
a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income
households 1 or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a
preponderance of evidence in the record.
Housing Crisis Act
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 aims to address California’s housing shortage by
expediting the approval process for housing development of all types, particularly in regions suffering the
worst housing shortages and highest rates of displacements. To address the crisis, this bill prohibits some
local discretionary land use controls currently in place and generally requires cities to approve all housing
developments that comply with current zoning codes and general plans. SB 330 requires that a housing
1 Very low income in Cupertino is defined as income less than $93,200; low income is defined as income between $93,200
to $149,100; and moderate income is defined as $149,100 to $199,200. These three income categories are considered
affordable housing.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-2 APRIL 2024
development project only be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect
when a preliminary application is submitted, notwithstanding the provisions of the HAA or any other law,
subject to certain exceptions.
State Density Bonus Law
The State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915 to 65918) encourages the
development of housing, by allowing up to a 50 percent increase in project densities for projects that
generate at least 5 new units, depending on the amount of affordable housing incorporated into the
project. Cities and counties are required to grant a density bonus (market rate units in exchange for
affordable units included in a project), waivers (the ability to not have to meet a particular development
standard that would preclude the project from being built as designed), incentives or concessions (the
ability to not have to comply with certain requirements if it saves the project money), and a reduction of
parking standards to housing projects which comply with certain factors. The City of Cupertino has
adopted a similar ordinance into the Cupertino Municipal Code to comply with the State Density Bonus in
Section 19.56, Density Bonus.
Assembly Bill 1397
California’s AB 1397 amended Sections 65580, 65583, and 65583.2 of the Government Code, relating to
housing by revising what could be included in a local government’s inventory of land suitable for
residential development. AB 1397 changed the definition of land suitable for residential development to
increase the number of multifamily sites. Identified sites must be “available” and “suitable” for residential
development and have a “realistic and demonstrated potential” for redevelopment during the planning
period. In addition, AB 1397 requires housing element inventory sites to be 0.5 acre to 10 acres, have
sufficient infrastructure, or be included in a program to provide such infrastructure, to support and be
accessible for housing development. The local government must specify the realistic unit count for each
site and whether it can accommodate housing at various income levels.
Senate Bill 166
SB 166 (2017) requires a local government to ensure that its housing element inventory can
accommodate its share of the regional housing need throughout the planning period. It prohibits them
from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential
density than what was used by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for
certification of the housing element, unless the city or county makes written findings supported by
substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing
element. In such cases, any remaining sites identified in the housing element update must be adequate to
accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. A local government may reduce the
residential density for a parcel only if it identifies sufficient sites remaining within the housing element as
replacement sites, so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-3
Regional Regulations
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the comprehensive regional planning agency and
council of governments for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Region. Its members include the
counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma counties and 101 cities and towns of the San Francisco Bay region.
ABAG determines the distribution of affordable housing in the region through its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation process. For the period from 2023 to 2031, HCD has identified a need of more than 441,000
housing units in the Bay Area, more than double the amount from the last eight-year cycle (187,000 units
between 2015 and 2023). Housing needs are distributed for very low income, low income, moderate
income, and above moderate households.2
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, jurisdictions in the Bay Area are currently
updating their housing elements for the 6th Cycle, representing the eight-year planning period from 2023
to 2031. ABAG adopted the Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Plan for the region in
December 2021.3 The Cupertino RHNA is 4,588 units, distributed among four income categories. The
City’s Housing Element must plan for housing that meets this RHNA, plus an appropriate buffer.
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area is a joint regional planning document prepared jointly by ABAG and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) that utilizes a multipronged strategy to address housing affordability,
transportation requirements, the region’s widening income disparities and economic hardships faced by
low- and middle-income workers, and the Bay Area’s vulnerabilities to natural disasters such as
earthquakes and floods. Three principal issues form the core of the Action Plan:
Housing: Lower the share of income spent on housing and transportation costs, lessen displacement
risk, and increase the availability of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
Economic Development: Improve transportation access to jobs, increase middle wage job creation,
and maintain the region’s infrastructure.
Resilience: Enhance climate protection and adaptation efforts, strengthen open space protections,
create healthy and safe communities, and protect communities against natural hazards.
As described previously, based on the RHNA allocations for housing units from ABAG and the City,
Cupertino must update their housing element to show the proposed allocations of housing. While the
RHNA focuses on the eight-year cycle, Plan Bay Area focuses also on the long-term vision for growth
2 Association of Bay Area Governments & Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG & MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area
2050. Adopted October 21, 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/digital-library/plan-bay-area-2050.
3 Association of Bay Area Governments & Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG & MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area
2050. Adopted October 21, 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/digital-library/plan-bay-area-2050.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-4 APRIL 2024
through 2040. In October 2021, ABAG and MTC adopted an updated plan; Plan Bay Area 2050.4 While the
plan has been adopted, it will take up to three years for the plan’s growth forecast to be integrated into
MTC’s transportation model, after which updates to each county’s transportation model will take place.
For these reasons, and for purposes of this SEIR, Plan Bay Area 2040 is the regional plan that forms the
basis for population, housing, and employment projections in this SEIR.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The proposed Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources
(ES), Infrastructure (INF), and Recreation, Parks, and Community Service (RPC) Elements of the General
Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts to population and housing including unplanned population growth, displacement, and
indirect impacts. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts related
to population and housing are identified in Section 4.12.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) serves as the implementation tool for the General Plan and Housing
Element in that it includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to population and housing in
Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to population and
housing are included in Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
Title 19, Zoning . This section of the municipal code sets forth the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the primary
purpose of which is “to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort,
convenience, and general welfare.” The City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance is the mechanism used to
implement the land use goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and to regulate all land use
within the City. The Zoning Ordinance describes Zoning designations and contains the Zoning Map and
development standards for the Zoning designations.
Section 19.116, Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments. This section
regulates the conversion of apartments and other forms of rental housing units to condominiums and
other common interest developments in order to provide for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community to ensure that such conversions do not conflict with the goals or policies
of the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. It also ensures tenant and buyer protection is provided
relating to displacement and relocation of renters.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, new projections have come out detailing the regional
growth in Cupertino and the surrounding area. Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, in Chapter
4 Association of Bay Area Governments & Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG & MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area
2050. Adopted October 21, 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/digital-library/plan-bay-area-2050.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-5
3, Project Description, of this EA, compares the growth analyzed in the General Plan EIR to the projected
growth since the adoption of the General Plan.
Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to population
growth and displacement associated with buildout of the General at a program level. The setting for
population and housing is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.11.1, Existing Conditions.
As shown in Table 3-8 and described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the proposed Modified
Project would introduce approximately 9,737 new residents 5 to Cupertino. Any additional units that
exceed what is evaluated in this EA would require additional CEQA review. These new residents combined
with existing conditions would result in 81,037 residents, 29,132 housing units, and 44,242 jobs. As
described in the General Plan EIR, according to ABAG, Cupertino’s projected 2040 buildout was 71,300
residents, 25,820 housing units, and 44,242 jobs.
4.12.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant population
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
POP-1. Induce substantial unplanned population growth or growth for which
inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure?
LTS LTS
POP-2. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? LTS LTS
POP-3. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to population and
housing? LTS LTS
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the
General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of this
EA. Revisions were made to consolidate the questions in the General Plan EIR (POP-2 and POP-3) regarding the displacement of substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere displacement. This issue is now only addressed in POP-2
of this EA.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
4.12.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
POP-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not induce
substantial unplanned population growth or growth for which
inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
5 Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household
(2,952 dwelling units x 2.94 persons per unit = 7,620 additional population).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-6 APRIL 2024
As described in the General Plan EIR, a project would result in a significant impact related to population
growth if it would lead to substantial unplanned growth either directly or indirectly. The Approved Project
was a broad, high-level plan and no specific projects were proposed and therefore, the Approved Project
would not result in direct growth; however, implementation of the Approved Project would facilitate
growth in the City of Cupertino through 2040. The planned growth under the Approved Project would
occur incrementally over approximately 26 years guided by the regulations listed in General Plan EIR
Section 4.11.1.1, Regulatory Framework, and unplanned growth would not be induced under the
Approved Project.
Like the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be
concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already
developed, underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving
development. The proposed Modified Project would add additional housing opportunity sites to account
for the City’s predicted growth . Updates to City planning documents under the proposed Modified Project
would ensure that there would be adequate planning for the additional growth.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), Mobility
(M), Environmental Resources (ES), Infrastructure (INF), and Recreation, Parks, and Community Service
(RPC) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts that development could have on population growth. Like the Approved Project, the
following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of
the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize unplanned population growth:
Strategy LU-1.3.2. Public and Quasi- Public Uses. Review the placement of public and quasi-public
activities in limited areas in mixed-use commercial and office zones when the following criteria are
met:
1. The proposed use is generally in keeping with the goals for the Planning Area, has similar patterns
of traffic, population or circulation of uses with the area and does not disrupt the operations of
existing uses.
2. The building form is similar to buildings in the area (commercial or office forms). In commercial
areas, the building should maintain a commercial interface by providing retail activity, storefront
appearance or other design considerations in keeping with the goals of the Planning Area.
(General Plan EIR Policy 2-63)
Policy LU-1.6. Jobs/Housing Balance. Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.
(General Plan Policy 2-22)
Strategy LU-3.3.8. Drive-up Services. Allow drive-up service facilities only when adequate circulation,
parking, noise control, architectural features and landscaping are compatible with the expectations of
the Planning Area, and when residential areas are visually buffered. Prohibit drive- up services in areas
where pedestrian oriented activity and design are highly encouraged, such as Heart of the City, North
De Anza Boulevard, Monta Vista Village and neighborhood centers. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-35)
Policy LU- 5.3. Enhance Connections. Look for opportunities to enhance publicly- accessible pedestrian
and bicycle connections with new development or redevelopment.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-7
Strategy LU- 9.1.3. Economic Development and Business Retention. Encourage new businesses and
retain existing businesses that provide local shopping and services, add to municipal revenues,
contribute to economic vitality and enhance the City’s physical environment.
Strategy LU-13.7.3. Connectivity. Properties within a block should be inter-connected with shared
access drives. Provide pedestrian paths to enhance public access to and through the development.
New development, particularly on corner lots, should provide pedestrian and bicycle improvements
along side streets to enhance connections to surrounding neighborhoods. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-
2)
Policy LU-18.2. South Vallco. Retain and enhance the South Vallco area as a mixed-use retail, office
and residential district with a pedestrian oriented, downtown atmosphere. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-
23)
Policy LU-23.1. Conceptual Plan. Create a conceptual plan for the Homestead Road Special Area with a
cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and guidelines. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-24)
Policy LU-25.1. Conceptual Plan. Continue to govern Monta Vista’s commercial area through the
Monta Vista Design Guidelines. The guidelines provide direction for architecture, landscaping and
public improvements. Create a Monta Vista Village Conceptual Plan to with a cohesive set of updated
regulations and guidelines for this area. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-30)
Policy LU-27.1. Compatibility. Ensure that new development within and adjacent to residential
neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-19)
Strategy LU-27.1.1. Regulations. Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single
family development that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. (General
Plan EIR Policy 2-8)
Strategy LU-27.1.4. Late Night Uses. Discourage late-evening entertainment activities such as
nightclubs in commercial areas where parcels are especially narrow, abut single- family residential
development, and cannot adequately provide visual and noise buffers. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-36)
Policy LU-27.2. Relationship to the Street. Ensure that new development in and adjacent to
neighborhoods improve the walkability of neighborhoods by providing inviting entries, stoops and
porches along the street frontage, compatible building design and reducing visual impacts of
garages. (General Plan Policy 2-17)
Policy LU- 27.6. Multi-Family Residential Design. Maintain an attractive, livable environment for multi-
family dwellings. (General Plan Policy 2-17)
Strategy LU- 27.6.1. Provision of Outdoor Areas. Provide outdoor areas, both passive and active, and
generous landscaping to enhance the surroundings for multi-family residents. Allow public access to
the common outdoor areas whenever possible. (General Plan Policy 2-17)
Policy HE-1.1. Provision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Need. Designate sufficient land at
appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 4,588 units
for the 2023-2031 planning period. (General Plan EIR Policy 1)
Policy HE-1.2. Housing Densities. Provide a full range of densities for ownership and rental housing.
(General Plan EIR Policy 2)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-8 APRIL 2024
Policy HE-1.3. Mixed-Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near transportation
facilities and employment centers. (General Plan EIR Policy 3)
Strategy HE- 1.3.2. Rezoning to Achieve RHNA. To ensure that the City has sufficient sites zoned
appropriately to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), rezone sites listed in
Table B4-7 and B4-9 (Appendix B4). The rezone will include 33.52 acres of residential land that will
allow for a realistic capacity of 1,917 units, and 32.67 acres of commercial/residential land that will
allow for a realistic capacity of 1,772 units.
The City will ensure compliance with Government Code Sections 65583 (c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and
65583.2(i), as listed below.
Permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right and not require a conditional use
permit or other discretionary review or approval for developments in which 20 percent or more
of the total units are affordable to lower-income households.
Ensure that each site can accommodate development of at least 16 units per site and require that
all residential development achieve a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre on sites
designated for lower income housing. Ensure (a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and
very low-income regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively
residential uses, or (b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the low- and very low-income
regional housing need on sites designated for mixed uses, all sites designated for mixed uses must
allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the
floor area in a mixed-use project.
Ensure sites will be available for development during the planning periods where water and sewer
can be provided.
Policy HE-2.1. Housing Mitigation. Ensure that all new developments, including market-rate residential
developments, help mitigate project-related impacts on affordable housing needs. (General Plan EIR
Policy 4)
Policy HE-2.2. Range of Housing Types. Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that
provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate-cost housing) and affordability levels.
Emphasize the provision of housing for lower- and moderate-income households, including wage
earners who provide essential public services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public
safety employees, etc.). (General Plan EIR Policy 5)
Policy HE-2.3. Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs. Make
every reasonable effort to disperse units throughout the community but not at the expense of
undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units. (General Plan EIR Policy 6)
Policy HE-3.1. Housing Rehabilitation. Pursue and/or provide funding for the acquisition/rehabilitation
of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Actively support
and assist nonprofit and for-profit developers in producing affordable units. (General Plan EIR Policy 7)
Policy HE-3.2. Maintenance and Repair. Assist lower-income homeowners and rental property owners
in maintaining and repairing their housing units. (General Plan EIR Policy 8)
Policy HE-3.3. Conservation of Housing Stock. The City’s existing multifamily units provide
opportunities for households of varied income levels. Preserve existing multifamily housing stock,
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-9
including existing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, by preventing the net loss of multifamily housing
units upon remodeling, with new development and the existing inventory of affordable housing units
that are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. (General Plan EIR Policy 9)
Policy HE-4.1. Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all
existing and new residential development. (General Plan EIR Policy 10)
Policy HE-6.1. Housing Discrimination. The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful
discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status,
ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent
housing. (General Plan EIR Policy 12)
Policy M-2.2. Adjacent Land Use. Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking and
bicycle lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses in keeping with the vision
of the Planning Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand alternative transportation
options for all Planning Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods). Improvement standards shall also
consider the urban, suburban and rural environments found within the city. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-
10)
Policy M-2.4. Community Impacts. Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of
transportation rather than constructing barriers to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a
demonstrated safety or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable
alternatives since street closures move the problem from one street to another. (General Plan EIR
Policy 4-14)
Policy M-9.1. Efficient Automobile Infrastructure. Strive to maximize the efficiency of existing
infrastructure by locating appropriate land uses along roadways and retrofitting streets to be
accessible for all modes of transportation. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-2)
Policy M-9.3. Street Width. Except as required by environmental review for new developments, limit
widening of streets as a means of improving traffic efficiency and focus instead on operational
improvements to preserve community character. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-2)
Policy ES- 1.2. Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional
agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Regional Housing
Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA), One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). (General Plan Policy 5-2)
Strategy ES-1.2.1. Local Plan Consistency with Regional Plans. Update and maintain local plans and
strategies so they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for State transportation and project
CEQA streamlining. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-2, Strategy 1)
Strategy INF- 1.1.2. Design Capacity. Ensure that public infrastructure is designed to meet planned
needs and to avoid the need for future upsizing. Maintain a balance between meeting future growth
needs and over-sizing of infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts or impacts to other goals. (General Plan
Policy 7-4)
Strategy INF-1.4.2. Future Infrastructure Needs. For new infrastructure, require new development to
pay its fair share of, or to extend or construct, improvements to accommodate growth without
impacting service levels. (General Plan Policy 7-4)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-10 APRIL 2024
Policy INF- 2.4. Undergrounding Utilities. Explore undergrounding of utilities through providers, public
projects, private development and agency funding programs and grants. (General Plan Policy 7-4)
Policy RPC-2.4. Connectivity and Access. Ensure that each home is within a half-mile walk of a
neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities; ensure that walking and biking
routes are reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic; provide pedestrian
links between parks, wherever possible; and provide adequate directional and site signage to identify
public parks. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-84)
As described in Chapter 4.12.1.2, Existing Conditions, of this EA, the proposed Modified Project would
increase the projected growth that was accounted for in the General Plan EIR by an additional 9,737
people. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project itself would not result in indirect, substantial
unplanned population growth in the Study Area and would instead result in planned growth and serve as
the overriding policy document that plans for such growth. Additionally, all potential future development
would be required to provide site-specific infrastructure improvements and to pay any project-specific
impact fees, and as with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the
proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design
standards. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe unplanned population growth beyond
what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
POP-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not displace
substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Displacement is typically considered substantial in cases where major development, such as a freeway or
a large-scale redevelopment, would result in the displacement of large amounts of existing housing, such
that the construction of replacement housing is necessary. The General Plan EIR concluded that the
Approved Project would result in a net increase in housing units, which would not result in the
displacement of housing; therefore, construction of replacement housing elsewhere is not needed.
The buildout under the proposed Modified Project is expected to result in an increase of 3,312 housing
units beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The locations of potential future development
under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project and
would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites
either already developed, underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-
serving development in already urbanized areas. The proposed Modified Project does not call for any
large-scale development that would be considered to result in substantial displacement of existing
housing. To further address displacement, the Housing Element (HE) includes Strategy HE-1.1.1,
Replacement Housing: To facilitate place-based revitalization for households at risk of displacement due to
new development, the City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of
Government Code, Section 65915(c)(3), on sites identified in the site inventory when any new
development (residential, mixed -use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-11
restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years. This
requirement applies to non-vacant sites and vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been
vacated or demolished.
As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards. Based on these
considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new or more severe impacts from displacing substantial numbers of existing people or
housing beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
POP-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to population and
housing.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the growth projected by the Approved Project in the Cupertino city
limit and Sphere of Influence (SOI) was accounted for, in combination with impacts from projected growth
in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by ABAG. Since the Approved
Project would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or
require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, cumulative growth would be consistent with
regional planning efforts.
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also not induce a substantial amount of
growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. Thus, cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning efforts. Therefore, the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts
with respect to population and housing beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-12 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-1
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This chapter describes the potential impact on public services associated with the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and
baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the
potential public service impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies that could minimize any
potentially significant impacts.
4.13.1 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24, Part 2 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC
is currently updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis,
subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-
checked by City building officials for compliance with the CBC. Sections 13000 et seq. of the California
Health and Safety Code include fire regulations for building standards (also in the CBC), fire protection and
notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building
and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training. The newest edition of the California Building
Standards Code is the 2022 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2023.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International
Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC is found in Title 24 of the CCR, Part 9, and, like the
CBC, it is revised and published every three years by the California Building Standards Commission. The
CFC is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local
conditions. The CFC is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety regulations for new and existing
buildings, facilities, storage, and processes, including emergency planning and preparedness, fire service
features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations
and distribution. Typical fire safety requirements include installation of sprinklers in all buildings; the
establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of
construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied
structures in wildfire hazard areas.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-2 APRIL 2024
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Program
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Program (Unified Program). Cupertino’s
hazardous materials programs are administered and enforced under the Unified Program. The California
Environmental Protection Agency has granted the City’s responsibilities to the County of Santa Clara,
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division, including implementation and enforcement of hazardous
material regulations under the Unified Program as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Health and Safety (HS) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals, policies, and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to fire protection services.
Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to fire protection
services are identified in Section 4.13.1.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives pertaining to minimize fire protection
services in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to
aesthetics and visual character are included in Title 16, Buildings and Construction. Title 16 adopts the
2022 California Building Code, 2022 CFC, and the 2021 International Fire Code for the purpose of
prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion, those
certain codes which contain building standards, and fire safety standards. Several local amendments to
the CFC have been adopted in the CMC, including requirements for properties in the wildland-urban
interface, fire apparatus access roads, hazardous and corrosive materials, and requirements for hydrant
upgrades. The Santa Clara County Fire Department typically calculates required fire flow in accordance
with Uniform Fire Code guidelines. Peak-load requirements vary based on building construction, size,
type, and location, and may be modified by the addition of fire alarm or sprinkler systems.
Emergency Operations Plan
Adopted in 2019, the Emergency Operations Plan describes the incident management organization for
Cupertino. The purpose of this plan is to maximize the safety of the public, to minimize property and
environmental damage, and ensure the continuity of government. This plan allows the city to have an
effective response to a variety of emergencies across internal departments throughout the city and
external agencies such as Santa Clara County and surrounding jurisdictions.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
addresses the impacts to fire protection services associated with buildout of General Plan 2040 at a
program level. The setting for fire protection services is described in General Plan EIR Section 4.12.1.2,
Existing Conditions. The district has 15 fire stations and has increased daily staffing to 66 firefighters and
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-3
339 total employees. The stations described in the General Plan EIR remain the three fire stations within
the city limit. In 2023, SCCFD received 21,740 total calls with 62 percent of them being for emergency
medical services. There were 4,000 calls that came from Cupertino. Presently, response time goals are
being met. 1,2
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant impact to fire
protection services if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
PS-1. Result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection and emergency
medical facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives?
LTS LTS
PS-2. Result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection services? LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
PS-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the
need for new or physically altered fire protection and emergency
medical facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives.
The General Plan EIR found that the implementation of the Approved Project would not result in the need
for the construction of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. The General Plan EIR concludes
that the project would bring as many as 12,998 new residents to Cupertino by 2040 and based on the
2010-2014 SCCFD Business Plan and Strategic Plan, the SCCFD has adequate facilities and equipment for
the added residents.
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would add an additional 9,737 people to the Study
Area. There are currently three SCCFD fire stations in the Study Area and therefore the Study Area may
require new or expanded facilities with the implementation of the proposed Modified Project. However,
the projected buildout would occur over a 15-year horizon, and would result in a gradual increase in
demand for fire protection services that would be accommodated by the SCCFD, like under the Approved
Project. The 2023-2027 SCCFD Strategic Plan serves as a comprehensive vision that provides strategies for
accommodating future growth through the identification of goals and objectives aimed at improving
existing fire protection and emergency medical services, as well as to ensure future fire protection and
emergency medical services are adequate to accommodate growth. Strategic Goal 2: Anticipate And
1 Email communications between Jacqueline Protsman Rohr (PlaceWorks) and Chief Hector Estrada, Deputy Chief of Fire
Prevention, Santa Clara County Fire Department, April 8, 2024.
2 Santa Clara County Fire Department 2023 Annual Report, https://www.sccfd.org/wp-
content/uploads/2024/03/2023.3.18_SCCFD_Annual-Report_FINAL-WEB.pdf, accessed on April 9, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-4 APRIL 2024
Mitigate the Effects Of Increased Service Demands Within The Community While Navigating Economic
And Community Uncertainty serves to address fire protection and emergency medical services with the
following strategy:
Strategic Objective 2.3: Prepare for Jurisdictional Population Growth
Maintain the annual growth rate of structure fires at or below the annual population growth rate.
Maintain the annual growth rate of EMS calls at or below the annual population growth rate.
Develop a contingency plan for fire district growth.
Develop a contingency plan for additional contracting jurisdictions.
Plan for new facilities that align with projected staffing levels, as reflected in the five-year Capital
Improvement Plan.
Participate in updates to city and county General Plans.
Update succession planning and professional development policies.
Explore alternative deployment models for high call-volume times and locations.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have
on fire protection resources. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies
and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also
serve to minimize the need for new or physically altered fire protection and emergency medical facilities:
Policy HS- 3.1. Regional Coordination. Coordinate wildland fire prevention efforts with adjacent
jurisdictions. Encourage the County and the Midpeninsula Open Space District to implement
measures to reduce fire hazards, including putting into effect the fire reduction policies of the County
Public Safety Element, continuing efforts in fuel management, and considering the use of “green” fire
break uses for open space lands. (General Plan EIR Policies 6-4 and 6-8)
Policy HS- 3.2. Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all
projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-13)
Policy HS- 3.3. Emergency Access. Ensure adequate emergency access is provided for all new hillside
development.
Strategy HS- 3.3.3. Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade
breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-
15).
Strategy HS- 3.3.4. Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new hillside development to upgrade existing
access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-16)
Policy HS- 3.5. Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines. Coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-9)
Policy HS- 3.6. Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines. Coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses.
Policy HS- 3.7. Multi-Story Buildings. Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design of
multi-story buildings and require on-sire fire suppression materials and equipment. (General Plan EIR
Policy 6-11)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-5
Policy HS- 3.8. Extension of Water Service. Encourage the water companies to extend water service
into the hillside and canyon areas and encourage cooperation between water utility companies and
the Fire Department in order to keep water systems in pace with growth and firefighting service
needs. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-20 and Policy 6-21)
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would increase demand on fire protection
services, but growth would most likely occur incrementally over the lifetime of both the Approved and
proposed Modified Projects. It would be unlikely that the magnitude of increased demands as a result of
the full buildout potential of the proposed Modified Project would be placed on facilities immediately at
the time of adoption. SCCFD examines project impacts on a case-by-case basis to determine the need for
expanded facilities or to hire more staff. Future construction of new or expanded fire stations would be
subject to separate project-level CEQA review in order to identify potential environmental impacts and
mitigation measures as needed, would also be subject to the mitigation measures contained throughout
this EA, would be subject to the proposed Modified Project policies and strategies, and would be required
to comply with CMC Section 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, to reduce potential
environmental impacts. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in need for new or physically altered
fire protection and emergency medical facilities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant
PS-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to fire protection
services.
The General Plan EIR considered growth from development under the Approved Project with the
estimated growth in the service area of the SCCFD, which includes the cities of Campbell, Los Altos,
Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, and adjacent unincorporated areas. A
significant cumulative environmental impact would result if this cumulative growth would exceed the
ability of SCCFD to adequately serve their service area, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or
modification of existing facilities. The SCCFD provides services to other neighboring cities, and they
confirmed that growth under the Approved Project would be adequately served by existing staff,
equipment, and facilities. 3
As described, the proposed Modified Project would not create an immediate need for new or physically
altered facilities for SCCFD to provide fire protection services to its service area. Compliance with State
and local laws, such as the General Plan 2040 policies listed in Impact Discussion PS-1, would ensure that
fire protection services are adequate as future development is proposed as a result of implementation of
the proposed Modified Project. The SCCFD provides services to other neighboring cities, and they have
confirmed that future growth under the proposed Modified Project would be adequately served by
existing staff, equipment, and facilities. Based on these considerations, the proposed Modified Project
3 Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County Fire
Department on April 24, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-6 APRIL 2024
would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution impact related to the construction of other
fire services beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.13.2 POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
This section describes regulations, resources, and response times for police law enforcement that apply to
the proposed Modified Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to police protection services, concerning
the proposed Modified Project. There are no federal or State regulations pertaining to police protection
that apply to the proposed Modified Project.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Health and Safety (HS) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals, policies, and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to police protection and emergency
services. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to police
protection services are identified in Section 4.13.2.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives pertaining to police protection services. Most of the provisions
related to police services are located within Chapter 10.26, Regulation of Police Alarm Systems and
Devices, and Chapter 2.30, Code Enforcement Officer.
Chapter 2.30, Code Enforcement Officer. This chapter establishes the code enforcement officer and
the powers they have, especially pertaining to arresting a person without a warrant.
Chapter 10.26, Regulation of Police Alarm Systems and Devices. This chapter establishes regulations
governing police alarm systems and devices used within the City along with service charges in the
event of repeated false alarms.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to law
enforcement services associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting
for Public Services as it relates to police protection services is described in General Plan EIR Section
4.12.2.1, Existing Conditions. Cupertino is still served by the Santa Clara County Sheff’s Office West Valley
Division. Of the 1,429 sworn personnel in the office, there are 28 deputies allotted to the City. Four
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-7
deputies are assigned to traffic enforcement, two deputies are School Resource Officers, one additional
deputy handles all the enforcement incidents that arise at the schools. The remaining 21 deputies
perform routine patrol functions, 24 hours a day.4
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant public
services impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved Project
(General Plan
2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified Project
PS-3. Result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives?
LTS LTS
PS-4. Result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to police protection
services? LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
PS-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the
need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives.
The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would bring as many as
12,998 new residents to Cupertino by 2040. Additionally, it is anticipated that implementation of the
Approved Project could result in 4,421 units and 16,855 jobs. However, the West Valley Patrol Division
confirmed that future development under General Plan 2040 would not result in the need for expansion
or addition of facilities.5 Additionally, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) confirmed
that while the standard service contract is based on a set number of hours for deputies and reserve
deputies, buildout under the General Plan throughout the 26-year horizon would not substantially result
in an increase in the number of contracted hours as a result of potential increase in calls for police
protection services.
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would add an additional 9,737 people to the Study
Area. The projected buildout would occur over a 15-year horizon, which would result in a gradual increase
in demand for police protection and emergency services that would be accommodated by the Sheriff’s
Office and West Valley Patrol Division, like under the Approved Project. According to the Captain Neil
Valenzuela, West Valley Patrol Division of the Office of the Sheriff, an increase in population under the
proposed Modified Project would increase the calls for service and require an additional 20 deputies to
4 City of Cupertino website, Cupertino.org, Sheriff’s Office, accessed July 14, 2023.
5 Personal communications between PlaceWorks and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol, April 11,
2014.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-8 APRIL 2024
properly support public safety efforts for the anticipated population growth of 9,737 residents.6
Additional staffing may require an increase in equipment and office space, which may require relocation
of the substation. However, the existing substation is a leased space, and therefore it is likely that an
expanded space would also be leased and therefore not result in construction of a new facility that would
cause significant environmental impacts.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have
on police protection resources. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040
policies and strategy, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would
also serve to minimize need for new or physically altered police protection and emergency medical
facilities:
Policy HS- 4.1. Neighborhood Awareness Programs. Continue to support the Neighborhood Watch
Program and others similar programs intended to help neighborhoods prevent crime through social
interaction. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-22)
Policy HS- 4.2. Crime Prevention through Building and Site Design. Consider appropriate design
techniques to reduce crime and vandalism when designing public spaces and reviewing development
proposals. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-24)
Policy HS- 4.3. Fiscal Impacts. Recognize fiscal impacts to the County Sheriff and City of Cupertino
when approving various land use mixes. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-25)
Strategy HS- 4.2.2. Development Review. Continue to request County Sheriff review and comment on
development applications for security and public safety measures. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-26)
As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards. Based on these
considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in need for new or physically altered police protection facilities beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant
PS-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to police services.
The General Plan EIR takes into account growth projected by the General Plan in the Cupertino city limit
and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa
Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area of Governments
(ABAG). Cumulative impacts were considered in the context of the growth from development under the
General Plan within the city, combined with the estimated growth in the service areas of the Santa Clara
County Sheriff’s Department, including the cities of Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, and unincorporated areas of
6 Email communications between Jacqueline Protsman Rohr (PlaceWorks) and Captain Neil Valenzuela, West Valley Patrol
Division, Office of the Sheriff, February 27, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-9
Santa Clara County. A significant cumulative environmental impact would result if this cumulative growth
would exceed the ability of the Sheriff’s Department to adequately serve the vicinity, thereby requiring
construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities. Since police protection services in
Cupertino are provided through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Cupertino
and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, changes and growth anticipated with General Plan 2040 would
not have any cumulative impact beyond Cupertino’s SOI. Additionally, the surrounding cities of San Jose,
Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale have their own police departments and do not rely solely on the Office of the
Sheriff for police services. Moreover, the Sheriff’s Office has confirmed that in conjunction with the
growth anticipated with General Plan 2040, new or physically altered facilities would not be needed.
As described, the proposed Modified Project would not create a need for new or physically altered
facilities for police services. Compliance with State and local laws, such as General Plan 2040 policies and
the strategy listed previously, would ensure that police protection services are adequate as future
development is proposed as a result of implementation of the proposed Modified Project. County Sheriff
review and comment on development applications for security and public safety measures would be
required. Additionally, many of the sites where development is anticipated are infill sites, thus the
development of these infill sites would result in an increase in property tax revenues, which could fund
any anticipated changes to contracted hours and personnel in the future for police protection services.
Based on these considerations, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution impact related to the construction of other police services beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.13.3 SCHOOLS
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (funded by Proposition 1A, approved in 1998) limits the power of cities and counties to
require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provides
instead for a standardized developer fee. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. In
setting the fees, school districts must prepare nexus studies to demonstrate a reasonable connection
between new development and the need for school improvements. The fees may only be used to finance
the construction or modernization of school facilities. The fee application level depends on whether State
funding is available, whether the school district is eligible for State funding and whether the school district
meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round school, and the percentage of
moveable classrooms in use.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-10 APRIL 2024
California Government Code and Education Code
SB 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995 and is commonly referred to as this legislative
bill number, contains limitations on Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school
districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. Government Code Section
65995(b)(3) requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every
two years, according to inflation adjustments. The State Allocation Board (SAB) approves the allowable
amount of statutory school facilities fees (Level I School Fees) for residential development and
commercial/industrial development. According to California Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), the
payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative
or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real
property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization on the provision of adequate
school facilities.” Each school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating
school impacts under the Government Code.
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000-66008)
Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act, requires a local agency establishing, increasing, or
imposing an impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to
which the fee is to be put.7 The agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee
and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on
which it is to be levied. This act became enforceable on January 1, 1989.
The Mello-Roos Communities Facilities Act of 1982
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, Government Code Section 53311 et seq., provides an
alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services through special taxes. This law
empowers local agencies to establish Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) to levy special taxes for
facilities such as public schools.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), and Recreation, Parks and Community Service
(RPC) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning
and development decisions to consider impacts to schools. Applicable policies and strategies that would
minimize potential adverse impacts to schools are identified in Section 4.13.3.3, Impact Discussion.
7 California Legislative Information, California Law, Code Section Group, Government Code Sections 66000-66008,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chapter=5.&article=
accessed on April 8, 2020.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-11
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives pertaining to schools. The provisions
related to schools are in Chapter 18.16, Subdivision Maps, and Chapter 18.24, Dedications and
Reservations.
Section 18.16.030, Department of Community Development Action. This section describes the
procedure that the Department of Community Action will take to update affected public agencies
about the potential subdivision in the area. Within five days of the tentative map application being
deemed complete, the Department of Community Action will send a notice to school districts within
the boundaries of which the subdivision is proposed to be located. Within fifteen days of receiving the
notice the school district may make recommendations to the City regarding the effects of the
proposed subdivision upon the school district. If the school district fails to respond within fifteen days,
the failure to respond shall be deemed approval of the proposed subdivision by the school district.
Article III, School Site Dedication. As a condition of approval of a final subdivision map, a subdivider
may need to designate land in the subdivision to the local school district so that a school can be
constructed for adequate elementary school service.
Section 18.24.190, Standards for Reservation of Land. This section outlines that when a subdivision is
built, certain sites of the subdivision may be required to be reserved by the city for community
facilities, such as a school.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to schools
associated with buildout of General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for schools is described in
General Plan EIR Section 4.12.3.1, Existing Conditions. The three school districts described in the General
Plan EIR remain the districts serving Cupertino. Table 4.13-1, Current Capacity and Enrollment for the
CUSD, shows the current (data from 2022-2023) enrollment and capacity for the Cupertino Unified School
District (CUSD) schools.
TABLE 4.13-1 CURRENT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR THE CUSD
Schools Capacity
Current
Enrollment
Capacity
Difference
Collins Elementary School 598 473 125
Eaton Elementary School 598 470 128
Faria Elementary School 574 632 -58
Garden Gate Elementary School 598 517 81
Lincoln Elementary School 455 665 -210
Regnart Elementary School 407 0 Closed
Sedwick Elementary School 455 367 88
Stevens Creek Elementary School 574 389 185
Other Elementary Schools in CUSD not located in Cupertino 7,155 5,219 439
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-12 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.13-1 CURRENT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR THE CUSD
Schools Capacity
Current
Enrollment
Capacity
Difference
Elementary Schools Total 11,414 8,732 2,680
Cupertino Middle School 1,235 1,099 136
Hyde Middle School 672 778 -106
Kennedy Middle School 954 930 20
Lawson Middle School 1,105 816 289
Other Middle Schools in CUSD not located in Cupertino 932 1,078 -146
Middle Schools Total 4,898 4,701 197
Source: Cupertino Union School District. July 2023.
Since the certification of the EIR, Regnart Elementary School has closed, and most schools have
enrollment under capacity based on the 2022-2023 enrollment. Table 4.13-2, Current Capacity and
Enrollment for the FUHSD, shows the current (data from 2022-2023) enrollment and capacity for the
Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) schools.
TABLE 4.13-2 CURRENT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR THE FUHSD
Schools Capacity
Current
Enrollment
Capacity
Difference
Cupertino High School 2,168 1,997 171
Fremont High School 2,142 2,171 -29
Homestead High School 2,357 2,311 46
Lynbrook High School 1,819 1,741 78
Monta Vista High School 2,410 1,751 659
Other N/A 49 N/A
District Total 10,634 10,019 615
Source: California Department of Education. July 2023.
The only school above capacity for the 2022-2023 school year in FUHSD is Fremont High School and the
district total is far below capacity. Santa Clara Unified School District has 13,919 students enrolled in the
2022-2023 school year.8 This is less than described in the General Plan EIR. All three districts show that
total enrollment has decreased since the certification of the General plan EIR.
8 California Department of Education, cde.ca.gov, 2022-2023 Enrollment by Grade, Santa Clara Unified Report, accessed July
14, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-13
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant impact
to public schools if it would:
Impact of the
Approved Project
(General Plan
2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified Project
PS-5. Result in the need for new or physically altered public school facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
LTS LTS
PS-6. Result in significant cumulatively considerable impact with respect to public
school services? LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
PS-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the
need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the California State Legislature, under Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), has
determined that payment of school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete school
facilities mitigation. All new developments under implementation of the Approved Project will be required
to pay the school impact fees adopted by each school district, and this requirement is considered to fully
mitigate the impacts of the Approved Project on school facilities. The General Plan EIR concluded that
with the new housing units CUSD would experience an additional 1,105 students in elementary schools
and 309 students in middle school, FUHSD would experience an increase of 309 students, and SCUSD
would experience an increase of 220 students (132 elementary schools and 44 students for middle
schools and high schools) by 2040. These districts would need to expand existing facilities or construct
new ones as student enrollment was already exceeding capacity.
Since the certification of the EIR, enrollment across all districts has decreased, thus there is capacity for
the added students from the implementation of the proposed Modified Project. Additionally, like under
the Approved Project, SB 50 would continue to require the payment of school impact fees to mitigate the
impacts on school facilities from future potential developments under the proposed Modified Project.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), and
Recreation, Parks and Community Service (RPC) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local
planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on school
resources. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and
updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize
need for new or physically altered school facilities:
Policy HE-7.1. Coordination with Local School Districts. The Cupertino community places a high value
on the excellent quality of education provided by the three public school districts that serve residents.
To ensure the long-term sustainability of the schools, teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-14 APRIL 2024
preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will continue to coordinate with
the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), and Santa
Clara Unified School District (SCUSD).
Strategy HE-7.3.2. Coordination with Local School Districts. To ensure the long-term sustainability of
public schools, teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant
residential areas, the City will coordinate biennially with the local school districts and colleges to
identify housing needs and concerns. The City will discuss potential partnerships for affordable
housing developments for school district employees and college students, including on school district
properties, which could be assisting with grant applications, incentives, and other incentives listed in
Strategy HE-1.3.11.
Policy LU-1.6. Jobs/Housing Balance. Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.
(General Plan EIR Policy 2-22)
Policy LU-11.1. Connectivity. Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new developments and
community facilities. Review existing neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for
students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and community facilities such as the library. (General Plan
EIR Policy 2-7)
Policy RPC- 8.1. School Districts. Partner with school districts to allow community use of their sports
fields and facilities. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-61)
Strategy RPC- 8.1.1. Shared Facilities. Maintain and enhance arrangements with schools for the use of
sports fields, theaters, meeting spaces and other facilities through maintenance agreements and
other partnerships. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-93)
Strategy RPC- 8.1.2. School Expansion. Encourage schools to meet their expansion needs without
reducing the size of their sports fields. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-93)
As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards. Based on these
considerations and the fact that most schools have not reached enrollment capacity for the 2022-2023
school year, as shown in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of
the proposed Modified Project would not result in need for new or physically altered school facilities
beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-6 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to public school
services.
The General Plan EIR concluded that regional growth resulting from past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects would result in increased demand for additional school facilities within all three
school districts serving Cupertino. Almost all schools in Cupertino experience capacity deficits, and
additional student enrollment would exacerbate the current capacity issue. The schools are expected to
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-15
receive development impact fees from other developments outside of Cupertino, which would mitigate
the current and future capacity issues, and would help expand their facilities to accommodate future
students.
The proposed Modified Project would contribute to regional growth and result in increased student
enrollment and demand on the public school districts. Based on the 2022-2023 school year there is room
at most schools to accommodate this expected increase in enrollment. Based on these considerations, the
proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution impact related to
the construction of other schools beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.13.4 LIBRARIES
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
The Mello-Roos Communities Facilities Act of 1982
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, Government Code Section 53311 et seq., provides an
alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services through special taxes. This
State law empowers local agencies to establish CFDs to levy special taxes for facilities such as libraries.
Regional Regulations
Santa Clara County Library District Strategic Plan, 2023-2028
The Santa Clara County Library District’s (SCCLD) 2023-2028 Strategic Plan sets forth goals and objectives
for a 5-year horizon. The goals and objectives identify ways to improve the libraries existing services by
providing customer-focused service, looking into partnerships across the library’s district, creating a
districtwide literacy program plan, and enhancing technology.9
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Recreation, Parks and Community Service (RPC) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals,
policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to
libraries. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to libraries are
identified in Section 4.13.4.3, Impact Discussion.
9 Santa Clara County Library District, 2023, Santa Clara County Library District Strategic Plan, 2023-2028.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-16 APRIL 2024
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives pertaining to libraries. Most of the
provisions related to libraries are within Chapter 2.68, Library Commission, and Chapter 18.24,
Dedications and Reservations.
Chapter 2.68.010, Library Commission. This chapter establishes the Library Commission and identifies
the term of office that they will have and the powers that they will be granted in their term. The
duties of this position include consulting with the various city groups and the Santa Clara County
Library Joint Powers Authority about the functioning, services, and programs of the Cupertino Library.
Section 18.24.190, Standards for Reservation of Land. This section outlines that when a subdivision is
built, certain sites of the subdivision may be required to be reserved by the city for the purpose of a
community facilities element, such as a library.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to library
services associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for libraries is
described in General Plan EIR Section 4.12.4.1, Existing Conditions. Cupertino is still in the Santa Clara
County Library District as one of the eight libraries in the district. It remains the only public library
available in the city. There are 447,541 residents in the library district and 401,497 in-district
cardholders.10 The Cupertino Library was expanded in 2021/2022.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant public
services impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved Project
(General Plan
2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified Project
PS-7. Result in the need for new or physically altered public libraries, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
LTS LTS
PS-8. Result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to the construction of
other public libraries. LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
PS-7 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the
need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
10 Santa Clara Library District, 2023-2028 Strategic Plan,
https://player.flipsnack.com/?hash=NkVCQ0NDREQ3NUUrZHo5d2N0bzAydg==, accessed July 20, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-17
The General Plan EIR concluded that existing library employees and facilities would be sufficient to
accommodate increased demand for library services from implementation of the Approved Project and
physical expansion would not be required. The only facility deficiency identified by library staff is a lack of
parking; however, communication with library staff has indicated that there is the potential for an
expansion of public meeting space with a larger parking lot.11
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would add an additional 9,737 people to the Study
Area. This would potentially add thousands of new members to the Santa Clara Public Library system.
However, General Plan 2040 includes policies that ensure adequate library services are available for the
residents of Cupertino and meet the needs of residents of all ages and its diverse population.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Recreation, Parks and Community Service (RPC) Element
contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that
development could have on library resources. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General
Plan 2040 policies and strategy, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified
Project, would also serve to minimize the need for new or physically altered library facilities:
Strategy RPC-1.1.2. Civic Center Master Plan. Prepare a master plan that addresses the needs of the
elements in the Civic Center area including City Hall, Community Hall, Library Field, Library
programming, function and meeting space and community gathering space and parking needs.
Policy RPC- 6.1. Diverse Programs. Ensure that the City continues to offer a wide range of programs to
serve diverse populations of all ages and abilities. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-60)
Policy RPC-6.4. Library Service. Encourage the library to continue to improve service levels by
incorporating new technology and expanding the library collections and services. General Plan EIR
Policies 2-58 and 2-60)
As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards. Based on these
considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities beyond what was evaluated in
the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
11 Personal communications between PlaceWorks and Derek Wolfgram, Deputy County Librarian for Community Libraries,
April 4, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-18 APRIL 2024
PS-8 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project, in combination with
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts with respect to the construction of other
library facilities.
The General Plan EIR considered growth projected by the Approved Project in combination with impacts
from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecasted by the
Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG). Cumulative impacts were considered in the context of
the growth from development under the Approved Project combined with the estimated growth in the
service areas of the SCCLD, which includes all unincorporated portions of Santa Clara County in addition to
the incorporated portions of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte
Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. The Santa Clara County Library Strategic Plan (2008) accounts for the
entire SCCLD service area and provides a basis for analyzing the most efficient allocation of funds both for
the district as a whole as well as among the different libraries in the SCCLD service area. This and the fact
that the increase in service population would occur incrementally over a period of 26 years would ensure
the libraries are adequate to fulfill future demand.
Like the Approved Project, the population increase from the proposed Modified Project would occur
incrementally. The 2023 Strategic Plan continues to provide an analysis of the most efficient allocation of
funds to support their service population. With the General Plan policies in place to ensure all residents
have access to public library resources, the proposed Modified Project would not result in significant
cumulative impacts due to the construction of other library facilities beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.13.5 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
The Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) authorizes cities and counties to adopt
ordinances requiring developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park
improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for operation and
maintenance of park facilities.12 A 1982 amendment (AB 1600) requires agencies to clearly show a
reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or parkland and the type of
12 Westrup, Laura, 2002, Quimby Act 101: An Abbreviated Overview, Sacramento: California Department of Parks and
Recreation.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-19
development project upon which the fee is imposed. Cities with a high ratio of park space to inhabitants
can set a standard of up to 5 acres per 1,000 persons for new development. Cities with a lower ratio can
only require the provision of up to 3 acres of park space per 1,000 persons. The calculation of a city’s park
space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal census to
the amount of city-owned parkland.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act allows cities to establish fees that will be imposed on development projects to
mitigate the impact on the jurisdiction’s ability to provide specified public facilities to serve proposed
development projects. In order to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, a jurisdiction must follow four
requirements: 1) Make certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of a fee and establish a
nexus or connection between a development project or class of project and the public improvement
being financed with the fee; 2) Segregate fee revenue from the general fund in order to avoid
commingling of capital facilities fees and general funds; 3) For fees that have been in the possession of the
jurisdiction for five years or more and for which the dollars have not been spent or committed to a
project, the jurisdiction must make findings each fiscal year describing the continuing need for the money;
and 4) Refund any fees with interest for which the findings noted above cannot be made.
Regional Regulations
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is a non-enterprise special district that serves
parts of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz counties in order to form a continuous greenbelt of
permanently preserved open space by linking public parklands. As a member of Bay Area Open Space
Council, the MROSD participates in cooperative efforts, including Bay Trail, Ridge Trail, and Skyline-to-the-
Sea Trail, which are regional Bay Area trails running across the District’s jurisdiction. The MROSD’s basic
policy document includes goals and policies that relate to open space land preservation and management,
inter-agency relationships, and public involvement. Lands under MROSD’s jurisdiction in Cupertino are
designed for low-intensity use to give long-term protection from encroaching urbanization. These lands
are acquired according to four principal criteria: scenic preservation, preservation of unique sites, the
guidance of urban form, and low intensity recreational opportunities. Most of the MROSD parks are
located along both sides of State Route 35, which is a north-south route spanning the counties of San
Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara. The closest MROSD parks to Cupertino are the Fremont Older,
Picchetti Ranch, and Rancho San Antonia, which are located just southwest and west of the city limits,
respectively.
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Strategic Plan
The Santa Clara County Parks (SCCP) system includes 28 regional parks encompassing over 52,000 acres of
land. The 2018 Strategic Plan identifies and prioritizes outdoor recreation values and needs in Santa Clara
County. The SCCP operates on a voter-approved measure in which a fixed portion of the property taxes
collected are set aside from the General Fund to acquire and develop a regional park system.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-20 APRIL 2024
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), and Recreation, Parks and Community Service
(RPC) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning
and development decisions to consider impacts to park and recreation. Applicable policies and strategies
that would minimize potential adverse impacts to park and recreation facilities are identified in Section
4.13.5.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives pertaining to parks and recreation. Most
of the provisions that are related to parks and recreation are located within Chapter 2.36, Parks and
Recreation Commission, Chapter 13.08, Park Land Dedication Fee, Chapter 18.24, Dedications and
Reservations, and Chapter 19, Zoning.
Chapter 2.36, Parks and Recreation Commission. This chapter establishes the parks and recreation
commission, outlines the term of office, and the responsibilities that will come with being on the
commission. The responsibilities entail holding hearings on matters about planning and development
of parks, cultural activities, historical resources, recreation, community services, and capital
expenditures related to community activities and facilities. After these hearings, findings are reported
to the City Council.
Chapter 13.08, Park Land Dedication Fee. This chapter regulates the fees that need to be paid in lieu
of park land dedication in accordance with the Recreation, Parks , and Community Service Element of
the adopted General Plan.
Section 18.24.190, Standards for Reservation of Land. This section outlines when a subdivision is built,
certain sites of the subdivision may be required to be reserved by the city for the purpose of a
community facilities element, such as a park.
Chapter 19.92, Parks and Recreation (PR) Zones. This chapter establishes the parks and recreation
zone, its purpose, and the permitted uses in these areas.
Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
Adopted in 2020, the citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan guides future development,
renovation, management, and programming of Cupertino’s parks and recreation facilities. The goals of the
plan are to increase opportunities to connect with nature, expand trails and connectivity, and enhance
parks and recreation access. The Master Plan provides direction for the City and Parks and Recreation
Department and improves and enhances parks and recreation through the horizon year of 2040.
McClellan Ranch Master Plan
Updated in 2012, this plan looked into capital improvement projects at McClellan Ranch Park in order to
create a prioritized list that will inform decision making in the years to come. The goals of this plan are to
foster stewardship of the earth by providing environmental education, leadership, and resources; protect
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-21
and preserve for the people of Cupertino the natural habitat and rural property; and utilize this rare
riparian environment for enjoyment and study.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to parks and
recreation facilities and services associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The
setting for Public Services as it relates to parks and recreation facilities is described in General Plan EIR
Section 4.12.5.1, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been an additional 16
public parks created in Cupertino, most notably: Blackberry Farm at 21979 Fernando Avenue, a 38-acre
open space with an onsite café, two pools open May through September, a playground, horseshow courts,
sand volleyball and bocce ball courts, and a large picnic area adjacent to Stevens Creek Trail and Franco
Park at 10981 Franco Court, a 0.61-acre neighborhood park with picnic tables and a playground.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant public
services impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved Project
(General Plan
2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified Project
PS-9. Result in the need for new or physically altered park facilities or other
recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other
performance objectives?
LTS LTS
PS-10. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur, or be accelerated?
LTS LTS
PS-11. Result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to parks? LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
PS-9 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the
need for new or physically altered park facilities or other recreational
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
or other performance objectives.
For both the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project, the City has an adopted parkland
dedication standard of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents.
The General Plan EIR found that there was a total of approximately 156 acres of parkland in Cupertino, or
approximately 2.7 acres per 1,000 residents, based on a population of 58,302 (at the time the General
Plan EIR was drafted). The General Plan EIR acknowledges that the City does not meet its adopted
standard of providing three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Because the Approved Project included
a projected growth of 12,998 residents over 26 years, an increase in demand for existing parklands and
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-22 APRIL 2024
recreation facilities would occur. In order to meet the city standard, 39 acres of new parkland would need
to be created. The General Plan EIR concluded that the Approved Project would require the construction
of new or expanded recreation facilities however it is not known at what time or location such facilities
would be required or what the exact nature of those facilities would be. Thus, it cannot be determined
what project-specific environmental impacts would occur from their construction and operation of the
new parks. Additionally, such impacts would be project-specific, and would require permitting and review
in accordance with CEQA, as necessary, which would ensure that any environmental impacts are disclosed
and mitigated to the extent possible.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has developed the Regnart Creek Trail
(approximately 1.5 acres) which connects the eastern part of the city in an east-west direction, along
Regnart Creek in the City Center Special Area and the South Blaney neighborhood. In addition, the City
has acquired the 1.56 acre Linda Vista trail in the western part of the city in the South Monta Vista
neighborhood, and completed acquisition of the 7.8 acre Lawrence Mitty Park in the Rancho Rinconada
neighborhood, which is in the design phase and is anticipated to be completed in the next 5 years. Finally,
the City is in the process of designing the 3 mile long (approximately 4.36 acres) Tamien Innu (trail) along
the Junipero-Serra channel on Santa Clara Valley Water District property, which would connect the Garden
Gate neighborhood on the west to Main Street in the east, which abuts the Rancho Rinconada
neighborhood. This additional parkland would increase the total parkland in Cupertino to approximately
171 acres, but in order to meet the city standard, approximately 24 additional acres of parkland would
need to be created.
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would add an additional 9,737 residents to the City’s
projected growth projections. To meet the standard set by the City of three acres of parkland for every
1,000 residents, an additional 9.7 acres of parkland would need to be included during implementation of
the proposed Modified Project, for a total need of 33.48 acres of parkland. As with the Approved Project,
the location and exact nature of the future facilities is unknown, so environmental impacts from their
construction and operation cannot be determined within this EA.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Housing (HE) and Recreation, Parks and Community Service
(RPC) Elements contain policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider
impacts that development could have on park facilities or other recreational facilities. Like the Approved
Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategy, and updated policies and strategies
as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize the need for new or physically
altered park facilities or other recreational facilities:
Strategy HE-2.3.9. Review Impact Fees. To ensure that impact fees are not a constraint on the
development of housing,
Review and revise impact fees by researching surrounding jurisdictions to determine other
possible fee structures, grant funding opportunities and similar funding sources, review of
average persons per unit at higher densities of development and will consider:
Alternatives, such as privately owned, publicly accessible (POPA) areas, or allowing parkland
credit for pedestrian connections and trails.
Incorporating priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals for 100 percent affordable
projects, and modifying development standards.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-23
Strategy HE-3.3.5. Park Land Ordinance. The City will review and revise its Park Land Ordinance to
reduce any potential constraints on residential development while maintaining access to quality open
space. The City will review requirements for higher-density projects and evaluate the possibility of
open space credits.
Policy RPC-1.2. Parkland Standards. Continue to implement a parkland acquisition and
implementation program that provides a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents. (General Plan
EIR Policy 2-83)
Policy RPC- 2.4. Connectivity and Access. Ensure that each home is within a half-mile walk of a
neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities; ensure that walking and biking
routes are reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic; provide pedestrian
links between parks, wherever possible; and provide adequate directional and site signage to identify
public parks. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-84)
As with the development under the Approved Project, potential future development, like future park and
recreation facilities under the proposed Modified Project, would be required to comply with applicable
laws, policies, and design standards. Further, CMC Chapter 14.05, Park Maintenance Fee, requires
developers to pay impact fees to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities and Chapter 18.24,
Dedications and Reservations, requires residential developments to dedicate parklands or pay in-lieu fees
to accommodate and offset their fair share of impacts to parklands.
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would increase population and thus the required acreage of
parks and recreation facilities. However, the General Plan policies in place and future development having
to comply with the CMC regulations would help the City meet its target of three acres per 1,000 residents.
Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts from new or physically altered park
facilities or other recreational facilities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-10 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not increase the
use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur, or be accelerated.
The General Plan EIR concluded that there was a total of approximately 156 acres of parkland in
Cupertino, or approximately 2.7 acres per 1,000 residents, based on a population of 58,302 (at the time
the General Plan EIR was drafted). The Approved Project would bring as many as 12,998 new residents to
the City by 2040; therefore, increasing use of existing parkland, which could accelerate the physical
deterioration of existing facilities. However, future development would comply with CMC Chapter 14.05,
Park Maintenance Fee, that requires developers to pay impact fees to maintain existing parks and
recreation facilities and Chapter 18.24, Dedications and Reservations, that requires residential
developments to dedicate parklands or pay in-lieu fees to accommodate and offset their fair share of
impacts to parklands. This would ensure that potential future development provides its fair-share of parks
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-24 APRIL 2024
since the Approved Project would increase population, and subsequently the demand on parks and
recreation facilities throughout Cupertino.
Like the Approved Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in an increase
in population and therefore the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities. Potential future development under the implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would be required to comply with the CMC chapters referenced previously that would support the City in
maintaining and creating new neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
Additionally, along with the General Plan 2040 policies listed in Impact Discussion PS-9, the General Plan
EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design Element and the Recreation, Parks and
Community Service (RPC) Element contains policies and strategies that require local planning and
development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on park or other recreational
facilities. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and
updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize
substantial physical deterioration of park or other recreational facilities:
Policy LU-7.1. Public Art. Stimulate opportunities for the arts through development and cooperation
with agencies and the business community. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-75)
Policy RPC- 1.1. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Prepare a citywide Parks and Recreation Master
Plan that outlines policies and strategies to plan for the communities open space and recreational
needs. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-78)
Strategy RPC- 1.1.1. Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. Prepare a master plan for the park and open
space corridor along Stevens Creek including McClellan Ranch, McClellan Ranch West, Blackberry
Farm, the Blackberry Farm golf course, Stocklmeir and Blesch properties and the Nathan Hall Tank
House area. The plan should address a fiscally sustainable strategy that allows year-round community
use of the park system, while preserving the area’s natural resources and addressing neighborhood
issues including connectivity and buffers. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-78)
Strategy RPC- 2.5.1. Special Needs. Extend recreational opportunities for special needs groups
(seniors, disabled, visually challenged, etc.) by making improvements to existing facilities and trails.
(General Plan EIR Policy 2-79)
Policy RPC- 5.1. Open Space and Trail Linkages. Dedicate or acquire open space land along creeks and
utility through regional cooperation, grants and private development review. (General Plan EIR Policy
2-82)
As with the development under the Approved Project, potential future development, like future park and
recreation facilities under the proposed Modified Project, would be required to comply with applicable
laws, policies, and design standards. Further, CMC Chapter 14.05, Park Maintenance Fee, requires
developers to pay impact fees to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities and Chapter 18.24,
Dedications and Reservations, requires residential developments to dedicate parklands or pay in-lieu fees
to accommodate and offset their fair share of impacts to parklands.
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would increase population and thus the use of parks and
recreation facilities. However, the General Plan policies in place and future development having to comply
with the CMC regulations would help the City update and improve park and recreation facilities. Based on
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-25
these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in new or more severe impacts from use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-11 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project, in combination with
past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would/would not
result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to parks.
The EIR considered growth projected by the Approved Project within the Study Area in combination with
impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecasted
by the Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG). The geographic scope for this discussion includes
park and recreation facilities within the Study Area, as well as Santa Clara County, and the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District. Although buildout would cumulatively increase demand for park and
recreation facilities, as described in General Plan EIR Impact Discussion PS-9 and PS-10, the City would
require subdivision development to fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance with
CMC Chapter 14.05 and Title 18, which would help to ensure the provision of adequate parklands in
compliance with the City standard of providing three acres per 1,000 residents. Further, potential future
impacts to Santa Clara County and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District parks would be mitigated
through the contribution of property taxes to ensure facilities at these locations are adequately
maintained and sufficient to accommodate growth associated with implementation of the Approved
Project.
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would further increase population and the
demand for parks and recreation facilities. Yet, like the conclusion in the General Plan EIR, compliance
with CMC Chapter 14.05 and Title 18 would help to ensure the provision of adequate parklands in
compliance with the City standard providing three acres per 1,000 residents. Additionally, General Plan
2040 policies and strategies listed in Impact Discussions PS-9 and PS-10 would ensure park space is
maintained and adequate for the residents of Cupertino and the surrounding area. Overall, the proposed
Modified Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts due to the park or recreational
facilities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-26 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-1
4.14 TRANSPORTATION
This chapter describes the potential impacts to transportation associated with the adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and
existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the
potential transportation impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could
minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
TERMINOLOGY
The following are definitions for terms used in this chapter:
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). A measure of network use or efficiency that accounts for the number of
daily vehicle trips generated, times the length or distance of those trips. VMT is generally expressed as
VMT per capita for a typical weekday.
Greenhouse gases (GHG). Gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light, thereby retaining heat
in the atmosphere and contributing to a greenhouse effect.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Applicable federal regulations pertaining to transportation are addressed in other chapters of this EIR,
including Chapter 4.2, Air Quality; Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Chapter 4.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials. The federal Clean Air Act, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act may have some relevance or influence for individual projects or actions as
part of potential future projects in the Study Area. Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) is the agency of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) responsible for the
federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary
state highway network, Interstate (I-) 280 and State Route (SR-) 85.
State Regulations
Senate Bill 743
With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743 in September 2013, which was codified in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, and the subsequent adoption of revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines in December 2018, level of service, also referred to as LOS, can no longer be used as a criterion
for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA. Level of service is the
measure of the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection or along a road
segment during the most congested time of day, while the new CEQA metric (VMT) measures the total
number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and thereby the impacts on the
environment from those miles traveled. Level of service is a measure of local vehicle congestion at an
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-2 APRIL 2024
intersection or on a road segment, and VMT is a measure of the total miles of vehicles travel measured at
an area-wide or project-level scale. In other words, SB 743 changed the focus of transportation impact
analysis in CEQA from measuring quality-of-life impacts to drivers, to measuring the physical impacts of
driving on the environment.
According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory),1 land use projects with one or more of the following
characteristics would generate lower VMT than conventional development:
Higher land use densities
Mix of project uses
Support of a citywide jobs-housing balance (i.e., provide housing in a job rich area, or vice versa)
Proximity to the core of a region
Proximity to high-quality transit service
Located in highly walkable or bikeable areas
This shift in transportation impact criteria is expected to better align transportation impact analysis and
mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and
improve public health through more active transportation. Specific to SB 743, CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(c) states that, “a lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section
immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” However,
CEQA Section 21099(b)(2) states that, “upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural
Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or
similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on
the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the CEQA
Guidelines.”
Although the OPR provides recommendations for adopting new VMT analysis guidelines, lead agencies
have the final say in designing their methodology. Lead agencies must select their preferred method of
estimating and forecasting VMT, their preferred significance thresholds for baseline and cumulative
conditions, and the mitigation strategies they consider feasible. Lead agencies must prove that their
selected analysis methodology aligns with SB 743’s goals to promote infill development, reduce GHGs,
and reduce VMT.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly referred to by its legislative bill
number, Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), provides incentives for cities and developers to bring housing and jobs
closer together and to improve public transit. The goal is to reduce the number and length of automobile
commuting trips, helping to meet the statewide targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set by
Assembly Bill (AB) 32.
1 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, April 2018.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-3
SB 375 requires each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to add a broader vision for growth to its
transportation plan––called a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The SCS must lay out a plan to
meet the region’s transportation, housing, economic, and environmental needs in a way that enables the
area to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The SCS should integrate transportation, land-use, and housing
policies to plan for achievement of the emissions target for each region. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
and SCS were adopted in 2017 and updated under the title Plan Bay Area 2050 in 2021.2 According to
MTC/ABAG, Plan Bay Area 2050+, which is a limited and focused update that builds upon the strong
foundation of Plan Bay Area 2050, is currently being prepared.
California Complete Streets Act of 2008
Originally passed in 2008, California’s Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358) came into effect in 2011
and requires local jurisdictions to plan for land use transportation policies that reflect a “complete streets”
approach to mobility. “Complete streets” comprises a suite of policies and street design guidelines that
provide for the needs of all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators and riders,
children, the elderly, and the disabled. From 2011 onward, any local jurisdiction—county or city—that
undertakes a substantive update of the circulation element of its general plan must plan for a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, (i.e.,
consider “complete streets” and incorporate corresponding policies and programs).3
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the primary state agency responsible for
transportation issues. One of its duties is the construction and maintenance of the state highway system.
Caltrans approves the planning, design, and construction of improvements for all State-controlled
facilities, including I-280 and SR-85, and the associated interchanges for these facilities in the Study Area.
Caltrans has established standards for roadway traffic flow and developed procedures to determine if
State-controlled facilities require improvements. For projects that may physically affect facilities under its
administration, Caltrans requires encroachment permits before any construction work may be
undertaken. For projects that would not physically affect facilities but may influence traffic flow and levels
of service at such facilities, Caltrans may recommend measures to mitigate the traffic impacts of such
projects.
The following Caltrans procedures and directives are relevant to the proposed Modified Project,
particularly to state roadway facilities:
Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. The Caltrans Vehicle Miles
Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), dated May 20, 2020, was prepared to
provide guidance to Caltrans districts, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants
regarding Caltrans’ review of VMT impact analysis for land use projects and land use plans. Caltrans
2 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050,
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed July 21, 2023.
3 California Government Code Section 65302(b)(2)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-4 APRIL 2024
seeks to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, provide a safe transportation system, reduce per
capita VMT, increase accessibility to destinations via cycling, walking, carpooling, and transit, and
reduce GHG emissions. The TISG notes that, for land use projects and plans, automobile delay (the
level of service metric) is no longer considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA.
Caltrans’s primary review focus for a land use project’s transportation impact is now VMT. The TISG
generally endorses the OPR Technical Advisory, including the thresholds in that document. Caltrans
may review VMT thresholds, methodology, and mitigations.
Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. The
Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners
Guidance (July 2020) was developed to provide immediate direction about the safety review while
final guidance is being developed. The Interim LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidance does not
establish thresholds of significance for determining safety impacts under CEQA. The Interim LDIGR
Safety Review Practitioners Guidance states that the significance of impacts should be determined
with careful judgment on the part of a public agency and based, to the greatest extent possible, on
scientific and factual data consistent with Caltrans’s CEQA guidance in its Standard Environmental
Reference. The Interim LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidance states that Caltrans’s traffic safety
staff will use available data to determine if the project may influence or contribute to locations
identified by traffic safety investigations generated by network screening or initiated by Caltrans.
Deputy Directive 64-RI: Complete Streets—Integrating the Transportation System. This directive
requires Caltrans to provide for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning,
programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the state
highway system. Caltrans supports bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel with a focus on “complete
streets” that begins early in system planning and continues through project construction and
maintenance and operations.
Director’s Policy 22. This policy establishes support for balancing transportation needs with
community goals. Caltrans seeks to involve and integrate community goals in the planning, design,
construction, and maintenance and operations processes, including accommodating the needs of
bicyclists and pedestrians. Director’s Policy 22 recognizes that “in towns and cities across California,
the State highway may be the only through street or may function as a local street,” that “these
communities desire that their main street be an economic, social, and cultural asset as well as provide
for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods,” and that “communities want
transportation projects to provide opportunities for enhanced non-motorized travel and visual
quality.”4 Director’s Policy 22 acknowledges that addressing these needs will ensure that
transportation solutions meet more than just traffic and operational objectives.
Caltrans recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities.
Class I. Commonly referred to as a bike path or bikeway, Class I facilities are separated from
automobile traffic for the exclusive use of bicyclists.
4 California Department of Transportation. 2001. “Directors Policy DP-22”, accessed on February 5, 2024 at
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/active-transportation-complete-
streets/dp-22-a11y.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-5
Class II. Commonly referred to as bike lanes, Class II facilities are dedicated for bicyclists immediately
adjacent to automobile traffic.
Class III. Commonly referred to as bike routes, Class III facilities are on-street routes where bicyclists
and automobiles share the road.
Class IV. Commonly referred to as cycle tracks or protected bike lanes, Class IV facilities combine
elements of Class I and Class II facilities to offer an exclusive bicycle route immediately adjacent to a
roadway, similar to a Class II facility, but includes a physical separation from traffic with raised curbs,
plastic delineators, or parked automobiles.
Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EA, and previously in this chapter, Plan Bay
Area is the RTP/ SCS that works to align transportation and land use planning in order to reduce VMT
through modified land use patterns. The current Plan Bay Area projects growth and development patterns
through 2050 and a limited a focused update for year 2050+ is currently being prepared.
Bay Area Clean Air Plan
As described in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of this EA, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (Clean Air Plan) on April 19,
2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to
meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the
Bay Area in a post carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following:
Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for most trips and use electric-powered autonomous public
transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next three
to five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision.
The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, toxic
air contaminants, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover eight
sectors that contribute to GHG emissions, including transportation. The control strategy includes the
following relevant priorities related to the transportation sector:
Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).
Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.
Reduce demand for vehicle travel and high-carbon goods and services.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
Congestion Management Program
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) prepared the 2021 Congestion Management
Program (CMP) to reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. The
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-6 APRIL 2024
CMP monitors the level of service on roadway networks. It requires cities/towns and the county to
prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis report that documents the impacts that new developments
would have on the CMP Roadway Network, as well as other parts of the transportation system.
Valley Transportation Plan
The Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) is the long-term comprehensive plan developed by VTA that provides
policies and programs for transportation in Santa Clara County. VTP 2040, adopted in 2014, identifies
programs, projects, and policies the VTA will pursue related to efficiency and mobility, sustainability and
growth, connectivity and technology, air quality and energy use, and fiscal sustainability and responsibility.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and Sustainability, and
Health and Safety (HS) Elements, of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider transportation impacts including vehicle
miles traveled. The General Plan 2040 policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse
transportation impacts are identified in Section 4.14.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse transportation
impacts in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to
transportation are included in Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks, and Landscaping,
and Title 17, Environmental Regulations, as follows:
Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic. This title establishes regulations with respect to parking, traffic, and
circulation. Additionally, Title 11 establishes regulations governing roadway design features, such as
speed bumps.
Chapter 14.04, Street Improvements . This chapter requires that any person who proposes to erect,
construct, add to, alter, or repair any building or structure, for which a permit is required, adjacent to
land of an unimproved street, must install street improvements. These improvements include, but are
not limited to, street signs, curbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalks, street paving, and/or dedications
and improvements of service roads, and parking facilities. CMC Section 14.04.110, Improvements
Installed Prior to Permit–Imposition of Street Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and
Interest, requires that when street improvements are made by the City in advance of development of
adjacent property, upon development the property owner must reimburse City for all costs advanced.
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements . The purpose of this chapter is to
identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet,
including but not limited to environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental
documents required as part of a General Plan update. This chapter includes specific requirements for
VMT.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-7
Section 17.04.040(C), Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Report Requirements. This section requires
that project applicants prepare a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, which shall include a
comparison of existing VMT and project-generated VMT, for review and approval prior to project
approval, indicating that the project meets the standards in CMC Section 17.08.040, Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Standards.
Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.
This chapter contains standards relating to the use of VMT in Cupertino for evaluating transportation
impacts. As a result of SB 743, the City has implemented the use of VMT in environmental review of
new CEQA projects.
A. The VMT significance thresholds for land use projects and plans compared to baseline conditions
are:
1. Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the total project generated VMT per service
population for the project would exceed a level of 14.4% below the citywide baseline VMT
rate.
2. Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total (boundary)
countywide VMT compared to baseline conditions.
B. The VMT significance thresholds for land use and transportation projects and plans under
cumulative conditions are:
1. Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total (boundary)
countywide VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions.
2. All land use and transportation projects: A significant impact would occur if the project is
inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy Plan
(Plan Bay Area).
C. The VMT significance thresholds for transportation projects are:
1. Baseline Transportation Thresholds: A significant impact would occur if a project causes a net
increase in total (boundary) citywide VMT compared to baseline conditions or opening year
no project conditions.
2. Cumulative Transportation Thresholds: A significant impact would occur if a project causes a
net increase in total (boundary) citywide VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions.
Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016 Bicycle Plan) is a citywide plan to encourage
bicycling as a safe, practical, and healthy alternative to cars. The 2016 Bicycle Plan includes standards for
engineering, encouragement, education, and enforcement intended to improve the bicycle infrastructure
in the city to enable and encourage people to bike to work and school, to utilize a bicycle to run errands,
and to enjoy the health and environmental benefits that bicycling provides cyclists of every age.
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The 2018 City of Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2018 Pedestrian Plan) presents goals, policies,
and specific recommendations to increase the walkability of Cupertino. The 2018 Pedestrian Plan is a
companion document to 2016 Bicycle Plan. It serves as the blueprint for Cupertino to achieve its vision of
an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network that enhances the quality of life for all community
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-8 APRIL 2024
members and to establish a guiding framework for the development and maintenance of pedestrian
facilities throughout Cupertino. It includes the following types of specific recommendations to improve
pedestrian conditions: pedestrian pathway projects, sidewalk improvement locations, traffic calming
projects, proposed intersection improvements, and other pedestrian projects.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts regarding
transportation and traffic. The setting for transportation is described in General Plan EIR Section 4.13.4,
Existing Conditions and Environmental Setting. The General Plan EIR found that, for vehicular
transportation, development under the Approved Project would result in additional trips and cause 16
intersections to have unacceptable levels of service; thus, conflicting with the City’s standards for traffic at
that time. Though the City was not able to guarantee improvements, the General Plan EIR included
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 to reduce impacts associated with level of service. As described under
subheading “Senate Bill 743” in Section 4.14.1.2, Regulatory Framework, since the certification of the
General Plan EIR, the method to analyze transportation impacts has changed and level of service is no
longer considered an appropriate metric for evaluating impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, Mitigation
Measures TRAF-1 does not apply to the proposed Modified Project and this EA. VMT is now used as a
metric to analyze project impacts. VMT measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on
the roadway network and thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. Though no
VMT analysis methodologies, standards, or thresholds of significance was established at the time of the
General Plan EIR, VMT calculations were provided in Impact Discussion TRAF-1 in Section 4.13.6, Impact
Discussion, of the General Plan EIR. As shown, the VMT per capita was projected to increase from 10.5
(2000 to 2020 General Plan) to 10.9 (Approved Project). However, Fehr & Peers prepared the
Transportation Analysis for the Environmental Review (Transportation Analysis) in January 2024, which is
included in Appendix E, Transportation Analysis, of this EA. Table 9, Total Project Generated VMT
Assessment, of the Transportation Analysis, shows that using current standards and methodology and the
City of Cupertino VMT thresholds, existing conditions without the proposed Modified Project, would
generate 36.56 VMT per service population (sum of all residents and employees).
4.14.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant transportation
impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
TRANS-1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? SU LTS
TRANS-2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? N/A SU
TRANS-3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? LTS LTS
TRANS-4. Result in inadequate emergency access? LTS LTS
TRANS-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to transportation? SU SU
Note: In December 2018 amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the General
Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of this EA. TRANS-
2, regarding CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) was added.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = not a standard of
significance in the General Plan EIR
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-9
4.14.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
TRANS-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with
a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
As discussed in Section 4.14.1.1, Regulatory Framework, programs, plans, and policies addressing
circulation in Study Area include the Complete Streets Act, Plan Bay Area, VTP 2040, 2016 Bike Plan, and
2018 Pedestrian Plan. In general, the overarching goals of these policy documents are to ensure a safe,
efficient, and accessible multi-modal transportation network for all users that also reduces VMT to
improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions.
Impact Discussion TRAF-5 of the General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to other modes of
transportation (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) and found that the Approved Project would be consistent
with the Complete Streets Act, VTP 2040, Plan Bay Area, 2018 Pedestrian Plan, and 2016 Bicycle Plan.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Mobility (M), and
Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local
planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and
strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would directly
and indirectly result in improving the transportation network and support an increase in alternate modes
of transportation, thus supporting regional goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions, as well as support
programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system:
Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a
half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)
Policy LU-3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of
connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and
building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and
corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
Strategy LU-8.3.3. Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements. Improve infrastructure and
streetscape in areas, such as the Crossroads or South Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a
pedestrian-oriented area that meets community design goals. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Strategy LU-12.5.1. County Development. Require development in these areas to comply with
Cupertino’s hillside policies of low-intensity residential, agricultural, or open space uses, and to
preserve the natural environment through clustering and/or dedication of open space. Visual impacts,
access, traffic and other impacts, and service demands shall be assessed in consultation with
Cupertino’s goals and policies.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-10 APRIL 2024
Policy LU-13.1. Heart of the City Specific Plan. The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides design
standards and guidelines for this area, which promote a cohesive, landscaped boulevard that links its
distinct sub-areas and is accessible to all modes of transportation. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-26)
Policy LU-13.7.4. Traffic Calming. Evaluate options on Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve the
pedestrian environment by proactively managing speed limits, enforcement, and traffic signal
synchronization.
Strategy LU -19.2.2. Existing Streets. Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become
more bike and pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees, improved pedestrian
intersections to accommodate the connects to Ninteen800, Main Street, and the surrounding areas.
(General Plan EIR Policy 4-9)
Policy LU-20.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road,
Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue shall be coordinated with planned improvements to improve
pedestrian, bike and transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian
environment with street trees, attractive bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should
provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street. Future improvements to the Wolfe Road
bridge should be coordinated to preserve the vision for this area. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-21.3. Streetscape and Connectivity. North De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable
boulevard with wide sidewalks with street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and
pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also
envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will
also improve school routes from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson school to the east and
provide access to transit routes. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-21.4. Streetscape and Connectivity. South De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable
boulevard with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian
crossings. Side streets are also envisioned with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to ensure
walkable connections from adjacent neighborhoods. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-24.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Bubb Road is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable corridor
with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also envisioned along
other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve
routes from the northern and eastern neighborhood to the tri-school area, parks and services and
reduce impacts caused by to school and employment traffic. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Strategy LU-25.4.2. Residential Streets. Residential street improvements may have a semi-rural
appearance based on the Municipal Code requirements. Safe routes to school streets, or any others
designated by the City Council shall be required to have sidewalks and street trees. (General Plan EIR
Policy 4-5)
Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning
processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and
to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address
regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-11
Policy M-1.3. Regional Trail Development. Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system
of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor
and Ridge Trail. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-6)
Policy M-2.6. Traffic Calming. Consider the implementation of best practices on streets to reduce
speeds and make them user-friendly for alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Policy M-3.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master
plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create
a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis, and as shown in Figure M-1.
Policy M-3.2. Development. Require new development and redevelopment to increase connectivity
through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, shopping and
employment destinations throughout the city.
Policy M-3.3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and
pathways at key locations across physical barriers such as creeks, highways and road barriers.
Policy M-3.4. Street Widths. Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike connectivity by
limiting street widening purely for automobiles as a means of improving traffic flow.
Policy M-3.5. Curb Cuts. Minimize the number and the width of driveway openings.
Policy M-3.6. Safe Spaces for Pedestrians. Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for
pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-13)
Policy M-3.7. Capital Improvement Program. Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and eliminate gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle network as part of the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
Policy M-3.8. Bicycle Parking. Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and
private bicycle parking.
Policy M-4.1. Transit Agencies. Coordinate with VTA to improve transportation service, infrastructure
and access in the city, and to connect to transportation facilities such as Caltrain and VTA light rail
stations.
Policy M-4.2. Local Transportation Services. Create or partner with transit providers, employers,
educational institutions, and major commercial entities to minimize gaps within local transportation
services.
Policy M-4.3. Connecting Special Areas. Identify and implement new or enhanced transit services to
connect all Special Areas as identified in Figure PA-1 (Chapter 2: Planning Areas).
Policy M-4.4. Transit Facilities with New Development. Work with VTA and/or major developments to
ensure all new development projects include amenities to support public transit including bus stop
shelters, space for transit vehicles as appropriate and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles,
signage, seating and lighting. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)
Policy M-4.5. Access To Transit Services. Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with
local transit goals to improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-12 APRIL 2024
Policy M-4.6. Bus and Shuttle Programs. Work with large regional employers and private commuter
bus/ shuttle programs to provide safe pick-up, drop-off, and park and rides in order to reduce single
occupancy vehicle trips.
Policy M-4.7. Vallco Shopping District Transfer Station. Work with VTA and/ or other transportation
service organizations to study and develop a transit transfer station that incorporates a hub for
alternative transportation services such as, car sharing, bike sharing and/ or other services.
Policy M-4.8: Micro-Transit. Continue to support a local micro-transit option, such as the Silicon Valley
Hopper or similar service.
Policy M-5.1. Safe Routes To Schools. Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools serving
the city.
Strategy M-5.1.1. Coordination with School Districts. Coordinate with the School Districts to develop
plans and programs that encourage car/van-pooling, stagger hours of adjacent schools, establish
drop-off locations, and encourage walking and bicycling to school. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-15)
Policy M-7.1. Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Analysis. Follow guidelines set by the VTA related to
transportation impact analyses, while conforming to State goals for multi-modal performance targets.
Policy M-8.1. Transportation. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Strategy M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies. Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation
infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and
optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
Strategy M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers. Require major and large employers, including colleges
and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their
employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.
Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with
specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program
to ensure implementation.
Policy M-8.2. Land Use. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per service population VMT, reducing impacts on the City’s
transportation network.
Strategy M-8.2.1. Design of New Development. Require new development to include shared amenities
that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, or walking as alternative modes of transportation.
Strategy M-8.2.2. Pedestrian Activity. Require new development to provide pedestrian pathways to
entrances, and orient buildings and entrances to the street, to encourage pedestrian activity.
Strategy M-8.2.3. Commercial Development. Require new commercial developments to provide
shared office facilities, cafeterias, daycare facilities, lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking, home
offices, shuttle buses to transit facilities and other amenities that encourage the use of transit,
bicycling or walking as commute modes to work.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-13
Strategy M-8.2.4. Residential and Mixed-Use Development. Require new residential or mixed-use
developments to provide shared bicycle parking and bike repair stations at locations close to
entrances.
Policy M-9.2. Reduced Travel Demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new
development.
Strategy M-9.3.2. Streetscape Design. When reviewing the widening of an existing street, consider
aesthetically pleasing enhancements and amenities to improve the safe movement of pedestrians and
bicyclists in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy M-10.1. Transportation Improvement Plan. Develop and implement an updated citywide
transportation improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
transportation improvements to meet the City’s needs.
Policy M-10.3. Multi-Modal Improvements. Integrate the financing, design and construction of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities with street projects. Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the
same time as improvements for vehicular circulation to enable travelers to transition from one mode
of transportation.
Policy ES-1.2. Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional
agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Regional Housing
Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA), One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Strategy ES-1.2.1. Local Plan Consistency with Regional Plans. Update and maintain local plans and
strategies so they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for State transportation and project
CEQA streamlining.
Strategy ES-2.1.9. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Continue to promote fuel-efficient
transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and van
pooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes to
schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment,
development incentives, and community education. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-3)
Strategy ES-4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based
businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.
The Transportation Analysis, which is included in Appendix E, Transportation Analysis, of this EA,found
that implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in modifications to the circulation
system that would disrupt existing facilities or services or interfere with the implementation of planned
facilities/services contained in adopted programs, plans, policies, or ordinances. However, while the
proposed Modified Project would lead to increases in the city’s residential population beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which would increase the demand on the circulation system, like the
Approved Project, future developments would be required to comply with State, VTA, City, and/or other
design standards regarding the transportation facilities and services. Further, a s with the potential future
development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential future development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards
governing transportation facilities, as necessary. Based on these considerations, and because the 2040
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-14 APRIL 2024
General Plan policies and strategies would improve the transportation network, and support programs to
improve the roadway network and increase travel by transit, bicycles, pedestrians to reduce GHG
emissions from automobiles, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in new or more severe conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Impacts under the proposed Modified Project would
be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
TRANS-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states for land use projects, “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an
applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b)(4) states, “A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to
evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per
capita, per household or in any other measure.”
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental
Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, this standard of significance was not included in the General Plan
EIR; however, as stated in Section 4.14.1.3, Existing Conditions, Impact Discussion TRAF-1 of the General
Plan EIR included Table 4.13-16, VMT Per Capita, of the General Plan EIR showed that VMT per capita
under the 2000 to 2020 General Plan was 10.5, and under the Approved Project was 10.9. However, at the
time of the General Plan EIR, the City did not have VMT analysis methodologies, standards, or thresholds
of significance. . Therefore, for this EA the existing conditions calculated in the Transportation Analysis
prepared for proposed Modified Project is applied to this evaluation. As described in Section 4.14.1.3,
Existing Conditions, using current standards and methodology and the City of Cupertino VMT thresholds,
existing conditions without the proposed Modified Project, would generate 36.56 VMT per service
population (sum of all residents and employees).
Table 9, Total Project Generated VMT Assessment, of the Transportation Analysis shows that the proposed
Modified Project would generate 34.80 VMT per service population, which is 1.76 VMT per service
population less than the Approved Project. While less than the Approved Project, implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would have an 11 percent increase in VMT over Cupertino’s VMT per service
population threshold of 31.30.
VMT reduction measures to decrease the total VMT generated by the proposed Modified Project could be
accomplished by implementing a transportation demand management (TDM) plan, physical site design
elements, or policies and infrastructure for location efficiency. TDM refers to strategies that incentivize
alternatives to automobile travel, either through financial incentives for walking, biking, and riding transit,
or through additional costs to automobile use at project sites. The current standard for calculating VMT
reduction efficacy from TDM strategies is the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
2021 Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-15
Health and Equity. Overall, CAPCOA indicates that projects in suburban areas may be able to achieve up to
a 15 percent reduction in VMT. Therefore, a reduction of 11 percent in VMT per service population is
feasible.
VMT reduction measures evaluated for the proposed Modified Project are listed below at the project-,
community-, and county/regional-level, noting the maximum VMT reduction observed in literature.
Project-Level Measures
Limit parking supply. When combined with companion TDM measures, reduced parking supply
discourages driving by limiting easy and convenient parking options. Implementation of this strategy
may require reducing (or removing) minimum parking requirements and allowing developers to use
shared parking strategies. (Reduction range: 0 to 13.7%)
Unbundle parking costs. Unbundling separates parking costs from property cost, for instance by not
including a parking space in a residential unit’s rent, or by requiring employers to lease each parking
space separately from the building owner. This strategy ensures that the user understands that the
cost of driving includes parking and can encourage people to use an alternative mode to save money.
(Reduction range: 0 to 15.7%)
Employ marketing and encouragement strategies to promote non-drive-alone travel. This strategy
encompasses the aspects of typical TDM programs that rely on providing customized information and
incentives to encourage use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles. The
process is typically a residential-based approach for each community. (Reduction range: 0 to 2.3%)
Community-Level Measures
Provide ride-sharing programs: This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling by
project site/building tenants and has similar limitations to strategy (2) above. The City of Cupertino is
currently served by Silicon Valley Hopper, an on-demand rideshare shuttle through Via Transportation,
that provides pickup and drop-off transportation services anywhere within the city service area.
(Reduction range: 0 to 8%)
Implement car-sharing program: This strategy reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the
number of vehicles owned by a household by making it convenient to access a shared vehicle for
those trips where vehicle use is essential. Examples include programs such as ZipCar, Car2Go, and Gig.
(Reduction range: 0 to 0.15%)
Implement Bikeshare and Electric Bikeshare Program. This strategy will establish a bikeshare program.
The projects provide users with on-demand access to bicycles, electric pedal assist bicycles, and short-
term rentals. They encourage mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing
GHG emissions. (Reduction range: 0 to 1%)
Implement on-street market pricing for parking. This strategy focuses on implementing a pricing
strategy for parking by pricing all on-street parking in central business districts, employment centers,
and retail centers. Priced parking would encourage “park once” behavior and may also result in area-
wide mode shifts. (Reduction range: 0 to 30%)
County/Regional-Level Measures
Increase transit service frequency and speed: This strategy focuses on improving transit service
convenience and travel time competitiveness with driving. Given existing land use density in
Cupertino, this strategy may be limited to traditional commuter transit where trips can be pooled at
the start and end locations, or it may require new forms of demand responsive transit service. A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-16 APRIL 2024
demand-responsive service could be provided as subsidized trips by contracting to private TNCs or
taxi companies. Alternatively, a public transit operator could provide the subsidized service but would
need to improve on traditional cost effectiveness. Note that implementation of this strategy would
require regional or local agency implementation, substantial changes to current transit practices, and
would not likely be applicable for individual development projects. (Reduction range: 0 to 4.6%)
The Mobility (M) Element contains policies and strategies that require local planning and development
decisions to consider VMT and has been updated to include the VMT reduction measures previously
described. Accordingly, in addition to the 2040 General Plan policies and strategies listed under the
Impact Discussion TRANS-1, which would serve to promote alternative modes of transportation, indirectly
reducing VMT, like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies,
and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to
minimize VMT impacts.
Policy M-8.1. Transportation. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Strategy M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies. Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation
infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and
optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
Strategy M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers. Require major and large employers, including colleges
and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their
employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.
Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with
specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program
to ensure implementation.
Policy M-8.2. Land Use. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per service population VMT, reducing impacts on the City’s
transportation network.
Strategy M-8.2.1. Design of New Development. Require new development to include shared amenities
that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, or walking as alternative modes of transportation.
Strategy M-8.2.2. Pedestrian Activity. Require new development to provide pedestrian pathways to
entrances, and orient buildings and entrances to the street, to encourage pedestrian activity.
Strategy M-8.2.3. Commercial Development. Require new commercial developments to provide
shared office facilities, cafeterias, daycare facilities, lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking, home
offices, shuttle buses to transit facilities and other amenities that encourage the use of transit,
bicycling or walking as commute modes to work.
Strategy M-8.2.4. Residential and Mixed-Use Development. Require new residential or mixed-use
developments to provide shared bicycle parking and bike repair stations at locations close to
entrances.
Policy M-8.3. Alternative Fuel Charging Stations. Develop a city-wide strategy to encourage the
construction of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle charging/ fueling stations.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-17
Table 12, Total Project Generated VMT with Mitigations Assessment, of the Transportation Analysis shows
that with implementation of the VMT reduction measures that have been incorporated into the Mobility
Element, the proposed Modified Project would generate 32.95 VMT per service population, a reduction of
1.85 VMT per service population, which is not enough to reduce VMT to meet the City’s 31.30 VMT
threshold. However, these VMT-reduction policies and strategies are still important considerations in
evaluating the results of this VMT analysis and as appropriate they should be accounted for in subsequent
VMT evaluations of specific projects as they are proposed within the city of Cupertino. Additionally, like
development under the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified
Project would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on
sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or near existing residential and residential-
serving development, which would further reduce VMT. Nonetheless, the overall VMT impacts from
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be potentially significant.
Impact TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would exceed the adopted Cupertino
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold per service population of 31.30 VMT by 3.5 VMT per service
population, due to forecasted growth through 2040.
Significance without Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. The proposed Modified Project
prioritizes higher residential densities than those currently allowed in Cupertino. From a land use
planning perspective, the City has been very proactive in promoting a land use pattern that
provides convenient access to transit, places, jobs, services, and housing in close proximity, and
establishes residential densities that provide for dense and walkable neighborhoods. These land
use strategies represent some of the most effective tools available to Cupertino to reduce VMT
through sound land use planning and as shown, reduce VMT per service population from existing
conditions from 36.56 to 34.8 VMT per service population. Accordingly, the proposed Modified
Project achieves meaningful reductions in VMT generated by land uses within the city. However,
as previously discussed, additional reductions in VMT would be required to achieve the threshold.
Implementation of the General Plan policies and strategies would ensure that VMT are reduced to
the degree feasible. In addition, as listed under Impact Discussion TRANS-1, the City has
numerous policies to promote safe and user-friendly transit and improve the bicycle and
pedestrian network in Cupertino, all which would serve to promote alternative forms of
transportation and reduce VMT.
Given the lack of specifics that are available for this program-level EIR, it is not possible to fully
account for the effect of specific design principles, policies, and improvements that will reduce
VMT as part of this analysis. Although many of the VMT-reducing design principles, policies, and
improvements that are described may ultimately mitigate and/or potentially reduce the VMT
impacts outlined in this evaluation, necessary details to ensure implementation and appropriately
evaluate their effect are not yet available. While some of the approaches to VMT reduction
described in the prior section are supportive of existing City policies and guidelines, the VMT-
reducing approaches cited would require further planning and development as well as committed
funding sources, including those from participants in the development community. As such, it is
reasonable to conclude that the findings of this analysis reflect a worst-case scenario for this
program evaluation.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-18 APRIL 2024
The City of Cupertino would require VMT reduction measures from new and redevelopment
projects through the ongoing implementation of the General Plan and Municipal Code. However,
the effectiveness of these VMT reduction measures would vary based on local context, scale of
intervention, and availability of non-automotive transportation. For maximum reduction in VMT,
potential future development would need to implement many individual project-level strategies
and be sited in an efficient, transit-adjacent location. These traits may not be feasible in all
locations in Cupertino. Additionally, project-level TDM strategies are often implemented by
individuals, so their use requires ongoing monitoring and adjusting to account for changes in
personal and travel behavior. Due to these project-specific implementation barriers, ad hoc
project-by-project mitigation is less effective for reducing VMT compared with large-scale,
program-based approaches, such as an impact fee program that funds transit expansion or land
use and zoning changes at a citywide level. As described, it is estimated that incorporating the
VMT reduction measures incorporated into the Mobility Element would reduce the VMT per
service population to 32.95. Thus, because VMT per service population from the proposed
Modified Project would still exceed Cupertino’s threshold of 31.30, impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable at the program level. This program-level land use impact for VMT
does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent development
projects that achieve applicable VMT thresholds of significance. However, due to the
programmatic nature of the proposed project, no mitigation measures are available, and the
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
TRANS-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project is a program-level planning effort; it does not
directly address project-level design features or building specifications. Future development under the
Approved Project would increase both residential and commercial land uses. As these land uses develop,
construction and modifications of new and existing roadways would be necessary to support the growth.
The improvements would be designed and reviewed in accordance with the City of Cupertino Standard
Details and General Plan 2040.
As with the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project is a program-level planning effort and would
not include specific design features. Thus, like the Approved Project, compliance with the City of
Cupertino Standard Details and General Plan 2040 would ensure that any potential future developments
from the proposed Modified Project would not increase road and travel hazards.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Health and Safety (HS),
and Mobility (M) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development
decisions to consider impacts that development could have on hazards due to a geometric design feature
or incompatible uses. Like the Approved Project, he following existing General Plan 2040 policies and
strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve
to minimize potential adverse impacts on those hazards:
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-19
Policy LU-20.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road,
Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue should be coordinated with planned improvements to improve
pedestrian, bike and transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian
environment with street trees, attractive bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should
provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street. Future improvements to the Wolfe Road
bridge should be coordinated to preserve the vision for this area. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-21.3. Streetscape and Connectivity. North De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable
boulevard with wide sidewalks with street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and
pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also
envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will
also improve school routes from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson school to the east and
provide access to transit routes. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-21.4. Streetscape and Connectivity. South De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable
boulevard with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian
crossings. Side streets are also envisioned with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to ensure
walkable connections from adjacent neighborhoods. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy LU-24.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Bubb Road is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable corridor
with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also envisioned along
other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve
routes from the northern and eastern neighborhood to the tri-school area, parks and services and
reduce impacts caused by to school and employment traffic. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)
Policy M-2.2. Adjacent Land Use. Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking and
bicycle lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses in keeping with the vision
of the Planning Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand alternative transportation
options for all Planning Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods). Improvement standards shall also
consider the urban, suburban and rural environments found within the city. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-
10)
Policy M-3.5. Curb Cuts. Minimize the number and the width of driveway openings. (General Plan EIR
Policy 4-11)
Policy M-3.6. Safe Spaces for Pedestrians. Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for
pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-13)
Policy M-7.2. Protected Intersections. Consider adopting a Protected Intersection policy, which would
identify intersections where improvements would not be considered, which would degrade levels of
service for non-vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations include intersections in Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) and other areas where non-vehicular transportation is a key consideration,
such as, near shopping districts, schools, parks and senior citizen developments. (General Plan EIR
Policy 4-10)
Policy HS-3.2. Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all
projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-13)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-20 APRIL 2024
Strategy HS-3.3.3. Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new hillside development to upgrade existing
access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-16)
Strategy HS-8.7.2. Road Improvements to Reduce Truck Impacts. Consider road improvements such as
medians, landscaping, noise attenuating asphalt and other methods to reduce quarry truck impacts.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-56)
As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential new development under the
proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design
standards governing transportation hazards, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts
from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more
substantial hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
TRANS-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in
inadequate emergency access.
As described in the General Plan EIR and Impact Discussion TRANS-3 of this EA, the Approved Project is a
program-level planning effort; it does not directly address project-level design features or building
specifications. Ongoing implementation of the General Plan 2040 policies and the City’s engineering
standards would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in Cupertino.
As with the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project is a program-level planning effort and would
not include specific design features. Thus, like the Approved Project, compliance with General Plan 2040
policies and the City’s engineering standards would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in
Cupertino.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies
that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have
on emergency access. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and
strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve
to minimize potential adverse impacts on emergency access:
Policy HS-2.2. Emergency Operations Center. Ensure ongoing training of identified City employees on
their functions/responsibilities in the EOC and in disaster preparedness, first aid and CPR. (General
Plan EIR Policy 6-38)
Policy HS-2.4. Emergency Public Information. Maintain an Emergency Public Information program to
be used during emergency situations. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-39)
Policy HS-3.2. Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects
requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed. (General Plan
EIR Policy 6-8 and Policy 6-13)
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
PLACEWORKS 4.14-21
Policy HS-3.3. Emergency Access. Ensure adequate emergency access is provided for all new hillside
development.
Strategy HS-3.3.2. Dead- End Street Access. Allow public use of private roadways during an emergency
for hillside subdivisions that have dead-end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a secondary
means of access. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-14)
Strategy HS-3.3.3. Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade
breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-15)
Policy HS-3.4. Private Residential Electronic Security Gates. Discourage the use of private residential
electronic security gates that act as a barrier to emergency personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-18)
Policy HS-3.5. Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines. Coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-9)
Policy HS-3.6. Fire Prevention and Emergency Preparedness. Promote fire prevention and emergency
preparedness through city-initiated public education programs, the government television channel,
the Internet and the Cupertino Scene. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-10)
Policy HS- 7.1. Evacuation Map. Prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the flood
hazard areas and distribute it to the general public. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-42)
As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential future development under the
proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design
standards governing emergency access, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe
impacts to emergency access beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
TRANS-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable impact.
The analysis of the Approved Project in the General Plan EIR addressed cumulative impacts to the
transportation network in the city and its surroundings. The General Plan EIR found that cumulative
impacts would be the same as Approved Project–specific impacts and would be significant and
unavoidable even with the mitigation measures described in 4.13.6, Impact Discussion, of the General
Plan EIR.
Similarly, the transportation analysis conducted for the proposed Modified Project forecasts VMT for the
entire service population, which exceeds the City’s threshold of 31.3 VMT per service population. This
analysis includes a consideration of cumulative impacts and thus impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION
4.14-22 APRIL 2024
Impact TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would cumulatively contribute to
regional vehicle miles traveled.
Significance without Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. The City of Cupertino would implement
the policies and strategies of the proposed Modified Project. However, the effectiveness of these
policies and strategies would vary based on local context, scale of intervention, and availability of non-
automotive transportation. For maximum reduction in VMT, potential future development would
need to implement many individual project-level strategies and be sited in an efficient, transit-
adjacent location. These traits may not be feasible in all locations in Cupertino and surrounding
communities. Additionally, project-level TDM strategies are often implemented by individuals, so their
use requires ongoing monitoring and adjusting to account for changes in personal and travel behavior.
Due to these project-specific implementation barriers, ad hoc project-by-project mitigation is less
effective for reducing VMT compared with large-scale, program-based approaches, such as an impact
fee program that funds transit expansion or land use and zoning changes at a citywide level. Thus,
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-1
4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This chapter describes the potential impacts to the utilities and services systems associated with the
adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory
framework and existing conditions; identifies criteria used to determine impact significance; provides an
analysis of the potential impacts related to water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, and energy
infrastructure; and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any
potentially significant impacts.
4.15.1 Water
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act, the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the
public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set national standards for drinking water,
called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and
human-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking
water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except
for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) conducts most enforcement activities. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water
supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.
America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018
America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA), signed into law on October 23, 2018, authorizes federal
funding for water infrastructure projects, expands water storage capabilities, assists local communities in
complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act (CWA), reduces flooding risks for rural,
western, and coastal communities, and addresses significant water infrastructure needs in tribal
communities.1 Additionally, the AWIA requires that drinking water systems that serve more than 3,300
people develop or update risk assessments and emergency response plans. Risk assessments and
emergency response plans must be certified by the USEPA within the deadline specified by the AWIA.
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2024. America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA)t,
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/americas-water-infrastructure-act-2018-awia, accessed January 14,
2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-2 APRIL 2024
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which was passed in California in 1969 and amended in
2013, is the basic water quality control law for California. Under this Act, the SWRCB has authority over
State water rights and water quality policy. This Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under
the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to oversee water quality on a day-to-
day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their
respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface
water or groundwater. The Study Area is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region
2).
SWRCB Division of Drinking Water
The California Division of Drinking Water regulates public water systems within California; oversees water
recycling projects; permits water treatment devices; and supports and promotes water system security.
The Division of Financial Assistance provides funding opportunities for drinking water system
improvements; provides support for small water systems and for improving technical, managerial, and
financial capacity; and certifies drinking water treatment and distribution operators. The Field Operations
Branch of the Division of Drinking Water is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California
Safe Drinking Water Acts and the regulatory oversight of approximately 7,500 public water systems to
ensure the delivery of safe drinking water to all Californians. In this capacity, Field Operations Branch staff
perform field inspections, issue operating permits, review plans and specifications for new facilities, take
enforcement actions for noncompliance with laws and regulations, review water quality monitoring
results, and support and promote water system security.
Urban Water Management Planning Act (Senate Bills 610 and 221)
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act and Section 10620 of the Water Code require that
all urban water suppliers in California that provide water to more than 3,000 customers or supply more
than 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY)2 to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
and update it every five years. The act is intended to support efficient use of urban water supplies. It
requires the UWMP to compare water supply and demand over the next 20 years for normal years, single
dry years, and multiple dry years and to determine current and potential recycled water uses.
Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 were enacted to 1) ensure better coordination between local water supply
and land use decisions and 2) confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development. The
following projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are required to
prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA):
Residential developments consisting of more than 500 dwelling units.
2 One acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover one acre of ground (43,560 square feet) to a depth of one foot.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-3
Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
500,000 square feet of floor space.
Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square
feet of floor space.
Hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant or industrial park planned to employ more than 1,000
persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor
area.
Mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above.
Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water
required for 500 dwelling units.
SB 221 requires written verification that there is sufficient water supply available for new residential
subdivisions that include over 500 dwelling units. The verification must be provided before
commencement of construction for the project.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
In the midst of a major drought in 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law collectively
known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Governor ’s signing message states
“a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best
accomplished locally.” Under SGMA, local and regional agencies in groundwater basins that are
designated as medium and high priority must form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that
oversee the preparation and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs).
The City of Cupertino is within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, which is further divided into the
Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. Valley Water is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for this
groundwater basin and submitted the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan as an alternative to a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). This has been approved by the Department of Water Resources
(DWR). The Groundwater Management Plan describes the basin setting and conditions, water supplies
and groundwater budget, sustainability management criteria, and basin management programs and
activities.3
Water Conservation Act of 2009
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency.
The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water use by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim
goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015. Effective in 2016, urban retail water
suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by this bill are not eligible for
State water grants or loans. The SB X7-7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline
3 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2016. Groundwater Management Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-4 APRIL 2024
water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards. Demonstration of compliance with
this regulation is a required component of each water purveyor’s 2020 UWMP. The two water purveyors
with service areas within the City of Cupertino, San Jose Water and California Water Service, are in
compliance with their target reductions.
2018 Water Conservation Legislation
In 2018, the California Legislature enacted two policy bills (SB 606 and Assembly Bill [AB] 1668) to
establish long-term improvements in water conservation and drought planning to adapt to climate change
and longer and more intense droughts in California.4 The DWR and SWRCB will develop new standards for:
Indoor residential water use
Outdoor residential water use
Commercial, industrial, and institutional water use for landscape irrigation with dedicated meters
Water loss
Urban water suppliers are required to stay within annual water budgets based on their standards for their
service areas, and to calculate and report their urban water use objectives in an annual water use report.
Based on recent legislation (SB 1157), the California Water Code defines a 55-gallon-per-person daily
standard for indoor residential use until 2025, at which time it decreases to 47 gallons, and further
decreases to 42 gallons by 2030.
The legislation also includes changes to UWMP preparation requirements. These changes include
additional requirements for Water Shortage Contingency Plans (WSCPs), expansion of dry year supply
reliability assessments to a five-year drought period, establishment of annual drought risk assessment
procedures and reporting, and new conservation targets referred to “annual water use objectives,” which
require retailers to continue to reduce water use beyond the 2020 SB X7-7 targets.
Mandatory Water Conservation
Following the declaration of a state of emergency on July 15, 2014, due to drought conditions, the SWRCB
adopted Resolution No. 2014-0038 for emergency regulation of statewide water conservation efforts.
These regulations, which went into effect on August 1, 2014, were intended to reduce outdoor urban
water use and have all California households voluntarily reduce their water consumption by 20 percent.
Water companies with 3,000 or more service connections were required to report monthly water
consumption to the SWRCB. The SWRCB readopted the regulations several times, most recently requiring
local water agencies to implement Level 2 drought contingency plans. In March 2023, Governor Newsom
announced the lifting of some of the drought restrictions following a wet winter, including the Level 2
demand reduction actions.
However, there are portions of the water conservation emergency regulations that remain in effect. These
include prohibitions of wasteful water use practices: 1) the application of potable water to outdoor
landscapes in a manner that causes excess runoff; 2) the washing of vehicles without an automatic shut-
4 California Department of Water Resources, 2021, 2018 Water Conservation Legislation,
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/2018-Water-Conservation-Legislation, accessed August 23, 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-5
off nozzle; 3) the application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; 4) the use of potable water in
nonrecirculating ornamental fountains; and 5) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes
during and within 48 hours after at least 0.25 inch of rainfall. In addition, watering decorative grass in
commercial, industrial, and institutional areas is currently prohibited but is set to expire June 2024.
However, AB 1572, signed into law on October 13, 2013, would make this ban permanent, unless these
areas are using recycled water. Urban water suppliers are still required to submit monthly water
monitoring reports to the SWRCB.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 1881) requires cities and counties to adopt the State of
California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) or adopt a comparable landscape water
conservation ordinance that is at least as effective as the State’s MWELO in conserving water.
The MWELO was revised in July 2015 via Executive Order B-29-15 to address the ongoing drought and to
build resiliency for future droughts. The 2015 revisions to the MWELO increased water efficiency
standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage,
and on-site stormwater capture and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. Each
city and county is required to submit annual reports to DWR that document how the agency is achieving
compliance with the State MWELO and how many projects were subject to the ordinance during the
annual reporting period.
The City of Cupertino adopted its own WELO Ordinance in Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Title 14,
Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance. The ordinance applies to all new and rehabilitated landscape
projects that require a building or grading permit, planning permit, or grading permit, and any landscape
installation or rehabilitation project. It is more stringent than the State MWELO and complies with the
regulation.
California Water Code
The California Water Code states that the water resources of the State must be put to beneficial use and
that waste or unreasonable use of water be prevented. The code is divided into several sections that
include provisions regarding water quality, formation of irrigation districts and water districts, safe
drinking water, and water supply and infrastructure improvements.
California Plumbing Code
The latest version of the California Plumbing Code was issued in 2022 and became effective as of January
1, 2023. The code is updated on a three-year cycle. It specifies technical standards for the design,
materials, workmanship, and maintenance of plumbing systems. One of the purposes of the plumbing
code is to prevent conflicting plumbing codes within local jurisdictions. Among many topics covered in the
code are water fixtures, potable and non-potable water systems, and recycled water systems. The City of
Cupertino adopts the California Plumbing Code under CMC Chapter 16.20.010, Adoption of the 2022
California Plumbing Code.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-6 APRIL 2024
California Building Code: CALGreen
The California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards in July
2008, the California Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen. CALGreen applies to the
planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or
structure in California. The code establishes building standards for sustainable site development, including
water efficiency and water conservation measures that typically reduce water consumption by 20 percent.
In addition, pursuant to CALGreen Section 5.408, at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction
and demolition waste from residential and nonresidential construction operations must be recycled
and/or salvaged for reuse.
CALGreen is updated every three years to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new low
flow plumbing fixtures and water efficient appliances. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became
effective January 1, 2011, and the latest 2022 version became effective on January 1, 2023. The building
efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. The City of Cupertino has
regularly adopted each new CALGreen update under CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code.
California Health and Safety Code
A portion of the State Health and Safety Code is dedicated to water issues, including testing and
maintenance of backflow prevention devices, coloring of pipes carrying recycled water, and programs
addressing cross-connection control by water users.
Regional Regulations
Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a nine-county effort to coordinate
and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public
health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San
Francisco Bay. Some of the stakeholders and participating agencies in preparing the IRWMP include
members of the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, which includes the City of Cupertino
and Valley Water. The IRWMP is dated 2019; however, there is an addendum with an updated list of past
and current projects dated 2023.5
Bay Area Regional Reliability Partnership
Valley Water is one of eight Bay Area water agencies that are working together to develop regional
solutions for improving water supply reliability for over six million area residents and thousands of
industries and businesses. The Partnership recently completed a Drought Contingency Plan and one of the
projects in the plan is expansion of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This project would provide Valley Water
5 San Francisco Bay Area Region, 2019. San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. with Updated
Project List, dated 2023.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-7
with emergency storage, alternative conveyance options, and increase flexibility in managing its water
supplies. The expansion project is scheduled for completion in 2030.6
Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water)
The Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water, is a water resources agency responsible
for balancing flood protection needs with the protection of natural watercourses and habitat in the Santa
Clara Valley. Founded in 1929, the SCVWD serves all of Santa Clara County, including 15 cities and 2 million
residents; provides wholesale water supply and groundwater management; operates three water
treatment plants and a recycled water purification center; manages 10 dams and water reservoirs and 276
acres of groundwater recharge ponds; and provides flood protection along the creeks and rivers in the
county.
Water Supply Master Plan
The Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP) is Valley Water’s guidance document for long-term water supply
investments. Updated approximately every five years, this long-range plan assesses future water demands
within Santa Clara County and evaluates and recommends water supply and infrastructure projects to
meet those demands.7 The most recent plan, Water Supply Master Plan 2040, was adopted in 2019.
Valley Water has started a two-year process in 2023 to develop the Water Supply Master Plan 2050, which
extends the planning horizon to 2050 for reliable water supply in the future. New projects will be
identified and evaluated, which will include advanced purified water projects, new supply and storage
projects, and improvements to the existing system.8
Groundwater Management Plan
Valley Water has been managing groundwater in the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins since 1929 and
conditions in these subbasins have been sustainable for decades due to Valley Water’s extensive
groundwater recharge program. As per SGMA requirements, basins that are designated as medium and
high priority must form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and develop and implement
groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or alternative plans to achieve sustainability.
Valley Water is the sole designated Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for these groundwater
subbasins and has a Department of Water Resources (DWR) approved Alternative to a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP).9 The 2021 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas
Subbasins describes Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management programs, including
existing and future actions to maintain basin sustainability.10
6 Valley Water, 2024. Bay Area Regional (BARR) Partnership. https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/water-supply-
planning/bay-area-regional-reliability-partnership accessed on January 15, 2024.
7 Valley Water, 2019. Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Supply Master Plan 2040.
8 Valley Water, 2024. Water Supply Master Plan. https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/water-supply-planning/water-
supply-master-plan accessed on January 15, 2024.
9 Valley Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
10 Valley Water, 2021. Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-8 APRIL 2024
CVPIA Water Management Plan
Valley Water imports about half of its water supply via contracts with the State Water Project and the
federal Central Valley Project (CVP). Every five years, CVP contractors are required by the Bureau of
Reclamation to prepare a Water Management Plan (WMP) to meet the requirements of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). Valley Water has completed its 2022 WMP, which documents the
service area characteristics, operation and management of its system, inventory of current water
resources, and water conservation and demand management efforts that have been implemented over
the past five years.11
One Water Plan
Valley Water has completed the One Water Plan: Santa Clara Countywide Framework, which is an
integrated approach to water resources management on a watershed scale. The program integrates flood
protection, stream stewardship, and water supply and includes five objectives:12
Protect and maintain water supplies.
Protect and improve surface water and groundwater quality.
Reduce flood risk.
Protect, enhance, and sustain natural ecosystems.
Mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Metrics that evaluate the effectiveness of meeting the objectives are included in the Countywide
Framework Plan. The One Water Coyote Creek Watershed Plan has been completed, the One Water
Guadalupe Watershed Plan and the One Water Pajaro Watershed Plan are currently in preparation, and
the One Water West Valley Watershed Plan and the One Water Lower Peninsula Watershed Plan are in the
planning stage.
Valley Water 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Water’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) documents current and projected water
supplies and demands over the next 25 years during normal and drought years, as well as water reliability
analysis and water conservation efforts. Valley Water is the wholesale water purveyor for Santa Clara
County. The 2020 UWMP states that Valley Water has adequate water supplies to serve all of its
Countywide demands under normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year conditions through 2045. If a
five-year drought were to occur, Valley Water would implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan
(WCSP) and employ a range of response actions, including water conservation, using water stored in the
Semitropic Groundwater Storage Bank in Kern County, imported water transfers and exchanges, and
calling for short-term water use reduction.13
11 Valley Water, 2024. CVPIA Water Management Plan. https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/water-supply-
planning/cvpia-water-management-plan accessed on January 15, 2024.
12 Valley Water, 2022. One Water Plan – Santa Clara Countywide Framework. An Integrated Approach to Water Resources
Management.
13 Valley Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-9
San Jose Water 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
San Jose Water (SJW) provides potable water to approximately one million residents in Santa Clara County.
In addition to its own water system, SJW also operates and maintains the Cupertino Municipal Water
System through a lease agreement. Because both systems are operated by SJW and are contiguous, the
two systems are reported together in the SJW 2020 UWMP. SJW also provides water to, but does not
manage, several small water systems that are adjacent to SJW’s service area. The SJW service area spans
about 145 square miles, including most of the cities of San Jose and Cupertino, the entire cities of
Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated Santa Clara
County.14
SJW obtains its water supply from groundwater pumped from the Santa Clara Subbasin (managed by
Valley Water), purchased surface water from Valley Water, surface water from local watersheds, and
recycled water purchased from South Bay Water Recycling. However, SJW’s recycled water distribution
network does not extend into the City of Cupertino.
The 2020 UWMP states that there are sufficient water supplies to meet existing and future water
demands for normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years through 2045. The 2020 UWMP
assumes a 34 percent increase in population in SJW’s service area between 2020 and 2045. The 2020
UWMP also provides a water shortage contingency plan, demand management measures to increase
water use efficiency, and current and planned future water conservation efforts.
California Water Service Urban Water Management Plan
California Water Service, Los Altos Suburban (LAS) District, provides potable water to northern Santa Clara
County and primarily serves the City of Los Altos. However, its service area extends to portions of the
cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and adjacent unincorporated areas of Santa
Clara County.15 The northeastern portion of Cupertino is within CWS’s service area.
Similar to SJW’s 2020 UWMP, CWS’s 2020 UWMP states that there is sufficient water available to serve all
of its customers’ needs during normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years through 2045. CWS
obtains its water supplies from groundwater pumped from the Santa Clara Subbasin, treated water
purchased from Valley Water, and recycled water received from the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control
Plant.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) and the Infrastructure (INF) Elements of the General
Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts to water resources and water conservation measures. Applicable policies and strategies
14 San Jose Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
15 California Water Service, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos Suburban District.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-10 APRIL 2024
that would minimize potential adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality are identified in Section
4.15.1.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to water
resources in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to
water utilities are included in Title 3, Franchises, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Title 15,
Water and Sewage, Title 16, Building and Construction, and Title 17, Environmental Regulations, as
follows:
Chapter 6.16, Water : California Water Service, grants this company the right to operate and distribute
water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, commercial, and other uses and purposes within the City
of Cupertino with a portion of the annual revenue paid to the City.
Chapter 6.20, Water : San Jose Water Works, grants this company the right to operate and distribute
water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, commercial, and other uses and purposes within the City
of Cupertino with a portion of the annual revenue paid to the City.
Chapter 14.15, Landscaping Ordinance, establishes water-efficient landscaping standards to conserve
water use on irrigation. The provisions of this chapter apply to landscaping projects that include
irrigated landscape areas exceeding 2,500 square feet, which requires submittal of a Landscape
Documentation Package, which includes a water-efficient landscape checklist, water budget
calculations, landscape, irrigation, and grading design plans, and soil management report. Also,
landscape area less than 500 square feet are required to comply with the Prescriptive Compliance
Application (water efficient checklist, landscape design plans and irrigation plans). Landscape areas
between 500 and 2,500 square feet may require either a Prescriptive Compliance Application or a
Landscape Documentation Package.
Chapter 15.04, Waterworks System: Rates and Charges, requires that all rates and charges imposed by
the water providers upon customers of the water system shall be approved by the City Council and
any changes in rates are subject to public notification and hearings.
Chapter 15.32, Water Conservation, establishes water conservation measures to reduce the
consumption of water, prevent water waste, and maximize the efficient use of water in the city. These
measures may be implemented by the water purveyors, San Jose Water and California Water Service,
or any other water suppliers that serve the city, as well as Valley Water, as the wholesale water
supplier. The chapter details prohibited uses of water and restrictions on water use as a result of
drought or other supply conditions.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code, includes the CALGreen requirements with provisions
for local amendments as needed. This chapter codifies green building techniques, including measures
affecting water use efficiency and water conservation. Sections 16.58.100 through 16.58.220 set forth
the standards for green building requirements by type of building. As shown on Table 101.10 in
Section 16.58.220, single-family homes, multi-family homes with more than nine homes, and
buildings larger than 50,000 square feet are required to be Leadership in Energy & Environmental
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-11
Design (LEED)16 certified, and buildings from 25,000 to 50,000 square feet are required to be Silver
certified. Section 16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an alternate green building standard for a
project in lieu of the minimum standards outlined in Section 16.58.220 that meet the same intent of
conserving resources and reducing solid waste.
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements . The purpose of this chapter is to
identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet,
including but not limited to environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental
documents required as part of a General Plan 2040 update. This chapter includes specific
requirements for utilities and service systems permits.
Section 17.04.050 (I)(2). Ensure Adequate Water Supply and Infrastructure. The project applicant
shall obtain written approval from the appropriate water service provider for water connections,
service capability, and layout of water lines and backflow preventers, prior to issuance of the first
permit.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to water
supply associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level for both water purveyors in
Cupertino (San Jose Water (SJW), and California Water Service-Los Altos District (Cal Water - LAS). Both
water providers have service areas that extend beyond the limits of the City.
The setting for water utilities is described in detail under Existing Conditions in Section 4.14.1, Water, of
the General Plan EIR.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations to reduce water utility
impacts in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, as described under the
Municipal Code heading in Section 4.15.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Section 17.04,050 (I)(2) is included to
minimize impacts to water resources and ensure adequate water supply and infrastructure.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant impact to
water supply if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
UTIL-1. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? LTS LTS
UTIL-2. Require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
LTS LTS
UTIL-3. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to water services. LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
16 Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program that recognizes best-in-class
building strategies and practices that reduce consumption energy, and water, and reduce solid waste directly diverted to
landfills. LEED certified building are ranked in order of efficiency from Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-12 APRIL 2024
IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have sufficient
water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years.
The General Plan EIR found that future development under the Approved Project would include the latest
technology in water-efficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, as specified in the 2010 California
Plumbing Code and the Cal Water’s and SJWC’s water efficiency measures relevant to new residential and
commercial development. Table 4.14-7, Projected Water Demand Cal Water LAS District + Proposed
Project (AFY), in the General Plan EIR shows that there is adequate supply for the Approved Project from
Cal Water. Additionally, Table 4.14-12, SJWC 2035 Supply and Demand -- Normal, Single-Dry, and Multiple-
Dry Years (acre feet), in the General Plan ER shows that there is adequate supply for the 2035 demand
levels.
At full buildout, the proposed Modified Project would result in 3,312 net new dwelling units. Based on
Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, the identified housing sites would be about
equally split between the two water providers’ service areas. Therefore, the following analysis of
increased water demand associated with the proposed Modified Project focuses on the service areas of
both water purveyors.
Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with the
more stringent requirements of CALGreen, California Plumbing Code, and the City’s Landscape Ordinance,
as described above in Section 4.15.1.1, Regulatory Framework, compared to the requirements described
in the General Plan EIR. Although new residential construction typically achieves a reduction in water
usage rates of 20 percent through compliance with these regulations,17 this analysis conservatively
assumes that water usage would be similar to the rates provided in the Cal Water LAS and SJW UWMPs. It
is assumed for this analysis that all of the new housing units will be multi-family residential, as described
in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this EA.
The water demand factor for multi-family residential was obtained from the SJW 2020 UWMP, which lists
typical water usage for multi-family residential land use as 60 gallons/capita/day (gpcd). Assuming 2.94
people per household in Cupertino, this equates to 176 gallons/day per dwelling unit.18 Table 4.15-1,
Increase in Water Demand with 2040 Buildout, provides the estimated increase in water demand for the
proposed Modified Project.
17 As described in Section 4.15.1.1, Regulatory Framework, implementation of CALGreen site development standards for
water efficiency and water conservation reduce water consumption by 20 percent.
18 The SJW water usage for multi-family land uses of 60 gallons per day per capita is used for both water districts for
consistency in the analysis.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-13
TABLE 4.15-1 INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND WITH 2040 BUILDOUT
Water Purveyor
Number
(DUs) Water Use Factor
Increase in Water
Demand (gpd)a
Increase in Water
Demand (AFY)
Cal Water LAS 1,656 176 gpd/DU 291,456 326
San Jose Water 1,656 176 gpd/DU 291,456 326
Total 3,312 582,912 653
Notes: DUs = dwelling units; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre feet per year; gpcd = gallons per capita per day
a. Demand calculations do not account for water conservation efforts and the effect of reduced water demand for new construction due to compliance
with the CALGreen Building Code and the latest California Plumbing Code.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024
Cal Water LAS Water Supply and Demand
Because Cal Water LAS serves Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino, a small portion of Sunnyvale, and
unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, the proportion of 2040 water demand that would be
attributed to Cupertino was determined based on the increase in populations of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
and Cupertino between 2020 and 2040. Cupertino provides the majority of the overall water demand in
the Cal Water LAS service area. The population estimates were obtained from the Plan Bay Area 2040.19
The population projections show that 73 percent of the overall growth within the Cal Water LAS service
area will be in Cupertino, and the population density is higher in Cupertino. Because approximately half of
Cupertino is within the Cal Water LAS service area, it is assumed that 50 percent of the increase in water
demand in 2040 in the Study Area will be in the Cal Water LAS service area. A supply and demand analysis
is provided in Table 4.15-2, Increase in Water Demand in Cal Water LAS Service Area with Proposed
Modified Project.
TABLE 4.15-2 CAL WATER LAS SERVICE AREA WITH PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Normal Year
2020 Existing
Demand
(AFY)
2020 to 2040
Projected
Demand
Increase
(AFY)
2040 Total
Water Demand
(AFY)
2040 Projected
Water Supply
(AFY)
2040 Demand
Exceeds Supply?
Cal Water Total Service
Area, from 2020 UWMP 13,087 414 13,766 13,766 No
Cupertino Service Area, with
2040 Modified Project 6,543.5 a 326 b 6,870 6,883 c No
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year
a. Assumed to be 50 percent of total water demand as reported in Cal Water’s UWMP.
b. Based on projected buildout under the proposed project, as shown in Table 4.17-1, Increase in Water Demand with 2040 Buildout.
c. Assumed to be 50 percent of total water supply as reported in Cal Water’s UWMP.
Source: Cal Water, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan; PlaceWorks, 2024.
19 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-14 APRIL 2024
The sources of water supply for Cal Water LAS are a combination of groundwater, recycled water, and
purchased water from Valley Water, which is the wholesale water provider for Santa Clara County and
imports water through the South Bay Aqueduct of the California State Water Project and the San Felipe
Division of the federal Central Valley Project. Approximately 79 percent of Cal Water LAS’s water supply is
surface water purchased from Valley Water.
Cal Water LAS also pumps groundwater from the Santa Clara Subbasin to supplement its surface water
supplies. In 2020, Cal Water LAS pumped 2,729 AFY for this groundwater basin, which is about 21 percent
of the total water supply. The Santa Clara Subbasin is not adjudicated, meaning a court has not issued a
ruling over the legal rights to the water of the water users within the basin, and the basin is not in a
condition of critical overdraft. Valley Water is the GSA for this subbasin and prepared an Alternative GSP,
which has been approved by DWR. The Alternative GSP provides conditions to maintain sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.
Cal Water LAS also uses a small amount of recycled water from the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control
Plant. The recycled water infrastructure is limited in Cupertino to the Apple Campus 2 site at this time, but
Cal Water LAS is pursuing other potential recycled water service connections.20 Cal Water LAS supply and
demand comparison for normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry years through 2040 are provided in
Table 4.15-3, Cal Water PAS Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2040 (AFY).
TABLE 4.15-3 CAL WATER LAS SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON: 2025 TO 2040 (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Supply Totals 13,107 13,103 13,424 13,766
Demand Totals 13,107 13,103 13,424 13,766
Difference 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year
Supply Totals 13,702 13,698 14,029 14,381
Demand Totals 13,702 13,698 14,029 14,381
Difference 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years
First Year
Supply Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Demand Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Difference 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Demand Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Difference 0 0 0 0
20 Cal Water, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-15
TABLE 4.15-3 CAL WATER LAS SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON: 2025 TO 2040 (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Third Year
Supply Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Demand Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Difference 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Demand Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Difference 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Demand Totals 14,070 14,066 14,404 14,761
Difference 0 0 0 0
Source: Cal Water, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
As can be seen in Table 4.15-3, Cal Water -LAS predicts that there will be sufficient water supplies to meet
demand through year 2040 during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. In addition, the table shows
that during single-dry years and multiple-dry years, the water demand will increase. However, the supply
will meet the demand under normal and drought conditions.
The Cal Water LAS 2020 UWMP also assumes that water conservation efforts would result in a decrease in
per capita water demand, even with population increases. The Cal Water LAS 2020 UWMP shows future
conservation savings of 474 AFY in 2040. The calculations provided in Table 4.15-1, Increase in Water
Demand with 2040 Buildout, do not account for water conservation efforts and the effect of reduced
water demand for new construction due to compliance with the CALGreen Building Code and the latest
California Plumbing Code.
Cal Water LAS will continue to implement water conservation measures, including rebate, give-away, and
direct installation programs aimed at plumbing fixture replacement, irrigation equipment, and landscape
efficiency. Cal Water LAS has a rebate program for high-efficiency toilet replacement, high-efficiency urinal
replacement, and high-efficiency clothes washer replacement. Cal Water LAS also has residential
conservation kits that are free, with high-efficiency showerheads, bathroom and kitchen faucet aerators,
toilet leak tables, and an outside full-stop hose nozzle. For outdoor water use, Cal Water provides rebates
for smart irrigation controllers, high-efficiency sprinkler nozzles, large rotary nozzle replacement, spray
bodies with pressure regulation and check valves, and turf replacement. Cal Water also provides
landscape audits and sprinkler adjustments at no charge, technical assistance through the residential
customer portal, and commercial water surveys. Continued implementation of these programs will ensure
that per capita water demand decreases over time, even as the service area population increases. In the
event of drought conditions, Cal Water LAS’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan would be activated with
water restrictions ranging from 10 percent to greater than 50 percent. At a Stage 6 level (demand greater
than 50 percent), a moratorium on new water service connections would be implemented.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-16 APRIL 2024
San Jose Water Supply and Demand
San Jose Water (SJW) provides potable water to approximately one million residents in Santa Clara County,
including the cities of San Jose, Campbell, Saratoga, Monte Sereno; the town of Los Gatos; and
unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. In addition, SJW operates and maintains the Cupertino
Municipal Water System through a lease agreement. Most of the service area is built out and new
development is primarily urban infill projects. Most of the future growth in the SJW service area is
expected to be multi-family residential.21
The proportion of 2040 water demand that would be attributed to Cupertino was determined based on
the populations of the cities and towns within SJW’s service area, as obtained from the Bay Area Plan
Projections 2040.22 The population of San Jose represents approximately 84 percent of the service area,
and Cupertino is the second largest population of the service area at 7 percent. Therefore, it is assumed
that 7 percent of the current and future water demand within the SJW service area can be attributed to
the Study Area. A supply and demand analysis is provided in Table 4.15-4, Increase in Water Demand in
SJW Area with Proposed Modified Project.
TABLE 4.15-4 INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND IN SJW SERVICE AREA WITH PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Normal Year
2020 Existing
Demand
(AFY)
2020 to 2040
Projected
Demand
Increase
(AFY)
2040 Total
Water Demand
(AFY)
2040 Projected
Water Supply
(AFY)
2040 Demand
Exceeds Supply?
SJW Total Service Area, from
2020 UWMP 123,952 14,626 138,578 138,578 No
Cupertino Service Area, with
Proposed Modified Project 8,677 a 326 b 9,003 9,700 c No
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year
a. Assumed to be 7 percent of total water demand as reported in Cal Water’s UWMP.
b. Based on projected buildout under the proposed project, as shown in Table 4.17-1, Increase in Water Demand with 2040 Buildout.
c. Assumed to be 7 percent of total water supply as reported in Cal Water’s UWMP.
Source: Cal Water, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan; PlaceWorks, 2023.
SJW has four sources of water supply: purchased surface water from Valley Water, groundwater from the
Santa Clara Basin (managed by Valley Water), surface water from local watersheds, and recycled water.
SJW’s strategy is to maximize the use of local surface water, use up to the maximum of purchased water
contract amounts, and supplement the remaining supply needs with groundwater. Purchased water from
Valley Water makes up over half of SJW’s total water supply. SJW also pumps groundwater from the Santa
Clara Basin. In 2020, SJW pumped 53,276 AF for this groundwater basin, which is about 43 percent of the
total water supply. The Santa Clara Subbasin is not adjudicated, and the basin is not in a condition of
critical overdraft.
21 San Jose Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
22 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-17
SJW also diverts surface water from Saratoga Creek and Los Gatos Creek watershed, which accounts for
about 3 percent of the total water supply. Recycled water use has increased over the years, and now
makes up about 2 percent of the total water supply.23 However, SJW does not have a recycled water
distribution system that extends into the Study Area.
SJW supply and demand comparison for normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry years through 2040 are
provided in Table 4.15-5, SJW Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2040 (AFY). The 2020 UWMP has
supply and demand values in million gallons per year; these values have been converted to AFY to be
consistent with the rest of the analysis.
TABLE 4.15-5 SJW SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON: 2025 TO 2040 (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Supply Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Demand Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Difference 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year
Supply Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Demand Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Difference 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years
First Year
Supply Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Demand Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Difference 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Demand Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Difference 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supply Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Demand Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Difference 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Demand Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Difference 0 0 0 0
23 San Jose Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-18 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.15-5 SJW SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON: 2025 TO 2040 (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Demand Totals 135,648 135,875 136,654 139,956
Difference 0 0 0 0
Source: Cal Water, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
As can be seen in Table 4.15-5, SJW has sufficient water supplies to meet demands under normal year,
single-dry year, and multiple-dry year conditions. Similarly, Valley Water, which is the wholesale water
provider for SJW, states in their 2020 UWMP that they have sufficient water supplies to meet all of their
water retailers’ demands under normal and drought conditions.
As in the case with Cal Water LAS, SJW would implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan during
drought conditions. SJW has had a consumer water checkup program called “CATCH” since 1991 that
provides free water audits to all of its customers and includes irrigation systems. Valley Water also offers
many conservation rebates on SJW’s behalf, including turf replacement, rain barrels, smart irrigation
systems, low-flow showerheads, and graywater laundry-to-landscape systems. These programs and
continued consumer water conservation education, as well as new construction compliance with
CALGreen and the latest plumbing codes, will continue to reduce per capita water demands in the future.
In summary, there are sufficient water supplies to meet demands under normal years and drought
conditions.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) and the
Infrastructure (INF) Elements of General Plan 2040 include policies and strategies that would protect
water resources and promote water conservation as a result of future potential development under the
proposed Modified Project. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies
and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also
serve to minimize adverse effects on water services:
Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’
planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of
future generations. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-1)
Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to
attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This
qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future
project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.
Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.
Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources.
Increase citywide water conservation and recycled water use.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-19
Accelerate Resource Recovery through expanded recycling, composting, extended producer
responsibility, and procurement practices, and
Promote and incentivize each of those efforts to maximize community participation and impacts.
Integrate multiple benefits of green infrastructure with climate resiliency and adaptation.
Strategy ES-1.1.3. Climate Adaptation and Resiliency. Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and
set preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human health and community assets susceptible
to the impacts of a changing climate (e.g., increased drought, wildfires, flooding). Incorporate these
into all relevant plans, including Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam
Failure Plan, Climate Action Plan, Watershed Protection Plan, and Energy Assuredness Plan.
Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building.
Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building
ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings
projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection
and building design.
Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs,
and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external
trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater,
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).
Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green
Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry,
land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building
maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.
Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve
third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of
creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.
Policy ES-7.6. Other Water Sources. Encourage the research of other water sources, including water
reclamation.
Strategy ES-7.8.1. Inter-Agency Coordination. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by
use of flow increase mitigation measures, such as hydromodification controls as established by the
Municipal Regional Permit.
Policy ES-7.9. Inter-Agency Coordination for Water Conservation. Continue to coordinate citywide
water conservation and regional water supply problem solving efforts with the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD), San Jose Water Company, and California Water Company. (General Plan EIR
Policy 5-29)
Strategy ES-7.9.1. Water Conservation Measures. Implement water conservation measures and
encourage the implementation of voluntary water conservation measures from the City’s water
retailers and SCVWD. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-19)
Policy ES-7.10. Public Education Regarding Resource Conservation. Provide public information
regarding resource conservation.
Strategy ES-7.10.1. Outreach. Continue to send educational information and notices to households
and businesses with water prohibitions, water allocations, and conservation tips. Continue to offer
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-20 APRIL 2024
featured articles in the Cupertino Scene and Cupertino Courier. Consider providing Public Service
Announcements on the City’s Channel and Cupertino Radio.
Strategy ES-7.10.2. Demonstration Gardens. Consider including water-wise demonstration gardens in
some parks where feasible as they are re-landscaped or improved using drought tolerant native and
non-invasive, and non-native plants.
Policy ES-7.11. Water Conservation and Demand Reduction Measures. Promote efficient use of water
throughout the City in order to meet State and regional water use reduction targets.
Strategy ES-7.11.1. Urban Water Management Plan. Collaborate with water retailers serving the City
in the preparation of their Urban Water Management Plan, including water conservation strategies
and programs.
Strategy ES-7.11.2. Water Conservation Standards. Comply with State water conservation standards
by either adopting the State standards or alternate standards that are equally efficient.
Strategy ES-7.11.3. Recycled Water System. Continue to work with water retailers to promote and
expand the availability of recycled water in the City for public and private use.
Strategy ES-7.11.4. Recycled Water in Projects. Encourage and promote the use of recycled water in
public and private buildings, open space and streetspace planting.
Strategy ES-7.11.5. On-Site Recycled Water. Encourage on-site water recycling including rainwater
harvesting and gray water use.
Strategy ES-7.11.6. Water Conservation Programs. Benchmark and continue to track the City’s public
and private municipal water use to ensure ongoing accountability and as a means of informing
prioritization of future agency water conservation projects.
Strategy ES-7.11.7. Green Business Certification and Water Conservation. Continue to support the
City’s Green Business Certification goals of long-term water conservation within City facilities,
vegetated stormwater infiltration systems, parks and medians, including installation of low-flow toilets
and showers, parks, installation of automatic shut-off valves in lavatories and sinks and water efficient
outdoor irrigation.
Policy INF-1.1. Infrastructure Planning. Upgrade and enhance the City’s infrastructure through the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and requirements for development.
Strategy INF-1.1.1. Capital Improvement Program. Ensure that CIP projects reflect the goals and
policies identified in Community Vision 2040.
Strategy INF-1.1.2. Design Capacity. Ensure that the public infrastructure is designed to meet planned
needs and to avoid the need for future upsizing. Maintain a balance between meeting future growth
needs and over-sizing of infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts or impacts to other goals.
Strategy INF-1.1.3. Coordination. Require coordination of construction activity between various
providers, particularly in City facilities and rights-of-way, to ensure that the community is not
unnecessarily inconvenienced. Require that providers maintain adequate space for all utilities when
planning and constructing their infrastructure.
Policy INF-1.2. Maintenance. Ensure that existing facilities are maintained to meet the community’s
needs.
Policy INF-1.3. Coordination. Coordinate with utility and service providers to ensure that their
planning and operations meet the City’s service standards and future growth.
Policy INF-1.4. Funding. Explore various strategies and opportunities to fund existing and future
infrastructure needs.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-21
Strategy INF-1.4.1. Existing Infrastructure. Require developers to expand or update existing
infrastructure to increase capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.
Strategy INF-1.4.2. Future Infrastructure Needs. For new infrastructure, require new development to
pay its fair share of, or to extend or construct, improvements to accommodate growth without
impacting service levels.
Strategy INF-1.4.3. Economic Development. Prioritize funding of infrastructure to stimulate economic
development and job creation in order to increase opportunities for municipal revenue.
Policy INF-2.5. Recycled Water Infrastructure. Plan for citywide access to recycled water and
encourage its use.
Strategy INF-2.5.1. Availability. Expand the availability of a recycled water system through public
infrastructure projects and development review.
Strategy INF-2.5.2. Use. Encourage private and public projects to incorporate the use of recycled
water for landscaping and other uses.
Strategy INF-2.5.3. City Facilities. Design and retrofit City buildings, facilities and landscaping to use
recycled water, to the extent feasible.
Policy INF-3.1. Coordination With Providers. Coordinate with water providers and agencies in their
planning and infrastructure process to ensure that the City continues to have adequate supply for
current needs and future growth.
Strategy INF-3.1.1. Maintenance. Coordinate with providers to ensure that water and recycled water
delivery systems are maintained in good condition.
Policy INF-3.2. Regional Coordination. Coordinate with State and regional agencies to ensure that
policies and programs related to water provision and conservation meet City goals.
The City will continue to coordinate with Cal Water LAS and SJW on conservation efforts, demand
management measures promoted by the water districts, and implementation of water use restrictions as
per the WSCPs. Additionally, future development under the proposed Modified Project would be required
to implement the water-efficient requirements specified in the CALGreen and California Plumbing Codes
and the WELO requirements for water efficient landscaping. Future potential development under the
proposed Modified Project that meet the criteria under California Water Code Section 10912 would be
required to prepare a WSA that demonstrates that project water demands would not exceed water
supplies. In addition, existing residential, commercial, and industrial land uses can be expected to
decrease their water demands in the future as a result of the implementation of water conservation
practices.
According to the 2020 UWMPs for Cal Water LAS and SJW, there are sufficient water supplies available to
meet the demands of all of their customers during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years through
2045. Compliance with the General Plan 2040 goals, policies and strategies, implementation of the WSCPs
during dry periods, and continued water conservation efforts would reduce water demand with respect to
water supplies. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to shortage of water supplies
beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-22 APRIL 2024
UTIL-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not require or
result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the water demand associated with the Approved Project would be
served with available and planned water supplies provided by Cal Water LAS and SJW. Additionally, future
development under the Approved Project would be located within already developed urban areas and
therefore, would connect to an existing water distribution system. Thus, the Approved Project would not
result in water demands that would require the construction of new water treatment facilities or the
expansion of existing facilities.
As described in Impact Discussion UTIL-1, both Cal Water LAS and SJW have sufficient water supplies to
meet the demands of their customers during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. In addition, the
WSCPs contain water demand mitigation measures that would be implemented during extended drought
periods, and each water agency is required to submit an annual report to DWR to assess whether there
will be a water shortage in the coming year and what water demand reduction measures will be adopted
to address the shortages.
Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be primarily in urban infill
areas that are already connected to the water distribution systems of the two water purveyors. Both
water agencies that serve the Study Area have existing water distribution systems that can supply the
Study Area without the need to expand their facilities. Therefore, no new water facilities or expansions of
existing facilities are needed for implementation of the proposed Modified Project.
Both water purveyors that serve the Study Area receive treated water from Valley Water and do not have
their own water treatment plants. Valley Water operates three water treatment plants that clean and
disinfect imported water that is stored in four local reservoirs. The treatment plants are:
Rinconada Water Treatment Plant. This facility can treat and deliver up to 80 million gallons of water
per day for retailers who supply customers in the West Valley, including the cities of Santa Clara,
Campbell, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, Monte Sereno, Saratoga and Los Altos and the towns
of Los Gatos and Los Gatos Hills.
Penitencia Water Treatment Plant. This facility can treat and deliver up to 40 million gallons of water
per day and serves an area from Milpitas in the north to Aborn Road in the south.
Santa Teresa Water Treatment Plant. This facility provides safe drinking water to most of South San
Jose -Almaden Valley, Blossom Valley, and Santa Teresa and can treat and deliver up to 100 million
gallons per day.
The three treatment plants can provide a combined 220 million gallons per day of safe drinking water.
According to Valley Water’s 2020 UWMP, there is a surplus of water supplies during normal, single-dry
year, and multiple-dry years through the year 2045 and therefore, Valley Water has the capability of
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-23
supplying treated water to all of its retail customers.24 Therefore, no new water treatment facilities are
required.
In summary, no new water treatment or distribution facilities would be needed with implementation of
the proposed Modified Project and both water purveyors that serve the Study Area have capital
improvement programs to monitor and upgrade their water distribution systems to accommodate future
development. As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential
development under the proposed Modified Project, would be required to comply with the City’s
requirements for new construction, water-efficient landscaping, and adherence to the General Plan 2040
goals, policies, and strategies listed in Impact Discussion UTIL-1.
Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts with respect to the need for new and/or
expanded water facilities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to water service.
The General Plan EIR considered the service areas of Cal Water LAS and SJW for cumulative impacts. Cal
Water, SJWC , and SCVWD UWMPs determine that the water supply will be sufficient to accommodate
future demand in the Cal Water and SJWC service areas through 2035, and by extension through 2040,
under normal circumstances. In the multiple dry years, with Cal Water, SJWC and SCVWD drought
contingency plans in place, any shortages would be managed through demand reductions and other
measures such as increased groundwater pumping.
The area considered for cumulative water supply impacts is the service areas of CalWater LAS and SJW.
Other future projects within these service areas would result in increases in water demand. However,
cumulative water demands are not anticipated to require building new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities beyond what is currently planned. Both water providers have adequate
supplies to meet existing and future demands under normal and drought conditions through the year
2045.
Projects that meet the SB 610 criteria, such as residential projects with more than 500 dwelling units,
would be required to prepare WSAs. The City and the water purveyors would review such projects for
adequacy of water supply and the water purveyors would update the UWMP every five years to ensure
that there are adequate water supplies and contingency plans for future residents and customers. All
future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would require implementing water
efficiency and water conservation measures, as per the CALGreen Building Code and the WELO irrigation
requirements.
24 Valley Water, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-24 APRIL 2024
All cumulative projects would require compliance with applicable City ordinances as well as local, State,
and federal regulatory requirements. These regulations will result in a reduction in per capita water use
over time. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively
considerable impacts to water supply beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.15.2 Wastewater
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The CWA of 1972 regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. It is the
primary federal law that governs water pollution and is implemented by the USEPA. Under the CWA , the
USEPA sets wastewater standards and makes it unlawful to discharge pollutants from a point source into
any navigable waters without obtaining a permit. Point sources include any conveyances, such as pipes
and man-made drainage channels, from which pollutants may be discharged.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established as part of
the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal
NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-
source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally
identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable connections and/or mass emissions of pollutants
contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and
provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution
prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES
permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for
indirect discharges to a wastewater (sewage) treatment plant.
State Regulations
State Water Resources Control Board
On May 2, 2006, the SWRCB adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements ([WDRs] Order
No. 2006-0003) and a monitoring and reporting program (Order No. WQ-2013-0058-EXEC) for all publicly
owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than one mile of sewer pipes. The order
provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). The WDRs require
public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer system
management plans (SSMP) and report all SSOs to the SWRCB’s online reporting system. The SWRCB has
delegated authority to nine RWQCBs to enforce these requirements within their regions.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-25
Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2) was created as a result of the California Porter-Cologne Act. The
RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits within Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino, which
includes permits for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and industrial waste discharges. NPDES
permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how waste is disposed, including the discharge volume
and effluent limits of waste and the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the discharger. The
RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit
compliance.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) and the Infrastructure (INF) Elements of the General
Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts to wastewater. Applicable goals, policies and strategies that would minimize potential
adverse impacts to wastewater treatment and infrastructure are identified in Section 4.15.2.4, Impact
Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives that pertain to wastewater. The CMC is
organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to wastewater utilities are included in
Title 15, Water and Sewage, Title 16, Building and Construction, and Title 17, Environmental Regulations,
as follows:
Chapter 15.20, Sewage Disposal Systems , establishes standards for the approval, installation, and
operation of individual onsite sewage disposal systems consistent with the California Regional Water
Quality Board standards. In addition, this chapter requires that all properties upon issuance of any
permit for building or use must be connected to the public sanitary sewer system, with the exception
that a private sewage disposal system can be installed with written approval obtained from the Health
Officer.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code, adopts the latest 2022 California Green Building
Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, with provisions for local amendments as required. The
requirements regarding indoor water use and the installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures pertain
indirectly to wastewater flow rates, as these water conservation efforts will decrease the amount of
wastewater generated.
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements . The purpose of this chapter is to
identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet,
including but not limited to environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-26 APRIL 2024
documents required as part of a General Plan update. This chapter includes specific requirements for
utilities and service systems permits.
Section 17.04.050 (I)(1), Manage Wastewater Inflow and Infiltration to Sewer System, ensures
that project applicants implement the following measures to reduce wastewater flow:
a. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) that the project would not exceed the peak wet weather
flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the
following methods:
i. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows,
or
ii. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water
consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods
that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the
satisfaction of the CSD.
The project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the current
generation rates used by the CSD unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by
the project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the satisfaction of
the CSD.
b. The project applicant shall obtain a letter of clearance from the Cupertino Sanitary District
and provide a copy of the letter of clearance to the City prior to issuance of the first permit.
Cupertino Sanitary District Operations Code
The Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) Operations Code was adopted in 2016 and has been updated
periodically, with the latest update adopting new rates for Fiscal Year 2022 to 2023. The Code provides
general rules of construction, operation, and maintenance. Chapter IV of Cupertino Sanitary CSD’s
Operations Code requires all new buildings within the CSD to be connected to the CSD sewer system and
all land development projects to include provisions for future buildings to connect to the CSD’s sewer
system. Chapter V provides the construction requirements, standard plans and specifications, and
payment of inspection fees. Chapter VI of the CSD’s Operations Code requires critical users whose
wastewater contains priority pollutants to obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit for before connecting to
or discharging into a CSD’s sewer and provides requirements for pretreatment of industrial waste. Chapter
VII outlines the requirements for connection permits and fees as well as sewer service charges.
CSD Sewer System Management Plan
The latest CSD Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) was certified in May 2021.25 The purpose of the
SSMP is to provide the framework for properly managing, operating, and maintaining all parts of the
sanitary sewer system in order to minimize the number of SSOs and mitigate any SSOs that do occur. The
SSMP describes how the sanitary sewer system is operated and maintained, efforts to minimize infiltration
25 Cupertino Sanitary District, 2021., Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), Prepared by Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-27
and inflow, design and performance standards, overflow emergency response plan, a fats, oil and grease
control program, and monitoring and audit requirements. As required by law, the SSMP must be updated
every five years and must be developed in compliance with the requirements of the SWRCB Waste
Discharge Requirements Order No. 2006-003-DWQ, Amended Monitoring and Reporting Program Order
No. WQ 2008-002-EXEC, and Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC.
CSD Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program
CSD has an ongoing program to identify and reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) into the sewer system.
Inflow is stormwater that enters the system through illicit connections and infiltration is stormwater and
groundwater that enter the system through laterals, sewer mains, and manholes. These flows can limit
the capacity of the sewer system to convey wastewater flows, especially during wet weather, where it can
contribute up to 50 percent of the peak flow. The program is aimed at reducing the amount of peak flow
entering the CSD sewer system to lower the risk of SSOs and decrease the costs of conveying and treating
wastewater. CSD uses Sewer System Evaluation Surveys to evaluate the condition of sewer and the likely
sources of I/I via smoke testing and closed-circuit television inspections. Once the sources of I/I have been
identified, repairs to broken pipes, manholes, and joint connections are made. The program also meters
sewer flows during rainfall events to identify areas of high flows. This information is data for running a
hydraulic model of the CSD sewer system and assess whether there is sufficient capacity available to
accommodate new development.26
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to wastewater
associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for wastewater is
described in detail under Existing Conditions in Section 4.14.2, Wastewater, of the General Plan EIR.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations equivalent to the General
Plan EIR mitigation measures to reduce wastewater flow in the CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, as described under the Municipal Code heading in Section
4.15.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Section 17.04,050 (I)(1) incorporates Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a
through UTIL-6c, which require project applicants to work with the City and CSD to ensure projects would
not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Thus, these
mitigation measures are no longer necessary.
26 Cupertino Sanitary District, 2024. Peak Flow Reduction Program. Cupertino 2021 Annual Report.
https://j.b5z.net/i/u/10207194/f/Annual%20Reports/CSUD_2021_Annual_Report_Layout_1_RS_FINAL_FOR_PRINT.pdf accessed
on January 18, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-28 APRIL 2024
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant wastewater impact if
it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
UTIL-4. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
LTS LTS
UTIL-5. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves
or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
LTS LTS
UTIL-6. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wastewater
services? LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not require or
result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects.
The General Plan EIR concluded that future demands from the Approved Project would not exceed the
design or permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment plants serving the Study Area (SJ/SCWPCP and
SWPCP). Additionally, the potential impacts to the collection system would be addressed through
applicable General Plan policies and the mitigation measures identified in Impact Discussion UTIL-6 of the
General Plan EIR.
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer service to most of the City of Cupertino, portions
of Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and surrounding unincorporated areas by maintaining, repairing,
replacing, and inspecting all wastewater lines and providing emergency sanitary sewer overflow (SSO)
response. However, a small portion in the northeastern section of the City east of Finch Avenue and south
of Stevens Creek Boulevard is served by the City of Sunnyvale.
Cupertino does not operate a wastewater treatment plant. The collected wastewater is conveyed to the
San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) through sewer mains and interceptor lines
shared with both the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara pursuant to a joint use agreement. As of 2020, the
RWF treat 110 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater, with a permit capacity of 167 mgd.27
Future development under the Modified Project would result in an increase in wastewater with the
addition of 3,312 new housing units. According to SJW’s 2020 UWMP, indoor water use for multi-family
residences is 42 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and there are an average of 2.94 people per household
27 City of San Jose, 2024. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32061/637267825445900000 accessed on January 18,2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-29
in Cupertino. Wastewater demand is assumed to be 100 percent of the indoor water demand, which is
conservative, in that the projected demand is higher than actual conditions.
TABLE 4.15-6 INCREASE IN WASTEWATER DEMAND WITH PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
DUs
Number of People Per
Household
Wastewater Use
Factor (gpcd)
Increase in
Wastewater Deman
(gpd)
Increase in
Wastewater Demand
(mgd)
3,312 2.94 42 408,966 0.41
Notes: DUs = dwelling units; gpcd = gallons per capita per day; gpd = gallons per day; mgd – million gallons per day
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023
The increase in wastewater demand due to future potential development under the proposed Modified
Project is estimated to be approximately 0.41 mgd. As of 2020, the RWF is treating 110 mgd with a
permitted capacity of 167 mgd. Therefore, the wastewater treatment facility has a residual capacity of 57
mgd and the addition of 0.41 mgd from implementation of the proposed Modified Project is only 0.7
percent of the residual capacity.
CSD has a contract with the RWF that limits its discharge to 7.875 mgd, of which CSD discharged
approximately 4.25 mgd in 2017. Therefore, CSD uses only about 54 percent of its allowable capacity. The
RWF would be able to accommodate the wastewater flows from the proposed Modified Project in
addition to the current and future flows from other contributors to the RWF’s wastewater flow rates.
The trunk interceptors owned by the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara that convey flow from the CSD
collection system to the RWF were also assessed to determine if they have the capacity to serve the
future potential development under the proposed Modified Project. Approximately 0.56 mgd is conveyed
via the San Jose joint interceptor and 3.69 mgd is conveyed via the Santa Clara joint interceptor. The City
of Santa Clara concluded that their joint interceptor has adequate capacity; CSD has an allowable
maximum wet weather flow capacity of 13.5 mgd in this system. In 2017, the maximum wet weather flow
peaked at 9.6 mgd, which leaves a residual capacity of 3.9 mgd.28 CSD has agreements with these cities
for sharing costs related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the joint use sanitary
sewers.29
Only one of the proposed housing opportunity sites under the proposed Modified Project is within the
Sunnyvale sewer collection system, which is in a small part of the Study Area east of Finch Avenue and
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Wastewater from this area is conveyed to the Sunnyvale Water
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The NPDES permit for the WPCP allows inflows to the facility of up to 29.5
mgd. Currently, the WPCP processes about 13.5 mgd.30 Therefore, there is a residual capacity of 16 mgd,
and buildout of one housing opportunity site within the area served by Sunnyvale sewer collection system
would not exceed the treatment capacity of the WPCP or adversely affect the capacity of the sewer
collection system.
28 Cupertino Sanitary District, 2018. 10-Year District-Wide Capital Improvement Master Plan
29 Cupertino Sanitary District, 2018. 10-Year District-Wide Capital Improvement Master Plan.
30 City of Sunnyvale, 2020. Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan – Secondary Treatment and Dewatering
Facility Project. Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-30 APRIL 2024
In addition, the CSD is also implementing sewer collection improvement projects as recommended in the
10-Year District-Wide Capital Improvement Project Master Plan. The goal is to replace and upgrade pump
station capacities, upgrade portions of the sewer infrastructure with larger pipe sizes to correct
deficiencies and accommodate future growth, improve wet weather capacity, and reduce I/I.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) and the
Infrastructure (INF) Elements of General Plan 2040 include policies and strategies that ensure adequate
wastewater treatment capacity and infrastructure under the proposed Modified Project. Like the
Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies
and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize adverse effects on
wastewater services:
Policy ES-7.7. Industrial Water Recycling. Encourage industrial projects, in cooperation with Cupertino
Sanitary District, to have long-term conservation measures, including recycling equipment for
manufacturing and water supplies in the plant. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-26)
Policy INF-1.1. Infrastructure Planning. Upgrade and enhance the City’s infrastructure through the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and requirements for development.
Strategy INF-1.1.1. Capital Improvement Program. Ensure that CIP projects reflect the goals and
policies identified in Community Vision 2040.
Strategy INF-1.1.2. Design Capacity. Ensure that the public infrastructure is designed to meet planned
needs and to avoid the need for future upsizing. Maintain a balance between meeting future growth
needs and over-sizing of infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts or impacts to other goals.
Strategy INF-1.1.3. Coordination. Require coordination of construction activity between various
providers, particularly in City facilities and rights-of-way, to ensure that the community is not
unnecessarily inconvenienced. Require that providers maintain adequate space for all utilities when
planning and constructing their infrastructure.
Policy INF-1.2. Maintenance. Ensure that existing facilities are maintained to meet the community’s
needs.
Policy INF-1.3. Coordination. Coordinate with utility and service providers to ensure that their
planning and operations meet the City’s service standards and future growth.
Policy INF-1.4. Funding. Explore various strategies and opportunities to fund existing and future
infrastructure needs.
Strategy INF-1.4.1. Existing Infrastructure. Require developers to expand or update existing
infrastructure to increase capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.
Strategy INF-1.4.2. Future Infrastructure Needs. For new infrastructure, require new development to
pay its fair share of, or to extend or construct, improvements to accommodate growth without
impacting service levels.
Strategy INF-1.4.3. Economic Development. Prioritize funding of infrastructure to stimulate economic
development and job creation in order to increase opportunities for municipal revenue.
Policy INF-5.1. Infrastructure. Ensure that the infrastructure plans for Cupertino’s wastewater system
providers continue to meet the City’s current and future needs.
Strategy INF-5.1.1. Coordination. Coordinate with the Cupertino Sanitary District on their Master Plan
and the Sunnyvale Treatment Plant to develop a comprehensive capital improvement program to
ensure adequate capacity for future development anticipated with General Plan buildout.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-31
Strategy INF-5.1.2. Development. Require developers to pay their fair share of costs for, or in some
cases construct, infrastructure upgrades to ensure that service levels are met. (General Plan EIR Policy
7-4)
Policy INF-5.2. Demand. Look for ways to reduce demand on the City’s wastewater system through
implementation of water conservation measures.
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not require the construction or expansion of the
wastewater treatment plants or the sewer collection systems beyond what is already planned or under
construction under the Approved Project. Adherence to the CMC requirements as well as the General
Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies would also reduce wastewater generation rates over time. Based
on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in new or more severe impacts associated with the sewer collection and
treatment systems beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the
determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
As described in the General Plan EIR, specific capacity deficiencies were identified under the Approved
Project, including sewer lines serving the City Center area, and lines on Stelling Road and Foothill
Boulevard. City Center is the general area at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of De Anza Blvd
and Stevens Creek Blvd. Future potential development that substantially increases wastewater capacity,
including projects under the Approved Project, could result in wastewater flows that exceed the collection
system capacity. To address this possibility, the CSD requires developers of substantial projects to
demonstrate that adequate capacity exists, or to identify the necessary mitigations. Further, future
potential development in the portion of the Heart of the City Special Area east of Finch Avenue and south
of Stevens Creek Boulevard could result in wastewater flows to the City of Sunnyvale that exceed the
downstream pipe capacity if large office developments are allowed. This Special Area does allow office
use of the entire corridor with appropriate mitigation measures. However, development adjacent to the
single-family residences on the east side along Stevens Creek Boulevard would not be large office
campuses due to the small size of the properties and the need to maintain compatibility with adjoining
single-family residential uses. As far as treatment systems, the projected additional wastewater generated
by the Approved Project, over and above the current General Plan 2040 flows, are calculated to be 1.45
mgd and would exceed the contractually available treatment capacity by 0.85 mgd.
As described in Impact Discussion UTIL-4, much of the wastewater generated in the Study Area would be
conveyed to the RWF. It is currently permitted to treat up to 29.5 mgd and currently processes about 13.5
mgd. CSD has a contract with the RWF that limits its discharge to 7.875 mgd, of which CSD discharged
approximately 4.25 mgd in 2017. Therefore, CSD uses only about 54 percent of its allowed capacity.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-32 APRIL 2024
The estimated increase in wastewater flows is conservative because there likely will be declining rates of
wastewater generation over time, as new projects would be required to comply with the California
Plumbing Code and CALGreen and implement active and passive water conservation measures. This
would also reduce the amount of wastewater produced per dwelling unit. Future development would also
be required to undergo City review and abide by the City’s Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements that pertain to wastewater. Additionally, the General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and
strategies provided in Impact Discussion UTIL-4 require local planning and development decisions to
consider impacts to wastewater collection and treatment systems.
With continued compliance with applicable state and federal regulations and the CMC and Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, wastewater generated by future potential development under
the proposed Modified Project would not exceed the capacity of the respective wastewater treatment
plants. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new or more severe impact or
determination by the wastewater treatment provider that there is not adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the demands of other wastewater dischargers beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-6 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wastewater service.
The context used for the cumulative assessment is the service area of San Jose Regional Wastewater
Facility and the Sunnyvale Pollution Control Treatment Plant. In addition to wastewater discharged to
these treatment plants by the City, there are other dischargers. For the RWF, the other dischargers are the
cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Milpitas, West Valley Sanitation District (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte
Sereno, and Saratoga), County Sanitation Districts 2 and 3, and Burbank Sanitary District. The Sunnyvale
PCTP just receives wastewater from Sunnyvale and a small portion of Cupertino.
As described in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would generate a minor increase in
the volume of wastewater delivered for treatment at SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP. This increase represents less
than 1 percent of the available treatment capacity at the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, and it would occur
incrementally over a period of 26 years. Both the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP serving the Study Area currently
use less than their design and permitted wastewater treatment capacity. Based on the recent trends of
diminishing wastewater treatment demand and the projected population growth in the service areas,
cumulative wastewater treatment demand under the Approved Project is far below the excess capacity of
the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP.
The RWF treats an average of 110 mgd with a capacity of up to 167 mgd. The Sunnyvale PCTP processes
about 13.5 mgs with a permitted capacity of up to 29.5 mgd. Therefore, both wastewater treatment
facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate existing and future growth within their service areas.
In addition, both facilities have capital improvement programs that are currently under construction. The
Sunnyvale Cleanwater Program will upgrade the City’s PCTP, which will result in new and more cost-
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-33
effective treatment technologies, more recycled water produced, and a cogeneration plant.31 The RWF’s
capital improvement program includes rehabilitation of all stages of the treatment process for greater
reliability, new biosolids dewatering and drying processes, and new methods of generating energy. The
capital improvement program envisions two billion dollars in facility investments over a 30-year period,
according to the RWF’s Master Plan.32
Future development within the service areas of the wastewater treatment plants would require
compliance with all applicable regulations and ordinances. Projects would have to pay wastewater
connection fees and monthly sewer service charges, which fund continued improvements to the
wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Therefore, with continued compliance with applicable regulations and future reductions in wastewater
demands with water conservative efforts, cumulative development would not exceed wastewater
collection or treatment capacities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would
not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts related to wastewater beyond what
was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.15.3 Stormwater
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework for stormwater is described in detail in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EA. The regulatory requirements that pertain solely to storm drain systems are repeated
below.
Federal Regulations
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Under the NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the U.S. are required to
obtain an NPDES permit. Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program.
In California, the NPDES permit program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs. The
City of Cupertino lies within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2) and is subject to
the waste discharge requirements of the Phase I MS4 Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018; NPDES No.
CAS612008) that regulates stormwater discharges from the cities, towns, and agencies within Alameda
County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Solano County. The Santa Clara
permittees under the MS4 permit include cities of Cupertino, Campbell, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte
31 City of Sunnyvale, 2024. Sunnyvale Cleanwater Program. https://www.sunnyvalecleanwater.com/ accessed on January 19,
2024.
32 City of San Jose, 2024. Capital Improvement Program. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-
offices/environmental-services/water-utilities/regional-wastewater-facility/capital-improvement-program accessed on January
19, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-34 APRIL 2024
Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, the towns of Los Altos
Hills and Los Gatos, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara County.
State Regulations
SWRCB Construction General Permit
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must
comply with the requirements of the newly reissued SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order WQ
2022-0057-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002), which was adopted on September 8, 2022, and becomes
effective on September 1, 2023. Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration
Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent,
risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed
certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple
Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.
Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMPs ) and
prepare a SWPPP containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed
buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and
after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be
implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could
contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a weekly visual monitoring
program, a sampling program to ensure compliance with water quality standards, and on-site collection of
samples and inspection of BMPs prior to, during, and after qualifying precipitation events. Water quality
monitoring has a schedule based on the risk level of the site.
In addition, the City under Municipal Code 16.08.110 has the authority to require submittal of an interim
and final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for projects that require grading permits. The ESCP
must describe the location and types of erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented
during the construction phase, vegetative measures such as erosion control planting and seeding, and
calculation of maximum surface runoff amounts from the construction site. Projects subject to the SWRCB
Construction General Permit may include the ESCP provisions within the SWPPP.
SWRCB Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters
of California to control trash. In addition, the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters,
Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California added Part 1, Trash Provisions. Together, they are collectively
referred to as “the Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments apply to all surface waters of California
and include a land-use-based compliance approach to focus trash controls on areas with high trash-
generation rates. Areas such as high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public
transportation stations are considered priority land uses. There are two compliance tracks for Phase I and
Phase II MS4 permittees:
Track 1: Permittees must install, operate, and maintain a network of certified full capture systems in
storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-35
Track 2: Permittees must implement a plan with a combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit
projects, institutional controls, and/or other treatment methods that have the same effectiveness as
Track 1 methods.
The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement their provisions. Full
compliance must occur within 10 years of the permit, and permittees must also meet interim milestones
such as average load reductions of 10 percent per year. The Trash A mendments require municipalities to
install certified trash control systems, such as filters, on all catch basins no later than December 2, 2030.33
Regional Regulations
Regional Stormwater MS4 Permit
Municipal stormwater discharge in the City of Cupertino is subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs) of the MS4 Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018 and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). Provision C.3 of
the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) requirements applies to all new development that
create or replace 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and single-family homes that create and/or
replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit also mandates that
new development and redevelopment projects must: (1) incorporate site design, source control, and
stormwater treatment on-site; (2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-
stormwater discharge; and (3) minimize the rate and volume of stormwater runoff under post-
development conditions. Low-impact development (LID) methods are the primary mechanisms for
implementing such controls.
New development projects must design and construct stormwater treatment systems that capture a
percentage of the flow rate or volume from a specified storm event based on the sizing criteria described
in the C.3 provisions of the MRP. The treatment systems use LID measures that include rainwater
harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment/bioretention.
To comply with Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit, regulated projects would be required to submit a
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and a completed Provision C.3 Data Form with building plans, to
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The SWMP must be prepared under the
direction of and certified by a licensed and qualified professional, which includes civil engineers,
architects, or landscape architects.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP)
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) is an association of 13
cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley, together with the County of Santa Clara and Valley Water. The
RWQCB has conveyed responsibility for implementation of stormwater regulations to the member
agencies of SCVURPPP. The SCVURPPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed
at improving the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of the Santa Clara Valley to
33 State Water Resources Quality Control Board, September 2024, Storm Water Program - Trash Implementation Program.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implementation.html, accessed January 12, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-36 APRIL 2024
reduce pollution in urban runoff to the “maximum extent practicable.” The SCVURPPP maintains
compliance with the MS4 Permit and promotes storm water pollution prevention within that context.
Participating agencies (including the City of Cupertino) must meet the provisions of the Santa Clara
County permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate water quality impacts to
stormwater runoff both during the construction and operation of projects.34
The SCVURPPP has also developed the Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan that describes a
comprehensive plan to identify and prioritize potential stormwater and dry weather runoff capture
projects in the Santa Clara Basin. It also provides information for the development and implementation of
Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GFI) plans that municipalities within Santa Clara County are required to
implement with the help of State grant funding.35
In addition, the SCVURPPP has developed the C.3 Stormwater Handbook that provides guidance to
developers, builders, and project applicants to ensure compliance with the requirements of the MS4
permit and implement appropriate post-construction stormwater control measures for new development
and redevelopment projects. The document describes the applicable site design measures, source control
measures, and stormwater treatment measures that are required to be implemented for all regulated
projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces. In addition, projects
that create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces are required to also implement
hydromodification measures.36 The City’s Public Works Department reviews SWMPs to ensure compliance
with the C.3 provisions of the MS4 permit.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals,
policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider stormwater
impacts and storm drain infrastructure. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential
adverse impacts are identified in Section 4.15.3.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts due to
stormwater drainage in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions
related to stormwater and storm drains are included in Title 3, Revenue and Finance, Title 9, Health and
Sanitation, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Title 16, Building and Construction, and Title 17,
Environmental Regulations, as follows:
34 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), 2024. About SCVURPPP.
https://scvurppp.org/about-scvurppp/ accessed on January 13, 2024.
35 EOA, Paradigm, and Lotus Water, 2019. Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan.
36 SCVURPPP, 2016. C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Requirements for New
Development and Redevelopment Projects. Dated June 2016.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-37
Chapter 3.36, Storm Drainage Service Charge, established in 1992, outlines the requirements for the
payment of fees to conserve and protect the City’s storm drainage system from the burden placed on
it by the increasing flow of nonpoint source runoff and to otherwise meet the requirements
developed by the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Control and Storm Water Management
Program established to comply with the CWA, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
regulations and the City’s NPDES permits. The specific purpose of the storm drainage service charges
established pursuant to this chapter is to derive revenue which shall only be used for the acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the storm drainage system of the City to
repay principal and interest on any bonds which may hereafter be issued for said purposes, to repay
loans or advances which may hereafter be made for said purposes and for any other purpose set forth
in Section 3.36.160. However, said revenue shall not be used for the acquisition or construction of
new local street storm sewers or storm laterals as distinguished from main trunk, interceptor, and
outfall storm sewers.
Chapter 3.38, Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, established in 2019, outlines the requirements
for the payment of fees to conserve and protect the City’s essential values of maintaining aging storm
drainage infrastructure, encouraging groundwater replenishment, and maintaining a sustainable
environment in accordance with the Clean Water Act, EPA regulations and the City’s NPDES permits.
The specific purpose of the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee is to derive fee revenue, which shall
only be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the
storm drainage system of the City or related green infrastructure or other activities required by the
City’s NPDES permits, to repay principal and interest on any bonds which may hereafter be issued for
said purposes, to repay loans or advances which may hereafter be made for said purposes, and for
any other purpose set forth in Section 3.38.160.
Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, provides regulations and
gives legal effect to the MRP issued to the City of Cupertino and ensures ongoing compliance with the
most recent version of the City of Cupertino's NPDES permit regarding municipal storm water and
urban runoff requirements. This chapter applies to all water entering the storm drain system
generated on any private, public, developed, and undeveloped lands lying within the city. The code
contains permit requirements for construction projects and new development or redevelopment
projects to minimize the discharge of storm water runoff.
Chapter 9.19, Water Resources Protection, requires property owners to obtain permits for any
modifications to properties adjacent to a stream except when: 1) less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork
is planned provided it does not damage, weaken, erode or reduce the effectiveness of the stream to
withhold storm and flood waters; 2) a fence 6 feet or less in height; 3) an accessory structure 120
square feet or less in size; 4) interior or exterior modification within the existing footprint; or
5) landscaping on existing single-family lots.
Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping
Act of 2006 by establishing new water-efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. In general,
any building or landscape projects that involve more than 2,500 square feet of landscape area are
required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal to the Director of Community Development for
approval. Existing and established landscapes over 1 acre, including cemeteries, are required to
submit water budget calculations and audits of established landscapes.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-38 APRIL 2024
Chapter 16.18, Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, requires preparation of an Interim Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan. Specifically, Section 16.18.110 states that the Plan shall be either
integrated with the site map/grading plan or submitted separately, to the Director of Public Works
that calculates the maximum runoff from the site for the 10-year storm event and describes measures
to be undertaken to retain sediment on the site, a brief description of the surface runoff and erosion
control measures to be implemented, and vegetative measures to be undertaken.
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements . The purpose of this chapter is to
identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet,
including but not limited to environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental
documents required as part of a General Plan update. This chapter includes specific requirements for
utilities and service systems permits.
Section 17.04.050 (F), Control Stormwater Runoff Contamination. The project applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed
Protection) of the Cupertino Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino. All
identified stormwater runoff control measures shall be included in the applicable construction
documents.
Storm Drain Master Plan
The capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino was evaluated and documented in
the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan.37 While most areas within the City provide adequate stormwater
conveyance for the 10-year rainfall event, there are areas that would benefit from improvements to the
stormwater conveyance capacity. There are also regions within the city that lack a formal drainage system
and would require improvements.
The City collects Storm Drain Fees for new construction projects to fund improvements to the storm drain
system. The next storm drain improvements that are scheduled to be implemented as part of the Capital
Improvement Program, including Phase two of storm drain improvements near Pumpkin Drive, Fiesta
Lane, September Drive, and Festival Drive.38 These areas are listed as high priority for improvement in the
Storm Drain Master Plan. Phase one is complete.38 These areas were listed as high priority for
improvement in the Storm Drain Master Plan.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to stormwater
associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for stormwater is
described in detail in Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, of the General Plan EIR. Since the certification of
the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations to reduce stormwater utility impacts in the CMC
Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, as described under the Municipal Code
37 City of Cupertino, 2018. City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan. Prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler. Dated September
2018.
38 City of Cupertino, 2021. Capital Improvement Program, FY 2021-2022.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-39
heading in Section 4.15.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Section 17.04,050 (F) includes measures to minimize
stormwater runoff contamination.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant stormwater impact if
it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
UTIL-7 Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the
construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?
LTS LTS
UTIL-8 Result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to stormwater? LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-7 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not require or
result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects.
Impact Discussion HYDRO-4, in Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR found
that new development and redevelopment projects under the Approved Project must be designed such
that the stormwater runoff generated from the 10-year storm is conveyed in the storm drainage system
(underground pipes or open channels), and the stormwater runoff generated from the 100-year design
storm must be safely conveyed away from the site without creating and/or contributing to downstream or
upstream flooding conditions. Thus, future development associated with the Approved Project would not
be expected to result in downstream flooding but could exacerbate existing conditions of the storm drain
system, which is undersized to convey the 10-year storm event at some locations.
The future potential development of 3,312 new housing units as part of the proposed Modified Project
would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which in turn could result in an increase in stormwater
runoff, higher peak discharges to drainage channels, and the potential to cause nuisance flooding in areas
without adequate drainage facilities. However, most of the Study Area is developed, and future
development from the Modified Project would likely replace existing developed areas, including
impervious surfaces and pavement. Therefore, new development on previously developed sites should
not create a significant increase in impervious surfaces and could result in improved conditions on sites
where stormwater retention and pretreatment was not previously required.
Additionally, regulated projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and
single-family homes that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would trigger
the implementation of stormwater treatment and trash collection measures to reduce stormwater runoff,
pursuant to the MS4 Permit and the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevent Program’s C.3
Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater treatment measures are required to temporarily detain site runoff
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-40 APRIL 2024
using specific numeric sizing criteria based on volume and flow rate. Implementation of these stormwater
measures would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff that is ultimately discharged to the City’s storm
drain system and the creeks that run through Cupertino. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City
would require completion and submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan and Provision C.3 Data Form
for review and approval to ensure that these requirements are met.
In addition, all future potential development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified
Project would be required to pay stormwater drainage fees, pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36, which is
designed to mitigate the impacts of stormwater that is discharged into the City’s storm drain system and
creeks in the Study Area. The assessments are used to construct, maintain, and operate the storm drain
system and fund improvements in the storm drain infrastructure through the Capital Improvement Plan.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Element
includes policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts
that development could have on stormwater. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General
Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified
Project, would also serve to minimize adverse effects on storm drain systems:
Policy ES-7.1. Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. In public and private development, use
Low Impact Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by mimicking natural hydrology,
minimizing grading, and protecting or restoring natural drainage systems.
Strategy ES-7.1.1. Development Plans. Continue to require topographical information, identification of
creeks, streams, and drainage area; and grading plans for both public and private development
proposals to ensure protection and efficient use of water resources.
Policy ES-7.2. Reduction of Impervious Surfaces. Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts
resulting from development and use low impact development (LID) designs to treat stormwater or
recharge groundwater. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-34)
Strategy ES-7.2.1. Lot Coverage. Consider updating lot coverage requirements to include paved
surfaces such as driveways and on-grade impervious patios to incentivize the construction of pervious
surfaces.
Strategy ES-7.2.2. Pervious Walkways and Driveways. Encourage the use of pervious materials for
walkways and driveways. If used on public or quasi-public property, mobility and access for the
disabled should take preference.
Strategy ES-7.2.3. Maximize Infiltration. Minimize impervious surface areas and maximize on-site
filtration and the use of on-site retention facilities. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-34)
Policy ES-7.3. Pollution and Flow Impacts. Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are
reduced through development review and voluntary efforts.
Strategy ES-7.3.1. Development Review. Require LID designs such as vegetated stormwater treatment
systems and green infrastructure to mitigate pollutant loads and flows.
Policy ES-7.4. Watershed Based Planning. Review long-term plans and development projects to ensure
good stewardship of watersheds. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-22)
Strategy ES-7.4.1. Storm Drainage Master Plan. Develop and maintain a Storm Drainage Master Plan
which identifies facilities needs to previous “10-year” event street flooding and “100-year” event
structure flooding and integrate green infrastructure to meet water quality protection needs in a cost
effective manner.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-41
Strategy ES-7.4.2. Watershed Management Plans. Work with other agencies to develop broader
Watershed Management Plans to model and control the City’s hydrology.
Strategy ES-7.4.3. Development. Review development plans to ensure that projects are examined in
the context of impacts on the entire watershed, in order to comply with the City’s non-point source
Municipal Regional Permit.
Policy ES-7.5. Groundwater Recharge Sites. Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts to find
and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino and provide public recreation where
possible.
Strategy ES-7.8.1. Inter-Agency Coordination. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by
use of flow increase mitigation measures, such as hydromodification controls as established by the
Municipal Regional Permit.
Compliance with the MS4 permit; the SCVURPPP C.3 Handbook; the CMC requirements; and the General
Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies would ensure that future development under the proposed
Modified Project would not result in significant increases in runoff and would not contribute to the
construction of new storm drain facilities or expansion of existing facilities that would cause significant
environmental impacts. In addition, the City would continue to repair, rehabilitate, and upgrade the storm
drain system through implementation of the CIP. Therefore, overall impacts from adoption and
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts with
respect to stormwater infrastructure beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-8 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to stormwater.
The geographic context used for the cumulative impact with respect to stormwater is the two watersheds
within the Study Area and the surrounding areas: Lower Peninsula Watershed and West Valley Watershed.
New development in these watersheds could increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows
into the storm drainage systems. However, all cumulative projects would be required to comply with the
MS4 permit, the SCVURPPP C.3 Handbook, and applicable CMC requirements, which would minimize
stormwater runoff.
Impact Discussion HYDRO-9 in Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR
considered cumulative impacts with respect to all hydrological and water quality impacts. All cumulative
projects would be subject to similar permit requirements and would be required to comply with City
ordinances and General Plan 2040 policies, as well as numerous water quality regulations that control
construction related and operational discharge of pollutants in stormwater. Specifically, potential changes
related to stormwater quality, storm water flows, drainage, impervious surfaces, and flooding would be
minimized by the implementation of stormwater control measures, retention, infiltration, and LID
measures, and review by the City’s Public Works Department to integrate measures to reduce potential
flooding impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-42 APRIL 2024
As described previously, development within the Study Area would require conformance with State and
City policies that would reduce stormwater infrastructure impacts to less than significant levels. Any new
development within the Study Area would be subject to the General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and
strategies listed in Impact Discussion UTIL-7; the SCVURPPP C.3 Handbook; and the City’s Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements pertaining to stormwater. Therefore, potential changes related to
stormwater flows, drainage, impervious surfaces, and flooding would be minimized by the
implementation of stormwater control measures, retention, infiltration, and low-impact-development
measures and would be reviewed by the City staff for compliance with the Stormwater Management
Plans.
All cumulative projects outside of the Study Area but within the watershed boundaries would be subject
to similar permit requirements and compliance with the MS4 permit. In combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects future potential development under the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to stormwater infrastructure
within the watersheds beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.15.4 Solid Waste
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Part
258, contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own
permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the
location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and
closure of landfills.
State Regulations
Integrated Waste Management Act
The Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) codified in Public Resources Code 40050 et
seq. (AB 939) established an integrated waste-management system that focused on source reduction,
recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to
divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. This act also requires that each city and
county prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to be submitted to the Department of
Resource Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), a department within the California Natural Resources
Agency. AB 939 also establishes a goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing
landfill capacity.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-43
In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The per capita
disposal measurement system is calculated as a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided
by a jurisdiction’s population. CalRecycle sets a target per capita disposal rate for each jurisdiction. Each
jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CalRecycle with an update of its progress in implementing
diversion programs and its current per capita disposal rate.
Mandatory Commercial Recycling Act (AB 341)
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide solid waste diversion goal to 75 percent
by 2020 and mandates commercial businesses and public entities that generate four cubic years or more
of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. In addition, multifamily residential properties with
five or more units are also required to develop a recycling program. AB 341 is designed to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the state by 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Mandatory Organics Recycling Act (AB 1826)
AB 1826, which was enacted in 2014 and took effect in 2016, mandated organic waste recycling for all
businesses and multifamily dwellings that consist of five or more units. Starting in January 2020, all
generators of two cubic yards or more of garbage, recycling, and compost combined per week must
recycle organic waste. Organic waste includes food scraps, food-soiled paper and cardboard waste, green
waste and yard trimmings, landscaping materials, and non-hazardous, non-treated wood waste.
California Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act (SB 1383)
SB 1383 focuses on the elimination of methane gas created by organic materials in landfills and
establishes goals to reduce the landfill disposal of organics by achieving a 50 percent reduction in the
statewide disposal of organic waste by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. Organic waste makes up
half of what Californians send to landfills. SB 1383 requires all businesses and residents to divert organic
materials from landfills. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2022, and requires that organic collection
services be provided to all residents and businesses. The collected organic waste must be recycled into
new products, such as compost, mulch, biofuel, and electricity. Each city and county has an annual
procurement target amount, based on its population, to use or give away those types of recycled new
products. Also, an edible food recovery program had to be established by 2022 with the goal of recovering
20 percent of currently disposed edible food that would otherwise be sent to landfills to feed people in
need. Mandated food donors and food recovery organizations and services must keep records of the
amount and dates of food donations and acceptances.
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires new commercial and multi-family
development projects to set aside areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. This act required
CalRecycle to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency that provides adequate areas
for the collection and loading of recyclable materials for development projects. Local agencies are
required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, that establishes standards including space
allocation for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-44 APRIL 2024
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, became effective on
January 1, 2023. Sections 4.408 and 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling,
mandate that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 65 percent of non-
hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. CALGreen requires
developers to prepare and submit a Construction Waste Management Plan, which must:
Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for
future use or sale.
Specify if materials would be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.
Identify the diversion facility where the material collected can be taken.
Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.
Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or by volume but not
both.
Regional Regulations
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Solid Waste Program
The Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health Solid Waste Program is designated as the
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for all areas of Santa Clara County, including the City of Cupertino, except
for the City of San Jose, which serves as its own LEA. The LEA regulates solid waste facilities to ensure
compliance with State standards, and includes the following functions:
Permits and inspects landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, and refuse collection
vehicles and yards.
Monitors disposal facilities to exclude hazardous wastes, medical wastes, and liquid wastes.
Provides information to the public and industry regarding the proper disposal of solid wastes.
Investigates complaints and mitigates problems associated with illegal dumping, disposal, or
storage of solid wastes.
Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan
As described above, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required that each County
prepare and adopt a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP). The regulation also
requires that each IWMP and its elements be reviewed, revised, if necessary, and submitted to CalRecycle
every five years. Cupertino submitted the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to be included
in the County’s IWMP in 1992. The SRRE contains information of waste generation within the City, source
reduction objectives, recycling programs, composting programs, solid waste facility capacities, and public
education and information.39
39 County of Santa Clara, 2024. Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
https://reducewaste.santaclaracounty.gov/santa-clara-county-integrated-waste-management-plan accessed on January 19,
2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-45
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Infrastructure (INF) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals, policies, and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to address potential solid waste impacts. Applicable
policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts are identified in Section 4.15.4.3,
Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to address solid waste issues and
encourage recycling efforts. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to
solid waste are included in Title 6, Franchises, Title 9, Health and Sanitation, and Title 16, Building and
Construction, as follows:
Chapter 6.24, Garbage, Non-Organic Recycling and Organic Waste Recycling Collection and Disposal.
This chapter requires the owner of each occupied property to subscribe to and pay for solid waste
collection services made available through the City’s franchise agreement with the designated solid
waste collection company. The chapter specifies requirements for single-family residents and
commercial business generators as well as requirements for haulers and facility operators. In addition,
commercial edible food generators, as well as food recovery organizations and services, must comply
with the mandatory edible food recovery requirements specified in this chapter.
Chapter 9.12, Hazardous Material Storage. This chapter establishes regulations to prevent and control
unauthorized discharges of hazardous materials. The provisions of the chapters establish regulations
for new, existing, and out-of-service storage facilities.
Chapter 9.16, Recycling Areas. This chapter requires recycling areas to be located at a convenient
location for persons depositing, collecting, loading the recyclable materials, and be adjacent to the
solid waste collection area, if feasible. The chapter also requires the recycling areas to comply with
the site and design guidelines and be maintained by the property owners to avoid waste accumulation
that creates a visual, public health, or safety nuisance.
Chapter 9.20, Off-Site Hazardous Waste Facilities. This chapter establishes standards, land use
regulations, and a permit review process for the siting and development of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, transfer, and disposal facilities.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code Adopted. This chapter describes the 2022 California
Green Building Standards adopted by the City, and any local amendments made with indications of
additions or amendments to the State Standards. The CALGreen regulations require that at least 65
percent by weight of construction debris be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfill
disposal.
Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. This chapter
establishes regulations to comply with the California Waste Management Act of 1989. The chapter
requires all projects within the city that involve construction, demolition, or renovation of that are
subject to the Green Building Standards Code to comply with the provisions of the chapter, and the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-46 APRIL 2024
compliance with the chapter will be attached as conditions of approval of any building or demolition
permit issued. An applicant for a covered project is required to recycle or divert at least 65 percent of
all generated construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Prior to the permit issuance, the applicant is
required to submit a properly completed Waste Management Plan, which includes the estimated
maximum amount of C&D waste that can feasibly be diverted, which facility will handle the waste,
and the total amount of C&D waste that will be landfilled.
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to solid waste
associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for solid waste utilities is
described in detail in Chapter 4.14.3, Solid Waste, of the General Plan EIR. The City is required to
implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, which was previously adopted and incorporated
into the General Plan 2040, to ensure impacts related to solid waste are less than significant. General Plan
EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the City to continue current recycling and zero-waste practices,
monitor solid waste generation, and seek new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island
landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed. This mitigation measure would be implemented by
the City on an ongoing basis.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant impact related to
solid waste if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
UTIL-9. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
LTS/M LTS
UTIL-10. Would not comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? LTS LTS
UTIL-11. Result in cumulatively considerable impact with respect to solid waste? LTS LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-9 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not generate
solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals.
As described in the General Plan EIR, in 2012, the city of Cupertino’s actual disposal rate for residents was
2.6 pounds per person per day (PPD) with the target of 4.3 PPD. Table 4.14-14, Landfills’ Existing Capacity
and Estimated Closure Date, of the General Plan EIR compares the remaining capacity, maximum daily and
annual capacity, and estimated closure date for each of the four facilities used in the Study Area. Under
the Approved Project, it is anticipated that the development in Cupertino will generate solid waste at a
rate of 121,353 tons/year, which equates to approximately 332 tons/day. The General Plan EIR also
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-47
included Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 to ensure the landfills that serve the Study Area have adequate
permitted capacity to accommodate future development permitted under the Approved Project.
The proposed Modified Project would add 3,312 new housing units beyond the Approved Project.
Assuming an average of 2.94 people per household, this would equate to a residential population increase
of 9,737 people. As shown in Table 4.15-7, Increase in Solid Waste Generation with Proposed Modified
Project, this level of growth would result in an increase in solid waste of approximately 8.5 tons per day, or
3,112 tons per year. These numbers are conservative because, with continued recycling and waste
reduction programs implemented by the City and the County, the waste generation rates would be
reduced over time. As a demonstration of waste reduction progress, the City’s actual disposal rate for
residents in 2022 was 2.0 pounds PPD, down 0.6 from 2012.
TABLE 4.15-7 INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE GENERATION WITH PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Increase in Residents
Solid Waste
Generation Rate
(pounds/day)
Increase in Solid
Waste (tons/day)
Increase in Solid
Waste (tons/year)
9,737 1.8 8.8 3,199
Source: CalRecyle, 2024. PlaceWorks, 2024
Although the City of Cupertino sent solid waste to 17 different facilities in 2022, the latest year of record,
the majority of the solid waste was transported to Newby Island Landfill, which is in the City of Milpitas.
The landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 4,000 tons/day, a remaining capacity of 16.4 million
cubic yards, and is estimated to close in 2041. Therefore, the landfill has a remaining capacity of more
than 15 years, as required by AB 939. The landfill’s information is summarized in Table 4.15-8, Newby
Island Landfill Data. Any future landfill agreements the City may enter into will also require proof of
adequate capacity to meet future growth.
TABLE 4.15-8 NEWBY ISLAND LANDFILL DATA
Landfill Name and Location
Maximum
Permitted
Throughput,
tons/day
Average
Disposal,
tons/day
Residual
Disposal
Capacity,
tons/day
Remaining
Capacity,
cubic yards
Estimated
Closing Year
Newby Island Landfill, Milpitas, CA 4,000 1,920 2,080 16,400,000 2041
Source: CalRecycle, 2023, SWIS Facility Details and Landfill Tonnage Reports.
As shown in Table 4.15-7, an increase of 8.8 tons/day with implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would be 0.4 percent of the current residual capacity of Newby Island Landfill. In addition, some of
the solid waste from the City of Cupertino is transported to other landfill sites in the Bay Area, and the
City is working to divert even more waste from landfill disposal through recycling, composting, and edible
food redistribution. The Study Area already has one of the lowest solid waste generation rates in the Bay
Area at 1.8 lbs./day per resident. This analysis shows that future potential development under the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-48 APRIL 2024
proposed Modified Project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of the landfills that
serve the Study Area.
This estimate conservatively assumes that all of the generated waste is landfilled. Future potential
development pursuant to the proposed Modified Project would require compliance with CALGreen
Sections 4.408 and 5.408, which require that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste from residential and nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged
for reuse. New development would also need to comply with AB 341 and SB 1383 that mandate recycling
and organics collection for commercial and multifamily residential land uses. In addition, Recology South
Bay provides recycling and yard waste services for all residents in the Study Area. Therefore, solid waste
facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste, and impacts would be less than
significant.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Infrastructure (INF) Element includes policies and strategies that
require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on
solid waste. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies,
and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to
minimize adverse effects to solid waste generation and landfill capacity:
Policy INF-7.1. Providers. Coordinate with solid waste system providers to utilize the latest technology
and best practices to encourage waste reduction and meet, and even exceed, State targets.
Policy INF-7.2. Facilities. Ensure that public and private developments build new and on-site facilities
and/or retrofit existing on-site facilities to meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.
Policy INF-7.3. Operations. Encourage public agencies and private property owners to design their
operations to exceed regulatory waste diversion requirements.
Strategy INF-7.3.1. City Facilities and Events. Design new City facilities and retrofit existing facilities
and event venues with recycling and trash collection bins to facilitate easy disposal of recyclable and
compostable waste by staff and the public.
Policy INF-7.4. Product Stewardship. Per the City’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy,
support statewide and regional EPR initiatives and legislation to reduce waste and toxins in products,
processes, and packaging.
Policy INF-8.1. Reducing Waste. Meet or exceed Federal, State, and regional requirements for solid
waste diversion through implementation of programs.
Strategy INF-8.1.1. Outreach. Conduct and enhance programs that promote waste reduction through
partnerships with schools, institutions, businesses, and homes.
Strategy INF-8.1.2. Hazardous Waste. Work with providers and businesses to provide convenient
hazardous and e-waste facilities for the community.
Strategy INF-8.1.3. Preferential Purchasing. Maintain and update a City preferential purchasing policy
for products that reduce packaging waste, greenhouse gas emissions, toxic contaminants, and are
reusable.
Strategy INF-8.1.4. Reuse. Encourage reuse of materials and reusable products. Develop a program for
reuse of materials and reusable products in City facilities and outreach programs for community-wide
participation by promoting community-wide garage sales and online venues.
Strategy INF-8.1.5. Collaboration. Collaborate with agencies and large businesses or projects to
enhance opportunities for community-wide recycling, reuse, and reduction programs.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-49
Strategy INF-8.1.6. Construction Waste. Encourage recycling and reuse of building materials during
demolition and construction of City, agency, and private projects.
Strategy INF-8.1.7. Recycled Materials. Encourage the use of recycled materials and sustainably
harvested materials in City, agency, and private projects.
With continued compliance with the applicable regulations, leading to increased recycling and waste
diversion, and adherence to the proposed General Plan 2050 goal, policies, and action listed above,
anticipated rates of solid waste disposal from implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be
less than significant with respect to permitted landfill capacity. In addition, the Study Area is well below
the CalRecycle target disposal rates and meets the regulatory requirements of AB 939. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State and local
standards or in excess of the capacity of the landfills, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts with respect to solid waste
beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-10 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would comply with
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
The General Plan EIR found that the City’s per capita disposal rate is below the target rate established by
CalRecycle. Additionally, implementation of the strategies, programs, and plans referenced in 4.14.3.3,
Impact Discussion, of the General Plan EIR as well as the Climate Action Plan that launched in May 2014,
and the new Climate Action Plan 2.0 that was adopted in 2022, will enable the City to meet ongoing and
evolving waste reduction regulations.
As described under Impact Discussion UTIL-9, Recology South Bay, which serves the Study Area, complies
with all State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and organic waste
diversion. The Study Area per capita disposal rate of 1.8 PPD per resident is well below the CalRecycle
target of 4.3 PPD for residents. It is also one of the lowest disposal rates in the Bay Area. In addition,
future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would comply with CALGreen
Sections 4.408 and 5.408, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would also comply with AB 341,
which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses as well as schools and
school districts. All jurisdictions in California are required to provide organic waste collection services to all
residents and businesses, beginning in 2022 and in accordance with SB 1383. Recology South Bay and the
City currently comply with all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste regulations, and solid waste,
recycling, and green waste collection services are available for all residents and commercial businesses.
Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in new or more severe conflicts with current and future regulatory
requirements with respect to solid waste beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-50 APRIL 2024
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-11 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to solid waste.
The General Plan EIR concluded that the Approved Project will increase the quantity of solid waste for
disposal. However, General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 and existing waste reduction programs
and diversion requirements would reduce the potential for exceeding existing capacities of landfills.
The area considered for cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal facilities is Santa Clara County. As
reported by the California Department of Finance, the total population of Santa Clara County has been
decreasing over the past four years, and the expected increase in population between 2020 and 2040 is
projected to be approximately 84,000 people.40 The average solid waste generation rate for Santa Clara
County residents is 2.7 lb/day, which would equate to an average disposal rate for the County of about
113 tons/day. This is well within the residual capacity of Newby Island Landfill, which is just over 2,000
tons/day. And this assumes that all of the solid waste generated in Santa Clara County would be
transported to this one landfill, when in reality it would be transported to various landfills in the region. In
addition, the amount of solid waste generated per resident is expected to decrease over time with
continued recycling, composting, and food redistribution.
In addition, new development in the county would comply with CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408,
which require that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from
residential and nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. This would
also reduce the volume of solid waste transported to the landfills. Continued compliance with the
applicable regulations and an increase in recycling and landfill diversion rates would ensure that solid
waste cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would
not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to solid waste beyond what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.15.5 Energy Infrastructure
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework for energy is described in detail in Chapter 4.5, Energy, of this EA. The
regulatory requirements that pertain solely to energy infrastructure are repeated below.
40 California Department of Finance, 2024, Population Projections,
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/projections/, accessed January 19, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-51
Federal Regulations
National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, the National Energy Policy is
designed to help the private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and
environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the
energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of
increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to
address energy issues. This Act includes tax incentives for energy conservation improvements in
commercial and residential buildings, fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities, and construction and
operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind
energy, and other alternative energy producers.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Signed into law in December 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act contains provisions
designed to increase energy efficiency and the availability of renewable energy. The Act contains
provisions for increasing fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, while establishing new
minimum efficiency standards for lighting as well as residential and commercial appliance equipment.
National Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the United States Department of Transportation to
regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as
the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration within the Department of Transportation develops and enforces regulations for the safe,
reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation
system. The regulations enacted under this act have been updated several times. The latest revision is
dated May 2023 and includes additional safety regulations for gas transmission pipelines, including repair
criteria, integrity management improvements, cathodic protection, and other inspection and maintenance
procedures. The regulations are encoded in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 192.
State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
Established in 1974, the Warren-Alquist Act created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in response
to the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the state’s unsustainable growing demand for energy
resources. The CEC’s core responsibilities include advancing State energy policy, encouraging energy
efficiency, certifying thermal power plants, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy,
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-52 APRIL 2024
transforming transportation, and preparing for energy emergencies. The Warren-Alquist Act is updated
annually to address current energy needs and issues, and its latest revision is dated January 2023.
California Public Utilities Commission Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategy Plan
Adopted in September 2008 and updated in January 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan provides a framework for energy efficiency in California
through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic
sector, identifying specific near-, mid-, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. The plan
sets forth the following four goals, known as “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies,” to achieve significant
reductions in energy demand:
All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020.
All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030.
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is
optimal for California’s climate.
All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income
energy efficiency program by 2020.
The CPUC and CEC have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy levels by 2030 in the
commercial sector:
Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean,
distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.
Goal 2: 50 percent of existing buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through
achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.
Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative
utility initiatives.
California Building Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards
The State of California provides a minimum standard for energy conservation through Title 24, Part 6
California Code of Regulations, commonly referred to as the California Energy Code. The California Energy
Code was first adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
(now the CEC) in June 1977. The standards are updated on a three-year cycle to allow for consideration
and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. In August 2021, the CEC
adopted the 2022 California Energy Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards
require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric ready to accommodate replacement of gas
appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the new standards also include prescriptive photovoltaic
systems and battery requirements for high-rise, multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and
noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools,
warehouses, theaters, and convention centers.41
41 California Energy Commission, 2021, Amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy Code) Draft
Environmental Report, CEC-400-2021-077-D.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-53
California Building Code: Title 24, Part 11, Green Building Standards
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. CALGreen (24 California Code of Regulations, Part 11) was adopted as part of the California
Building Standards Code. It includes mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential
buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3)
reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the governor. The latest 2022
CALGreen code became effective on January 1, 2023.
CALGreen includes provisions to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of
materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains
requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste
reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation
conservation, etc. The code provides for design options, allowing the designer to determine how best to
achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning,
which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting
systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency.42
Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations Sections 1601 through
1608), combined with federal standards, set minimum efficiency levels for energy and water consumption
in products, such as consumer electronics, household appliances, and plumbing equipment. The
regulations are continually updated with the latest revisions dated 2023. Eighteen categories of
appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to
appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final
retail sale outside the state, and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or
other mobile equipment. These regulations exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they
reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
California Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure
The Building Energy Benchmarking Program is mandated under AB 802 and requires owners of large
commercial and multifamily buildings to report energy use to the CEC by June 1 annually. This program
applies to all buildings with more than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area and owners of multifamily
residential buildings with more than 50,000 square feet and 17 or more utility accounts. The bill requires
each utility, upon the request and authorization of the owner, owner’s agent, or operator of a building
covered under the regulation, to deliver or provide aggregated energy usage data for a covered building.
The required energy usage shall be reported to the CEC through the Energy Star Portfolio Manager.
42 California Building Standards Commission, 2022, 2022 California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11,
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1, accessed January 20, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-54 APRIL 2024
California Renewable Portfolio Standards
A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the Renewable Portfolio Standards
established under SB 1078 (Sher) and SB 107 (Simitian). The standard requires that a specified percentage
of the electricity that utilities provide comes from renewable resources. Renewable sources of electricity
include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. SB 1020, signed into law on
September 16, 2022, requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all
retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040. Additionally, SB 1020 requires all State agencies to
procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2035.
CPUC Natural Gas Regulations
The CPUC regulates natural gas utility rates and services as well as the transportation of natural gas over
the extensive transmission and distribution pipeline systems. The CPUC also regulates gas storage
facilities. The Gas Safety and Reliability Branch of the CPUC ensures that natural gas pipeline systems are
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained according to the safety standards set by the CPUC and
the federal government. The regulations are provided in the CPUC General Order No. 112-E and the
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 2011.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Environmental Resource and Sustainability (ES) and the Infrastructure (INF) Elements of the General
Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
address energy and telecommunications issues. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize
potential adverse impacts are identified in Section 4.15.4.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to address energy efficiency and energy
conservation. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to energy and
telecommunications are included in Title 2, Administration and Personnel, Title 3, Revenue and Finance,
Title 6, Franchises, Title 16, Building and Construction, and Title 18, Subdivisions, as follows:
Chapter 2.74, Cupertino Technology, Information, and Communications Commission. This chapter
establishes the commission, which consists of five members that advise the City Council and City
Manager on matters relating to technology, information, and communications within the City. The
Commission also evaluates franchise agreements and franchise fees and provides support for
community access television.
Chapter 3.34, Utility Users Excise Tax. Under Section 3.34.040, Electricity Users Tax, every person in
the City using electrical energy in the City must pay an “electricity users tax” to the service supplier.
Similarly, under Section 3.34,050, Gas Users Tax, every person within the City that uses natural gas,
which is delivered through mains or pipes or by motor vehicle or by rail, must pay a “gas users tax.”
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-55
Chapter 3.35, Telecommunication Users Tax. This chapter imposes a tax upon every person in the City
using telecommunications services and is collected from the service user by the telecommunication
services provider.
Chapter 6.08, Electricity- Pacific Gas and Electric Company. This chapter establishes PG&E as the
franchise that will transmit and distribute electricity to the public within the City. PG&E is responsible
for to construction and maintenance of all poles, wires, conduits, and lines along, across, within or
under the streets within the City.
Chapter 6.12 –Gas – Pacific Gas and Electric Company. This chapter establishes PG&E as the franchise
for installing maintaining all natural gas infrastructure and transmitting and distributing gas to the
public within the City.
Chapter 6.28, Cable and Video Services. This chapter states that all entities that construct or operate a
cable system or provide video service within the City must have been issued a state franchise and
must pay franchise fees to the City as a percent of the gross revenue.
Chapter 16.28, Expedited Permit Process for Small Rooftop Solar Systems and Electric Vehicle
Charging Systems. This chapter provides a streamline permitting process for rooftop solar energy
systems and electric vehicle charging stations to promote and encourage the use of these alternative
energy technologies.
Chapter 16.54, Energy Code. The City adopts the provisions of the 2022 California Energy Code in this
chapter.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code. This chapter adopts the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen. The City of Cupertino also requires new
construction over certain sizes (greater than 9 residential units or 25,000 square feet of non-
residential development) to build to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or
alternative reference standards. The LEED construction and/or other types of equivalent green
building verification systems typically require enhanced building energy efficiency, which reduces
heating and cooling requirements of a building and, therefore, also reduces GHG emissions.
Chapter 18.32, Subdivisions. Section 18.32.110, Energy Conservation requires a subdivision to provide
to the extent feasible for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.
Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 was adopted in August 2022 and includes measures and actions
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving carbon neutrality. Chapter 8 of the CAP focuses on
steps to increase the percentage of renewable energy used by the City and electrification of new buildings
to reduce natural gas usage.43
43 Rincon Consultants, 2022. Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-56 APRIL 2024
Existing Conditions
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to energy
associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. Impacts were found to be less than
significant without mitigation. The setting for energy utilities is described in detail in Chapter 4.14.4
Energy Conservation, of the General Plan EIR.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant energy or
telecommunications impact if it would:
Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
UTIL-12 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not require or result
in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which would cause
significant environmental effects?
LTS LTS
UTIL-13 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not, in combination
with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulatively
considerable impact to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
N/A LTS
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-12 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not require or
result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project, upon buildout, will result in 4,040,231 square
feet of additional office space, 1,343,679 square feet of additional commercial space, 1,000 additional
hotel rooms, and 4,421 additional housing units. Future new development under the Approved Project
would be constructed using energy-efficient modern building materials and construction practices. The
new buildings also would use new modern appliances and equipment and would comply with the current
CALGreen Building Code. Potential environmental impacts from possible new electrical
switches/transformers would be addressed in project-specific reviews. In addition, buildout of the
Approved Project would not significantly increase energy demands in the context of the 70,000-square-
mile PG&E service territory for electricity and natural gas generation, transmission, and distribution.
Electrical service to the Study Area and the housing opportunity sites would be provided by Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) through connections to existing
electrical lines and infrastructure. As shown in Table 4.5.1, Proposed Modified Project Energy
Consumption, of Chapter 4.5, Energy, of this EA, the addition of 3,312 new housing units would result in
the annual consumption of 11,636,361 kilowatt hours (kWh) and 37,527,747 British thermal units (BTUs).
However, the per-person electricity use would decrease compared to existing conditions due to the
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-57
replacement of existing land uses with new development that meets the California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards.
These energy consumption rates are modest increases when considered in the context of PG&E and
SVCE’s service areas. PG&E currently has approximately 5.5 million electricity customers and is projected
to have an electricity demand of 133,893 gigawatt-hours in 2035.44 One gigawatt-hour is equivalent to
one million kilowatt-hours. Therefore, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project
would consume less than 0.009 percent of the available energy distributed by PG&E. PG&E is expected to
meet all of its customers’ electrical demands through 2035.
Similarly, the natural gas consumption rates for the proposed Modified Project are modest increases when
considered in the context of PG&E’s service area. PG&E provides natural gas to approximately 4.5 million
customers. Natural gas demand statewide is projected to decline an average of 1.1 percent through 2035
due to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the ordinances of some cities for new
construction to be all electric.45 PG&E states that its supplies of natural gas would meet all of its
customers’ demands through 2035. The increase in natural gas consumption with implementation of the
proposed Modified Project is approximately 0.0000021 percent of PG&E’s natural gas supply. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in the relocation or expansion of
electric power or natural gas facilities or infrastructure.
Telecommunications services include wireless internet, cell phone and land line telephone, cable
television, and satellite television. There are numerous telecommunication and internet providers that
serve the Study Area. Multiple choices give Cupertino residents and businesses a variety of options when
choosing telecommunication providers. The current infrastructure in place is sufficient to service existing
and future customers within the Study Area. Because most of the new housing units would be in areas
with existing telecommunications infrastructure, no new cables or networks would be required with
implementation of the proposed Modified Project.
In addition, future development would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the
California Energy Code and CALGreen, which would contribute to reducing energy demands. New
buildings would also use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance
Efficiency Regulations, which would ensure the use of efficient electricity and natural gas consumption.
New buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than
existing buildings.
The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) and
Infrastructure (INF) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development
decisions to consider impacts that development could have on energy usage. Like the Approved Project,
44 California Energy Commission, 2023, California Energy Demand Forecast, 2021-2035, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-
reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-1, accessed January 20, 2024.
45 California Public Utilities Commission, 2022, 2022 California Gas Report,
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas_Report_2022.pdf, accessed
January 20, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-58 APRIL 2024
the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as
part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize adverse effects on energy and
promote energy conservation:
Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’
planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of
future generations. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-1)
Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to
attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This
qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future
project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.
Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.
Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources.
Policy ES-2.1. Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources. Encourage the maximum feasible
conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing
residences, businesses, industrial and public uses. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-3)
Strategy ES-2.1.1. Coordination. Continue to evaluate and revise, as necessary, applicable City plans,
codes, and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State, and regional requirements and conservation
targets.
Strategy ES-2.1.2. Comprehensive Energy Management. Prepare and implement a comprehensive
energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy
goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as
part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally
Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and
construction practices. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 5-3)
Strategy ES-2.1.3. Energy Efficient Replacements. Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify
City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to
benchmark and showcase City energy efficiency achievements (i.e., EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide
Green Business Program). (General Plan EIR Strategy 4 under Policy 5-3)
Strategy ES-2.1.4. Incentive Program. Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory
requirements and promote incentives from state, county, and federal governments for improving
energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations. (General Plan EIR Strategy 5 under
Policy 5-3)
Strategy ES-2.1.6. Alternate Energy Sources. Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable
energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs, and incentives.
Strategy ES-2.1.7. Energy Co-Generation Systems. Encourage the use of energy co-generation systems
through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users
and public facilities. (General Plan EIR Strategy 8 under Policy 5-3)
Strategy ES-2.1.8. Energy Audits and Financing. Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’
programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial
and City facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities
for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits
to include emerging online and applications-based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-59
residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach
events and civic media assets. General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 5-4)
Strategy ES-2.1.10. Community Choice Energy. Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate
feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program.
Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-4)
Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building
ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings
projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection
and building design. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1 under Policy 5-4)
Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs,
and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external
trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater,
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).
Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green
Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry,
land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building
maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.
Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve
third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of
creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.
Policy INF-6.1. Telecommunications Master Plan. Maintain and update a Telecommunications Master
Plan with regulations and guidelines for wireless and emerging technologies.
Policy INF-6.2. Coordination. Coordinate with providers to improve access and delivery of services to
businesses and homes.
Strategy INF-6.2.1. Facility Upgrades. When possible, require service providers to upgrade existing
facilities as part of permit or lease renewals. Encourage use of newer technologies that allow the
facility components to be reduced in size or improve screening or camouflaging.
Strategy INF-6.2.2. Improved Access. Work with providers to expand service to areas that are not
served by telecommunications technologies.
Strategy INF-6.2.3. City Facilities. Encourage leasing of City sites to expand access to
telecommunications services. Develop standards for the incorporation of telecommunications systems
and public use.
Strategy INF-6.2.4. Agency and Private Facilities. Encourage the installation of communications
infrastructure in facilities owned by other public agencies and private development.
Strategy INF-6.2.5. Communications Infrastructure. Support the extension and access to
telecommunications infrastructure such as fiber optic cables.
Policy INF-6.3. Emerging Technologies. Encourage new and innovative technologies and partner with
providers to provide the community with access to these services.
Strategy INF-6.3.1. Strategic Technology Plan. Create and update a Strategic Technology Plan for the
City to improve service efficiency.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-60 APRIL 2024
Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen,
and Renewables Portfolio Standards) would increase building energy efficiency and reduce building
energy demands. Additionally, the General Plan 2040 goal, policies, and strategies would contribute to
minimizing building-related energy demands and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies in conjunction with and
complementary to regulatory requirements, would ensure that energy demand associated with future
potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be efficient, therefore avoiding the
need for new or expanded electric power and natural gas facilities. In addition, the energy providers and
telecommunications providers that currently serve the Study Area indicate that they have the capability to
serve future increases in population within their service areas without significant changes to the existing
infrastructure. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not require or result in
the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-13 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects,
result in a cumulatively considerable impact to electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities.
The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project would not significantly increase energy demands in
the context of the 70,000-square-mile PG&E service territory for electricity and natural gas generation,
transmission, and distribution.
The area considered for cumulative impacts are the service areas of PG&E and SVCE for electricity and
PG&E for natural gas. Other projects within the service areas would increase electricity and natural gas
demands.
The CPUC has identified the Integrated Energy Policy Report as “the appropriate venue for considering
issues of load forecasting, resource assessment, and scenario analyses, to determine the appropriate level
and ranges of resource needs for load serving entities in California.”46 The latest report shows that
California’s electricity sector is leading efforts to reduce GHG emissions and electricity consumption is
projected to increase compared to previous energy demand projections, mostly attributable to increased
levels of transportation electrification.47 Natural gas consumption is expected to level out between 2020
and 2026 before decreasing from 2026 to 2035 from new building standards and the implementation of
city and county ordinances that require new construction to have all-electric appliances and heating.
46 California Energy Commission, February 2023, Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update,
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/Adopted_2022_IEPR_Update_with_errata_ada.pdf, accessed January 20,
2024.
47 California Energy Commission, February 2023, Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update,
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/Adopted_2022_IEPR_Update_with_errata_ada.pdf, accessed January 20,
2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-61
In addition, all future projects developed within the PG&E and SVCE service areas would implement the
requirements of the California Energy Code and CALGreen. New buildings would also use new energy-
efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. Counties and cities
review project design plans against these codes and ensure compliance before issuing construction
permits. These measures would reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas.
The energy providers and telecommunications providers that serve the Study Area and Santa Clara County
indicate that they have the capability to serve future increases in population within their service areas
without significant changes to the existing infrastructure. In addition, the General Plan 2040 includes
goals, policies, and strategies that would contribute to minimizing inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary
energy consumption and ensure compliance with State, regional, or local plans for renewable energy,
therefore avoiding the need for new or expanded electric power and natural gas facilities. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a significant impact to electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-62 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-1
4.16 WILDFIRE
This chapter describes the potential wildfire impacts associated with the approval and implementation of
the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and baseline conditions,
identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential impacts to
wildfire, and identifies policies and/or strategies that could mitigate any potentially significant impacts.
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy
In the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009 (FLAME Act), Congress
mandated the development of a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy for all lands in the
United States. Wildfire management is guided by the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management
Strategy, which has three primary goals—resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities, and safe and
effective wildfire response.1 These three goals enable land managers to manage vegetation and fuels;
protect homes, communities, and other values at risk; manage human-caused ignitions; and effectively
and efficiently respond to wildfires. California is part of the Western Regional Strategy Committee,
chartered to support and facilitate the implementation of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy.
National Fire Protection Association Standards
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides are
developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National
Standards Institute. NFPA standards are recommended (advisory) guidelines for fire protection that are
referenced in the California Fire Code (CFC), which is adopted by the City of Cupertino every three years.
Specific standards applicable to wildfire hazards include, but are not limited to:
NFPA 1141, Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildlands
NFPA 1142, Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting
NFPA 1143, Wildland Fire Management
NFPA 1144, Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire
NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations,
Emergency Medical Operations
1 US Department of the Interior and US Department of Agriculture, 2014, The National Strategy: The Final Phase of
Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy,
https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategyApr2014.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-2 APRIL 2024
State Regulations
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is dedicated to the fire protection
and stewardship of over 31 million acres of California’s wildlands. CAL FIRE provides fire assessment and
firefighting services for land in State Responsibility Areas (SRA), conducts educational and training
programs, provides fire planning guidance and mapping, and reviews general plan safety elements to
ensure compliance with State fire safety requirements. CAL FIRE staff, or a designee, also reviews building
permit applications, parcel maps, and use permits for construction or development in SRAs and Local
Responsibility Areas (LRA).
The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is a government-appointed approval body within CAL FIRE. It is
responsible for developing the general forest policy of the state, determining the guidance policies of
CAL FIRE, and representing the state’s interest in federal forestland in California. The Board of Forestry and
Fire Protection also promulgates regulations and approves general plan safety elements that are adopted
by local governments for compliance with State statutes.
The California Office of the State Fire Marshal supports the mission of CAL FIRE by focusing on fire
prevention. These responsibilities include regulating buildings in which people live, congregate, or are
confined; controlling substances and products that may, in and of themselves or by their misuse, cause
injuries, death, and destruction by fire; providing statewide direction for fire prevention within wildland
areas; regulating hazardous liquid pipelines; developing and renewing regulations and building standards;
and providing training and education in fire protection methods and responsibilities. These are
accomplished through major programs, including engineering, education, enforcement, and support from
the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. For jurisdictions in SRAs or very high fire hazard severity zones
(FHSZ), the Land Use Planning Program division of the Office of State Fire Marshal reviews safety elements
during the update process to ensure consistency with California Government Code, Section 65302(g)(3).
Together, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, Office of State Fire Marshal, and CAL FIRE protect and
enhance the forest resources of all wildland areas of California that are not under federal jurisdiction.
Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas
CAL FIRE designates FHSZs as authorized under California Government Code Sections 51175 et seq. FHSZs
may be designated Very High, High, or Moderate. CAL FIRE considers many factors when designating
FHSZs, including fire history, existing and potential vegetation fuel, flame length, blowing embers, terrain,
and weather patterns for the area. CAL FIRE designates FHSZs in two types of areas depending on which
level of government is financially responsible for fire protection.
Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Incorporated communities are financially responsible for wildfire
protection.
State Responsibility Area (SRA). CAL FIRE and contracted counties are financially responsible for
wildfire protection.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-3
CAL FIRE Strategic Fire Plan
CAL FIRE produced the 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California, with goals, objectives, and policies to
prepare for and mitigate the effects of fire on California’s natural and built environments.2 The 2018
Strategic Plan focuses on fire prevention and suppression activities to protect lives, property, and
ecosystems in addition to providing natural resource management to maintain state forests as a resilient
carbon sink to meet California’s climate change goals. A key component of the 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for
California is the collaboration between communities to ensure fire suppression and natural resource
management is successful.3
2021 California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan
The Governor’s Forest Management Task Force developed California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience
Action Plan, which is a framework for establishing healthy and resilient forests that can withstand and
adapt to wildfire, drought, and climate change. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan accelerates
efforts to restore the health and resilience of California’s forests, grasslands, and natural places; improves
the fire safety of communities; and sustains the economic vitality of rural forested areas. CAL FIRE, in
partnership with the US Forest Service, intends to scale up forest thinning and prescribed fire; integrate
climate adaptation into the statewide network of regional forest and community fire resilience plans;
improve the electricity grid resilience, and promote sustainable land use.
State Responsibility Area and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Fire Safe Regulations
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, SRA/Very High FHSZ
Fire Safe Regulations, establishes minimum wildfire protection standards for construction and
development in the SRA and Very High FHSZ and requires CAL FIRE to review development proposals and
enact recommendations that serve as conditions of approval in these zones. These regulations apply to all
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings in the Very High FHSZ and all tentative and parcel maps.
These standards include basic emergency access and perimeter wildfire protection measures, signing and
building numbering, private water supply resources for emergency fire use, and vegetation modification.
Fire Safe Regulations also include a minimum setback of 30 feet for all buildings from property lines
and/or the center of a road. Section 1273.08, Dead-End Roads, of these standards provides regulations for
the maximum lengths of single-access roadways:
Parcels zoned for less than one acre: 800 feet
Parcels zoned for 1 acre to 4.99 acres: 1,320 feet
Parcels zoned for 5 acres to 19.99 acres: 2,640 feet
Parcels zoned for 20 acres or larger: 5,280 feet
Fire Safe Regulations, Section 1299.03, Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structure
Requirements, provides defensible space requirements for areas within 30 feet of a structure (Zone 1) and
2 California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2018, 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California,
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-plan/, accessed January 11, 2024.
3 California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2018, 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California,
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-plan/, accessed January 11, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-4 APRIL 2024
between 30 and 100 feet from a structure (Zone 2). In Zone 1, all dead and dying plants must be removed,
as must any vegetation that could catch fire. In Zone 2, horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and
trees must be created and maintained.
Public Resources Code Section 4291
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4291, Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass-Covered Lands, is
intended for any person who owns, lease, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in a
mountainous area, forest-covered lands, shrub-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered
with flammable material, regardless of whether the property is in an SRA or Very High FHSZ. This section
requires defensible space to be maintained within 100 feet from each side of a structure. An ember-
resistant zone is also required within 5 feet of a structure and more intense fuel reduction between 5 and
30 feet of a structure.
California Building Standards Code
The California Buildings Standards Code (CCR Title 24) provides 12 different codes for construction and
buildings in California. This code is updated every three years, with the most recent version effective
January 1, 2023. Cupertino regularly adopts the most recent version of the California Building Standards
Code, with modifications, into the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC), Title 16, Building and Construction.
Building Design Standards
The California Building Code (CBC), Part 2 of CCR Title 24, identifies building design standards, including
those for fire safety. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards
based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards
Commission. Residential buildings are plan checked by local city building officials for compliance with the
CBC and any applicable local edits. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of
sprinklers in buildings and other facilities; the establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire doors,
building materials, and particular types of construction in high FHSZs; requirements for smoke-detection
systems; exiting requirements; and the clearance of debris.
Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure
Chapter 7A of the CBC, Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, prescribes building
materials and construction methods for new buildings in an FHSZ or Wildland Interface Fire Area. Chapter
7A contains requirements for roofing; attic ventilation; exterior walls; exterior windows and glazing;
exterior doors; decking; protection of underfloor, appendages, and floor projections; and ancillary
structures. Other requirements include vegetation management compliance, as prescribed in the CFC
Section 4906 and PRC Section 4291.
California Fire Code
The CFC incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with
California amendments. This is the official fire code for the State and all political subdivisions. It is found in
24 CCR Part 9, and like the CBC, is revised and published every three years by the California Building
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-5
Standards Commission. Also like the CBC, the CFC is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt
more restrictive standards based on local conditions. The City of Cupertino regularly adopts each new CFC
update under CMC Section 16.40, Fire Code. The CFC is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety
regulations for new and existing buildings; facilities; storage; processes, including emergency planning and
preparedness; fire service features; fire protection systems; hazardous materials; fire flow requirements;
and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Typical fire safety requirements include installation of
sprinklers in all buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials,
and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed
distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition
Chapter 33 of the CFC, Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition, provides requirements for fire
safety precautions during construction and demolition of a development project. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during construction and demolition
operations, including those in underground locations. Specific requirements include a prohibition of
smoking on-site, except for in approved areas; management of combustible materials and debris; cutting
and welding; electrical wiring; and cooking. Additional requirements include the preparation of site safety
plans prior to building permit issuance, providing fire watch during nonworking hours, and maintaining
water supply for fire protection as soon as combustible materials arrive on a project site.
Wildland-Urban Interface Areas
Chapter 49, Requirements for Wildland Urban Interface Fire Areas, of the CFC applies to any geographical
area identified as a FHSZ by CAL FIRE. It defines FHSZs, connects to the SRA/Very High FHSZ Fire Safe
Regulation requirements for defensible space, and parallels requirements for wildfire protection building
construction and hazardous vegetation fuel management in other sections of the CCR and the PRC.
Chapter 49 of the 2022 CFC includes a definition for the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and provides
requirements for fire protection plans, landslide plans, long-term vegetation management, and creation
and maintenance of defensible space for all new development within the WUI.
California Public Utilities Commission
In 2007, wildfires in southern California were ignited by overhead utility power lines and aerial
communication facilities near power lines. In response, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
began considering and adopting regulations to protect the public from fire hazards due to overhead
power lines and nearby aerial communication facilities. The CPUC published a Fire-Threat Map under
Rulemaking 15-05-006, following procedures in Decision 17-01-009, revised by Decision 17-06-024, which
adopted a work plan for the development of a utility high fire-threat district where enhanced fire safety
regulations in Decision 17-12-024 apply.4 The fire regulations require electric utilities to:5
4 California Public Utilities Commission, accessed on January 11, 2024,
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M172/K762/172762082.PDF.
5 California Public Utilities Commission, press release: CPUC Adopts New Fire-Safety Regulations, accessed on January 11,
2024, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M201/K352/201352402.PDF.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-6 APRIL 2024
Prioritize the correction of safety hazards.
Correct nonimmediate fire risks in “Tier 2” (elevated fire threat) areas on the CPUC high fire-threat
district within 12 months, and in “Tier 3” (extreme fire threat) areas within 6 months.
Maintain increased clearances between vegetation and power lines within the high fire-threat district.
Maintain stricter wire-to-wire clearances for new and reconstructed facilities in Tier 3 areas.
Conduct annual inspections of overhead distribution facilities in rural areas of Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas.
Prepare a fire prevention plan annually if overhead facilities exist in the high fire-threat district.
California Environmental Quality Act
In November 2022 the California Attorney General issued the Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating
Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act. This guidance
document was designed to help lead agencies comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (PRC Section 21000 et seq) when considering whether to approve projects in wildfire-prone areas.
These areas are often in the WUI area—i.e., the area where the built environment meets or intermingles
with the natural environment. This guidance provides suggestions for how best to comply with CEQA
when analyzing and mitigating a proposed project’s impacts on wildfire ignition risk, emergency access,
and evacuation. The guidance is aimed at proposed development projects, such as residential,
recreational, or commercial developments. The extent to which it applies will vary by project based on
project design and location. It does not impose additional requirements on local governments or alter any
applicable laws or regulations, but is intended to provide guidance on some of the issues, alternatives,
and mitigation measures that should be considered during the environmental review process.
Regional Regulations
Santa Clara County Wildfire Protection Plan
The Santa Clara County Wildfire Protection Plan, developed in August 2023 by the Santa Clara County
FireSafe Council, is intended to assist in protecting human life and reduce property loss from wildfire
throughout the county.6 The 2023 update was prepared in compliance with the Federal Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 and achieves three major goals:
1. Provide a countywide scale of wildfire risk and protection needs.
2. Bring together all responsible wildfire management and suppression entities in the planning area to
address the identified needs.
3. Provide a framework for future planning and implementation of necessary mitigation measures.
Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the
impact of disasters. The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was prepared
6 Santa Clara County, 2023, Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, accessed January 12, 2024,
https://santa-clara-cwpp-sccfc.hub.arcgis.com/.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-7
and adopted in October 2017 for the purpose of identifying, assessing, and reducing the long-term risk to
life and property from hazard events. The adopted HMP was approved by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and provides more than 344 mitigation actions for implementation by
individual planning partners, including the City of Cupertino. The HMP includes a risk assessment and
mitigation actions for each of the jurisdictions in the planning partnership. The Cupertino Jurisdictional
Annex of the HMP provides an assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities and a set of mitigation actions
for Cupertino specifically while considering the results from the countywide effort. In the context of an
HMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from
hazards, including wildfire.
The HMP must be reviewed and approved by FEMA every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster
relief funding. As part of this process, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services reviews all
local hazard mitigation plans in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 regulations, and
coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide.
Santa Clara County Fire Department Strategic Plan
The Santa Clara County Fire Department Strategic Plan, adopted in 2023, provides goals and strategies
focused on short-term challenges and gaps that impede service. The strategic plan is a comprehensive,
living, and active management tool that helps focus organizational resources on achieving short-term,
measurable outcomes for the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The Santa Clara County Fire
Department Strategic Plan includes 12 distinct goals aimed at improving the safety of residents and
firefighters, increasing agency resiliency and efficiency, reducing fire-related damage, and preparing the
community for disasters.
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The General Plan 2040 the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) and Health and Safety (HS)
Elements contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to
consider wildfire impacts. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse wildfire
impacts are identified in Section 4.16.3, Impact Discussion.
Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse energy impacts from development in Cupertino.
The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to energy use and
conservation are in Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks, and Landscaping, and Title 16, Buildings and Construction,
as follows:
Chapter 14.20, Underground Utilities; Conversions and Chapter 14.24, Undergrounding Utilities – New
Development . CMC Chapter 14.20 allows the City Council to call public hearings to decide whether
designated areas of the city require the removal of existing poles, overhead wires, and associated
overhead structures related to utility lines. If approved, these areas become Underground Utility
Districts and the Public Works Department, in collaboration with the utility owner, shall work together
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-8 APRIL 2024
to underground existing utilities. CMC Chapter 14.24 requires new development to underground all
utilities during construction.
Chapter 16.04, Building Code. This chapter adopts the CBC into the CMC. Additionally, Section
16.04.260, Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems, requires all new development to include automatic
sprinkler systems and contains regulations for firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building
areas.
Chapter 16.08, Excavations, Grading and Retaining Walls. This chapter provides regulations for
excavation, grading, clearing, and retaining wall construction, and to preserve and enhance water
quality by controlling surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation, as well as establishes procedures by
which these requirements may be enforced.
Chapter 16.40, Fire Code. This chapter adopts the 2022 CFC and the 2021 International Fire Code into
the CMC with modifications specific to Cupertino.
Chapter 16.52, Prevention of Flood Damage. This chapter apples to all areas of the special flood
hazard zones within the city. This chapter contains requirements for construction, elevation, and
floodproofing of buildings within the 100-year floodplain.
Chapter 16.74, Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area Adopted. This chapter adopts a map of the
Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area into the CMC. This map includes High and Very High FHSZs within
the Study Area.
Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Management is responsible for coordinating agency response
to disasters or other large-scale emergencies in Cupertino. The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan
(EOP) establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities
within the city. The EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications
with county and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and
management of volunteers, as well as identifies the location of the Emergency Operations Center. The
EOP uses the Standardized Emergency Management System as required by California Government Code
Section 8607(a) for managing responses to multiagency and multi-jurisdictional emergencies in California,
including those related to hazardous materials.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The baseline conditions for wildfire were not discussed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the
following sections contain a comprehensive description of wildfire baseline conditions in the Study Area.
Wildfire Background
The term “wildfire” refers to fires that usually result from the ignition of dry grass, brush, or timber.
Historically, wildfires commonly occurred in steep or heavily vegetated areas, which makes suppression of
the fire difficult. More recently, wildfires have been encroaching into more urban areas, that is, the
wildland-urban interface, threatening homes, businesses, and essential infrastructure. Though wildfires
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-9
play an important role in the ecology of many natural habitats, risks to human safety and property
increase as urban development moves into areas susceptible to wildfire hazards.
Types of Wildfires
There are three basic types of wildland fires:7
Crown fires burn trees to their tops; these are the most intense and dangerous wildland fires.
Surface fires burn surface litter and duff. These are the easiest fires to extinguish and cause the least
damage to the forest. Brush and small trees enable surface fires to reach treetops and are thus
referred to as ladder fuels.
Underground fires occur underground in deep accumulations of dead vegetation. These fires move
very slowly but can be difficult to extinguish.
Wildfires burn in many types of vegetation—forest, woodland, scrub (including chaparral and sage scrub),
and grassland. Many species of native California plants are adapted to fire and habitats such as
woodlands, chaparral, and grasslands can recover from fire. For example, some species of chaparral
plants, such as ceanothus, require intense heat for germination and therefore have flammable resins on
leaves and roots that can quickly sprouts up in burned areas.8 Between 2010 and 2017, wildfires in
California burned about 265,000 acres of forest land, 207,000 acres of scrub vegetation, 99,000 acres of
grassland, 18,000 acres of desert vegetation, and 14,000 acres of other vegetation types.9 Wildfires have
been observed to be more frequent and growing in intensity over the past several years, with 4,304,379
acres and 2,569,386 acres burning in 2020 and 2021, respectively.10
Wildfire Causes
Although the term wildfire suggests natural origins, a 2017 study that evaluated 1.5 million wildfires in the
United States between 1992 and 2012 found that humans were responsible for igniting 84 percent of
wildfires, accounting for 44 percent of acreage burned.11 The three most common types of causes of
human-caused wildfires are debris burning (logging slash, farm fields, trash, etc.); arson; and equipment
7 Natural Resources Canada, 2021, Fire Behavior, accessed June 16, 2023, https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/
fire-insects-disturbances/fire/13145.
8 National Park Service, 2018, “Wildland Fire in Chaparral: California and Southwestern United States,”
https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildland-fire-in-chaparral.htm.
9 State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, August 2018, 2018
Strategic Fire Plan for California, accessed June 16, 2023, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan
-approved-08_22_18.pdf.
10 CAL FIRE, “Acres Burned vs Structures Destroyed,” accessed June 16, 2023, https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a
-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfire-website/images---misc/acres-burned-vs-structures
-destroyed2022.jpg?rev=f043785e8027411caa4a6c8b176a4e26&hash=DDC50776FEF6C19D8619CA6337CF2481.
11 Balch, Jennifer, Bethany Bradley, John Abatzoglou, et. al., January 2017, Human-Started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche
Across the United States, accessed June 16, 2023, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/11/2946.full.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-10 APRIL 2024
use.12,13 Lightning is the major natural cause of wildfire in the United States, with more than 40 percent of
wildfires in the western United States caused by lightning between 1992 and 2015.14,15
Power lines can ignite wildfires several ways, including:16
Downed lines: downed power lines can produce arcing that can cause the powerlines to spark and
ignite vegetation.
Vegetation contact: a branch contacting two conductors for a sufficient duration may ignite the
branch; a tree falling on a line can cause a downed line.
High winds and severe weather: conductors can slap together during high winds and severe weather,
creating arcing of the powerlines and ejecting hot metal particles that can ignite flammable matter on
the ground.
Equipment failures: As circuit components deteriorate, they can arc and spark and thus ignite nearby
flammable matter.
An analysis of US Forest Service wildfire data from 1986 to 1996 determined that 95 percent of human-
caused wildfires, and 90 percent of all wildfires, occurred within 0.5 mile of a road; and that about 61
percent of all wildfires and 55 percent of human-caused wildfires occurred within approximately 650 feet
(200 meters) of a road.17 The study concluded that the increase in human-caused ignition from new roads
greatly outweighs the benefits of increased access for firefighters.
Wildfires ignite structures in three ways: burning embers landing on the structure or flammable material
next to the structure, direct flame contact, and radiant heat from fire close to the structure. Embers are
the most common cause of home ignition. Embers ignite structures by entering through attic vents,
igniting flammable materials around the home (litter in the roof gutter; wood stacks; or wood fencing), or
finding their way under roofing materials.18
CAL FIRE estimated in 2010 that there were about three million housing units in California in FHSZs and
potentially at risk from wildland fire—that is, just over 20 percent of the total housing units in the state.19
12 Pacific Biodiversity Institute, May 2007, Roads and Wildfires, accessed June 16, 2023,
http://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf.
13 Miscellaneous human activities (unspecified) are ranked above equipment use in percentage of wildfires caused.
14 Balch, Jennifer, Bethany Bradley, John Abatzoglou, et. al., January 2017, Human-Started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche
Across the United States, accessed June 16, 2023, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/11/2946.full.pdf.
15 Cart, Julie, 2023, “Lightning could spark more California fire as world warms,” CAL MATTERS, accessed January 12, 2024,
https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/09/california-fires-lightning/.
16 Texas Wildfire Mitigation Project, 2014, How Do Power Lines Cause Wildfires? accessed June 16, 2023,
https://wildfiremitigation.tees.tamus.edu/faqs/how-power-lines-cause-wildfires.
17 Pacific Biodiversity Institute, May 2007, Roads and Wildfires, accessed June 16, 2023,
http://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf.
18 California Chaparral Institute, Protecting Your Home from Fire, accessed June 16, 2023,
https://www.californiachaparral.org/fire/protecting-your-home/.
19 State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, August 2018, 2018
Strategic Fire Plan for California, accessed June 16, 2023, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan
-approved-08_22_18.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-11
According to CAL FIRE data, approximately 95 percent of structures seriously damaged in California
wildfires from 2013 to 2020 took place in FHSZs in the SRA or LRA or on federal lands.20
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas
The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA) is any area where structures and other human
developments meet or intermingle with wildland vegetative fuels—shrubs, trees, and grasses.
Developments in the WUI exacerbate fire occurrence and fire spread in several ways:
Increased numbers of people near and in wildland areas, creating more frequent human-caused
wildfires.
Wildfires become harder to fight due to simultaneous evacuation and firefighting resources diverted
from containing the wildfire to protecting lives and homes.
Letting natural fires burn becomes impossible, leading to buildup of fuel in brush and forested areas
and overgrowth of grasslands, increasing wildfire hazard further.21
Properties in the WUIFA are subject to building and property maintenance standards intended to prevent
and manage community safety due to brush and forest fires. Planning for such areas also requires
attention to the availability of access roads and water for firefighting and evacuation efforts.
Secondary Effects of Wildfire
Secondary effects of wildfire include additional hazards such as landslides, poor air quality, and power
outages. This section describes potential secondary hazards.
Post-fire landslide hazards include fast-moving, highly destructive debris flows that can occur in the years
immediately after wildfires in response to high-intensity rainfall events, and flows that are generated over
longer time periods that are accompanied by root decay and loss of soil strength. Post-fire debris flows are
particularly hazardous because they can occur with little warning, exert great impulsive loads on objects in
their paths, strip vegetation, block drainage ways, damage structures, and endanger human life. Debris
flows differ from mudflows in that debris flows are composed of larger particles.
Fires increase the potential for debris flows in two ways:22
Fires may bake soil into a hard crust that repels water.
Fires destroy vegetation that would slow and absorb rainfall, and whose roots would help stabilize
soil.
20 CapRadio, December 2021, “After years of delays, CalFire says updated and expanded wildfire hazard maps are on their
way,” accessed June 16, 2023, https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/12/20/after-years-of-delays-calfire-says-updated-and-
expanded-wildfire-hazard-maps-are-on-their-way/.
21 Radeloff, Volker, David Helmers, H. Kramer, et al., February 2018, Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises
Wildfire Risk, accessed January 12, 2024, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/13/3314.full.pdf.
22 United States Geological Survey, November 2018, “New post-wildfire resource guide now available to help communities
cope with flood and debris flow danger,” accessed January 12, 2024, https://www.usgs.gov/center-news/post-wildfire
-playbook?qt-news_science_products=1#qt-news_science_products.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-12 APRIL 2024
Post-fire debris flows are most common in the two years after a fire; they are usually triggered by heavy
rainfall. It takes much less rainfall to trigger debris flows from burned basins than from unburned areas. In
southern California, as little as 0.3 inches of rainfall in 30 minutes has triggered debris flows, and any
storm that has intensities greater than about 0.4 inches per hour can produce debris flows.23 The burning
of vegetation and soil on slopes more than doubles the rate that water will run off into watercourses. As
discussed in General Plan EIR Section 4.5.1.2, Existing Conditions, landslides and debris flows have the
potential to occur in the Study Area, most notably on steeper slopes in the western and southwestern
portions of the city. In these areas, landslides are commonly associated with slopes underlain with
Franciscan sheared rock (mélange) and pre-existing landslide deposits.24
In addition to damaging natural environments, wildfires can injure and kill residents and firefighters as
well as damage or destroy structures and personal property. Wildfires also deplete water reserves, down
power lines, disrupt communication services, and block evacuation routes, which can isolate
neighborhoods. Wildfires can indirectly cause flooding if flood control facilities become inadequate to
handle increases in stormwater runoff, sediment, and debris that are likely to be generated from burn
scars.
Regionally, smoke from wildfires creates poor air quality that can last for days or weeks, depending on the
scale of the wildfire and wind patterns. Smoke itself is made up of a complex mixture of gases and fine
particles produced when wood and other organic materials burn. Health risks from smoke inhalation are
largely from microscopic particles (PM2.5) that can penetrate the lungs and cause a range of health
problems, including chronic heart and lung diseases. Exposure to particulate pollution is even linked to
premature death. There are some populations that are more sensitive than others to smoke—for
instance, people with heart or lung diseases, seniors, children, people with diabetes, people with
compromised immune systems, and pregnant women.25 Through observations of wildfires, experts have
determined that the large plumes of smoke from large wildfires can result in that smoke and ash being
carried thousands of miles from the burn area of the wildfire. Therefore, air pollution is a major secondary
risk from wildfires in the region.26
Wildfire in the Study Area
The Study Area has land in both an LRA and SRA. As shown on Figure 4.16-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones,
portions along the northwestern Sphere of Influence are in an SRA and are classified as high and
moderate FHSZs. With the city limits, land is within the LRA. A portion of land in the city limits just north
of the southern city limit, where Upland Way and Rainbow Drive meet Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve, is classified as Very High FHSZ, as shown on Figure 4.16-1.
23 California Water Science Center, October 2018, Post-Fire Flooding and Debris Flow, United States Geological Survey,
accessed June 16, 2023, https://ca.water.usgs.gov/wildfires/wildfires-debris-flow.html.
24 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2023, MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, Landslide Hazard (Rainfall Induced),
accessed June 16, 2023, https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8.
25 US Geological Survey, 2018, How Smoke Fires Can Affect Your Health, accessed on June 16, 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/how-smoke-fires-can-affect-your-health.
26 Nasa Earth Observatory, August 2018, Smoky Skies in North America, accessed on June 16, 2023,
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/92612/smoky-skies-in-north-america.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023, CAL FIRE, 2022.
0
Scale (Miles)
1 Figure 4.16-1
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
WILDFIRE
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-14 APRIL 2024
According to the California Office of Emergency Services, a WUIFA is defined as any area where structures
and other human development meet or intermingle within wildland vegetation.27 Unlike wildfire in
wildland areas, fires in WUIFA s are more likely to damage or destroy buildings and infrastructure that
support populations, the economy, and key services in the city. The City-adopted WUIFA s are shown on
Figure 4.16-2, Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. The western and southwestern portions of the city are
in high-risk areas, and a small portion of the city on the east border of Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve is in a very high risk area. The WUIFA borders unincorporated Santa Clara County. It is zoned as
Open Space, Public Park, Recreational Zone (OS/PR), Agricultural Residential (A), and Single Family
Residential (R1).
Wildfire History
CAL FIRE maintains a list of historical fires throughout the state. According to CAL FIRE, in the summer of
2007 the Stevens Fire burned 151 acres near Stevens Canyon Reservoir, to the southwest and outside of
the Study Area.28
Factors Influencing Wildfire
Several factors influence wildfire conditions and facilitate the spread of wildfires, including weather
conditions, fuels, topography, and climate change. Human actions are the leading cause of wildfires in
California, increasing the risk of wildfire devastating natural lands and communities. This section describes
these five factors in the context of Cupertino.
Weather
The climate in Cupertino is generally referred to as “Mediterranean,” with hot, dry summers and cool, wet
winters. The weather is generally mild throughout the year. Due to the proximity of the Pacific Ocean and
San Francisco Bay, fog and overcast conditions are common in the morning and evening.29 The city
receives an average of approximately 24 inches of precipitation annually.30 Because the summer months
are generally hot and dry, the risk of wildfires has historically been greatest in summer and fall. Relative
humidity is also an important fire-related weather factor. As humidity levels drop, the dry air causes
vegetation moisture levels to decrease, thereby increasing the likelihood that plant material will readily
ignite and burn; the risk of wildfire increases when lightning strikes occur during dry periods.
Wind is a major weather factor of wildfire behavior. Average wind speeds in Cupertino vary only slightly
throughout the year, with the windier part of the year from March to July with average wind speeds of
7.6 miles per hour, and the calmer part of the year from August to March with average wind speeds of
27 California Office of Emergency Services, 2018, California State Hazard Mitigation Plan.
28 Santa Clara, County of, October 15, 2017, Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, accessed June 19,
2023, https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb261/files/For%20Partners/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan
-LHMP-Vol-1.pdf.
29 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, updated May 2022, San Mateo – Santa Cruz Unit: 2022 Strategic
Fire Plan, accessed June 16, 2023, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/lznihvwb/2022-san-mateo-santa-cruz-san-fransisco-unit-fire
-plan.pdf.
30 Cal-Adapt, 2022, Annual Averages, accessed June 16, 2023, https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages/.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
0
Scale (Miles)
1 Figure 4.16-2
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas
WILDFIRE
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-16 APRIL 2024
6.5 miles per hour.31 Wind is most commonly from the west from February to November, with winds from
the north from November to February.32
Diablo winds, which are a type of downslope, warm, northerly to northeasterly wind, flow over the Diablo
Mountain range and have had reported speeds of up to 100 miles per hour.33 As wind speeds increase,
the rate of fire spread, intensity, and ember spread potential also increases. Gusty and erratic wind
conditions can cause a wildfire to spread irregularly, making it difficult to predict its path and effectively
deploy fire suppression forces. Winds from the northeast in the late summer and fall compound with
lower relative humidity, creating “red flag” conditions.34 Diablo winds and low humidity are especially
dangerous because low humidity can dry out trees and other fuel that may also be weakened by the
winds. This can increase wildfire conditions in the Study Area. Wind shifts can also occur suddenly due to
temperature changes and interactions with steep slopes or hillsides, causing fires to spread unpredictably.
Fall has historically been one of the most dangerous times for wildfire risk, as periods of very high
temperatures, low humidity, and strong wind increase, causing “red flag” warnings and extreme fire
danger.
Fuel
The qualities of vegetation that directly influence fire risk include fuel type and size, loading, arrangement,
chemical composition, and dead and live fuel moisture, which contributes to the flammability
characteristics of the vegetation. As shown on Figure 4.3-1 of the General Plan EIR, Vegetation Habitat
Types , the Study Area includes 14 habitat types. Forests make up less than 1 percent of the vegetation
cover in the Study Area. The majority of vegetation consists of Coastal Oak Woodland (591 acres), Annual
Grass (329 acres), Chamise-Redshank Chaparral (298 acres), and Coastal Scrub (168 acres). Grasslands and
scrublands are highly flammable, particularly leaf litter that is left to accumulate, ultimately dries, and
provides fuel for potential fires. The fire risk in grassland and scrubland vegetation communities can be
reduced through several tactics, primarily controlled burns and annual grazing.35
Topography
Slope is a measure of land steepness, and wildfire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases
due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. For example, as slope increases from 20 to
40 percent, flame heights can double, and rates of fire spread can increase fourfold; from 40 to 60
percent, flame can become three times higher and rates of spread can increase eightfold. The
arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. As
31 Weatherspark, “Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Cupertino,” accessed January 12, 2024,
https://weatherspark.com/y/504/Average-Weather-in-Cupertino-California-United-States-Year-Round.
32 Weatherspark, “Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Cupertino,” accessed January 12, 2024,
https://weatherspark.com/y/504/Average-Weather-in-Cupertino-California-United-States-Year-Round.
33 Liu, YC., P. Di, S. H. Chen, et al., November 28, 2020, Climatology of diablo winds in Northern California and their
relationships with large-scale climate variabilities, accessed June 16, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05535-5.
34 The National Weather Service issues “red flag” weather day warnings when certain weather elements such as low relative
humidity and strong winds could lead to increased wildfire risk.
35 The Nature Conservancy, Restoring Fire to Native Grasslands, accessed January 12, 2024, https://www.nature.org/
en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/minnesota/stories-in-minnesota/restoring-fire-to-native-grasslands/.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-17
described in Chapter 4.5, Geology, Soils, & Seismicity, of the General Plan EIR, the topography of the Study
Area is largely flat, with hilly slopes in the western and southwestern portion of the city. The surrounding
foothills at the outskirts of the Study Area include a varied, sloped terrain.
Climate Change
Climate change is likely to increase annual average temperatures in Cupertino from a historical 69.4
degrees Fahrenheit (oF), to 73.5 oF by 2050 and 76.5oF by 2100.36 This will likely create warmer
temperatures earlier and later in the year. Precipitation levels are projected to vary over the course of the
century, changing from a historical annual average of 23.7 inches per year, to an annual average of 26.3
inches by 2050 and an annual average of 29.6 inches by 2099.37 Variations in precipitation patterns will
also lead to an increase in frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events as well as prolonged
periods of drought. The combination of extreme heat and droughts can cause soils and vegetation to dry
out, creating more fuel for wildfires. These factors are expected to increase wildfire conditions, creating a
risk of more frequent and intense wildfires. Because wildfires burn the trees and other vegetation that
help stabilize a hillside and absorb water, more areas burned by fire may also lead to an increase in
landslides and floods. Historically, an average of 101 acres have burned annually in the Study Area.
Wildfires are projected to decrease to an annual average in the Study Area of 88 acres burned by 2050
and an increase in annual average of 105 acres burned by 2100. 38
Human Actions
Most wildfires are ignited by human action, the result of direct acts of arson, carelessness, or accidents.
Many fires originate in populated areas along roads and around homes and are often the result of careless
disposal of cigarettes, mowing of dead grass, electrical equipment malfunction, use of equipment, or
burning of debris. Recreation areas with increased human activity that are in fire-prone areas also
increase the potential for wildfires.
Fire Protection Resources
Fire protection services in Cupertino are provided by Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD), which
operates three fire stations in Cupertino:
Cupertino Fire Station at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Monta Vista Fire Station at 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Seven Springs Fire Station at 21000 Seven Springs Parkway
The Fire Prevention Division provides a comprehensive fire/life safety plan review for land development,
new building construction, interior remodel projects, fire suppression and fire alarm systems. In addition,
periodic construction inspections are performed to ensure that completed projects conform to both state
36 Cal-Adapt, 2023, Annual Averages, accessed January 12, 2024, https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages/.
37 Cal-Adapt, 2023, Annual Averages, accessed January 12, 2024, https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages/.
38 Cal-Adapt, 2023, Wildfire, accessed January 12, 2024, https://cal-adapt.org/tools/wildfire.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-18 APRIL 2024
and local fire safety regulations. For existing commercial buildings, the Fire Prevention Division provides
an annual inspection program that is delivered through both Fire Prevention Division and fire station
personnel. Annual inspections are conducted to ensure reasonable compliance with the general and
specific fire safety regulations for each occupancy type, as specified in the adopted Fire and Building
Codes.
The SCCFD manages and implements a hazardous brush abatement program for hillside areas within its
jurisdictional boundaries. In January of each year, homeowners are reminded that they must remove
native brush and vegetation from around their homes to create defensible space. The brush abatement
program entails inspections of hillside properties by fire crews beginning early April each year. The costs
associated with the abatement work are then placed on the property tax bill for that parcel.
Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, provides additional details about fire
protection resources and services in Cupertino.
Evacuation and Access
Evacuation routes are designated roadways that allow many people to quickly leave an area due to a
potential or imminent disaster. These routes should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the needs of
the community, be safely and easily accessible, and allow people to travel far enough away to be safe from
emergency conditions.
As shown on Figure 4.16-3, Evacuation Routes, the primary evacuation routes roads and highways that
traverse the city include:
Interstate 280
State Route 85
Bellinger Road
De Anza Boulevard
Lawrence Expressway
McClellan Road
North Foothill Boulevard
North Stelling Road
Prospect Road
Rainbow Drive
Stevens Canyon Road
Stevens Creek Boulevard
West Homestead Road
Wolfe Drive
Several residential neighborhoods throughout the Study Area have evacuation constraints, meaning only
one road in and out of a neighborhood. Figure 4.16-4, Evacuation-Constrained Residential Areas,39 shows
identified evacuation-constrained residential areas throughout the city, including sites within wildfire
hazard zones in the western and southwestern portion of the city.
39 Evacuation-constrained areas mean residential parcels that have fewer than two access routes or residential parcels that
are more than 0.5 miles away from the nearest evacuation route. This map was created pursuant to SB 99 and California
Government Code Section 65302(g)(5).
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023, OSM, 2023.
0
Scale (Miles)
1 Figure 4.16-3
Evacuation Routes
WILDFIRE
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Source: USGS, NASA: OpenStreetMaps, City of Cupertino, 2023.
0
Scale (Miles)
1 Figure 4.16-4
Evacuation-Constrained Residential Areas
WILDFIRE
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-21
4.16.2 Standards of Significance
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant wildfire
impacts if it would:
Impact of the
Approved Project
(General Plan
2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified Project
FIRE-1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? LTS LTS
FIRE-2. Exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? N/A LTS
FIRE-3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) but
would not exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
N/A LTS
FIRE-4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
N/A LTS
FIRE-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wildfire? N/A LTS
In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the General Plan
EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of this EA. Wildfire
has been added as a separate impact category to Appendix G, thus this EA analyzes the current wildfire questions in addition to FIRE-4, which was
included in the General Plan EIR as HAZ-7. In the General Plan EIR, wildfire impacts were included in Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = not a standard of
significance in the General Plan EIR
4.16.3 Impact Discussion
FIRE-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not
substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
As described in the General Plan EIR, Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, potential future
development as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would not substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan through compliance with applicable
federal, State, and local regulations. Impacts to emergency response planning were found to be less than
significant and no mitigation measures were required. However, since the certification of the General Plan
EIR, the EOP has been updated, and an evacuation plan through Genasys Protection, formerly known as
Zonehaven, has been developed for each of the 34 evacuation zones in Cupertino.
The City of Cupertino Emergency Management Division is responsible for coordinating agency response to
disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara
County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino EOP is the primary emergency
response plan for the city and is described under Section 4.16.1.1, Regulatory Framework. In the event of
an emergency, the City would activate personnel and mobilize response assets to support the incident
response. During a wildfire, the SCCFD would perform firefighting activities and urban search-and-rescue
activities, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department would be responsible for conducting
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-22 APRIL 2024
evacuations. The routes that would be used in the event of an emergency in the plan area are described
in Section 4.16.1.2, Existing Conditions.
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR found that the Health and Safety
(HS) Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts
of development on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Like the
Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies, and updated policies as part of the
proposed Modified Project, would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on adopted emergency
response plans or emergency evacuation plans:
Policy HS-2.1. Promote Emergency Preparedness. Distribute multi-hazard emergency preparedness
information for all threats identified in the emergency plan. Information will be provided through
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), First Aid and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
training, lectures and seminars on emergency preparedness, publication of monthly safety articles in
the Cupertino Scene, posting of information on the Emergency Preparedness website and
coordination of video and printed information at the library. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-33)
Policy HS-2.2. Emergency Operations Center. Ensure ongoing training of identified City employees on
their functions/responsibilities in the EOC and in disaster preparedness, first aid and CPR. (General
Plan EIR Policy 6-38)
Policy HS-2.4. Emergency Public Information. Maintain an Emergency Public Information program to
be used during emergency situations. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-39)
Policy HS-3.2. Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects
requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed. (General Plan
EIR Policy 6-8 and Policy 6-13)
Strategy HS- 3.3.2. Dead- End Street Access. Allow public use of private roadways during an
emergency for hillside subdivisions that have dead-end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a
secondary means of access. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-14)
Strategy HS- 3.3.3. Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade
breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-15)
Strategy HS- 3.3.4. Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new hillside development to upgrade existing
access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-16)
Policy HS- 3.4. Private Residential Electronic Security Gates. Discourage the use of private residential
electronic security gates that act as a barrier to emergency personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-17)
Strategy HS- 3.4.2. Access to Gates. Where electronic security gates area allowed, require the
installation of an approved key switch to be accessed by the Fire District.
Policy HS-3.5. Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines. Coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-9)
Policy HS-3.6. Fire Prevention and Emergency Preparedness. Promote fire prevention and emergency
preparedness through city-initiated public education programs, the government television channel,
the Internet and the Cupertino Scene. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-10)
The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and increased housing
densities within the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Additionally, the housing opportunity sites
under the proposed Modified Project would not be located in a FHSZ or WUIFA. Furthermore, as shown
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-23
on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of most
potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of
the Approved Project and would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of
infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or near existing
residential and residential-serving development in developed areas.
As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the
proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design
standards, and would be required to comply with the adopted Cupertino EOP and evacuation plans.
Therefore, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would
not result in new or more severe impacts to the implementation of, or physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan EIR.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
FIRE-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not, due to slope,
prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
While the General Plan EIR did not evaluate whether the Approved Project would expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope,
prevailing winds, and other factors, the General Plan EIR does indicate that implementation of Health and
Safety Element policies and strategies, along with compliance with State and local requirements, would
have less than significant impacts related to wildland fires.
As described in Section 4.16.1.2, Existing Conditions, the Study Area varies from flat in the eastern portion
of the city to steeply sloped in the western and southwestern portions of the city, experiences Diablo
Wind events, and has other factors such as highly flammable grass- and herb-dominated fuels. Under the
Approved Project, wildfires and associated smoke could potentially travel to the Study Area and expose
residents to the uncontrolled spread of wildfire or pollutant concentrations due to slope, prevailing winds,
and highly flammable fuels. However, the potential future development under the proposed Modified
Project would not exacerbate these impacts compared to the Approved Project.
As described in Impact Discussion FIRE-1, the proposed Modified Project does not include Housing
Opportunity Sites in a FHSZ or a WUIFA. Future potential development under both the Approved Project
and the proposed Modified Project would also be required to comply with the California Building Code,
California Fire Code, Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, PRC Section 4291, and the CMC, which provide
requirements for vegetation and fuel management and development on slopes that reduce wildfire
impacts. Although prevailing winds would not change in the Study Area, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with Chapter 7A of the CBC, which
requires ignition-resistant materials and design that would make the structures less prone to exacerbate
wildfire risks than the existing structures in the Study Area. Additionally, these regulations have been
updated since the approval of the Approved Project, and therefore the proposed Modified Project would
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-24 APRIL 2024
be required to go beyond the requirements of the Approved Project for vegetation and fuel management
in the Study Area to reduce wildfire impacts.
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR also found that the Health and
Safety (HS) Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider
impacts that development could have on exacerbating wildfire risks. Like the Approved Project, the
following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of
the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential for wildfire risk therefore exposing
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire:
Policy HS-1.1. Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning. Coordinate with Santa Clara County and local
agencies to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara
County. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-1)
Strategy HS-1.1.1. Monitoring and Budgeting. Monitor and fund the LHMP program, including local
strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex (Section 11). Working with Santa Clara County, ensure that
strategies are prioritized and implemented through the Capital Improvement Program and provide
adequate budget for on-going programs and department operations. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1)
Strategy HS-1.1.2. Mitigation Incorporation. Ensure that mitigation actions identified in the LHMP are
being incorporated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where appropriate. (General Plan EIR
Strategy 2)
Policy HS- 3.1. Regional Coordination. Coordinate wildland fire prevention efforts with adjacent
jurisdictions. Encourage the County and the Midpeninsula Open Space District to implement
measures to reduce fire hazards, including putting into effect the fire reduction policies of the County
Public Safety Element, continuing efforts in fuel management, and considering the use of “green” fire
break uses for open space lands. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-4, Policy 6-6, and Policy 6-7)
Policy HS-3.2. Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects
requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed. (General Plan
EIR Policy 6-8)
Policy HS-3.5. Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines. Coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses.
(General Plan EIR Policy 6-9)
Policy HS- 3.7. Multi-Story Buildings. Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design of
multi-story buildings and require on-sire fire suppression materials and equipment. (General Plan EIR
Policy 6-11)
As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws,
policies, and design standards. Therefore, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts due
to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, that would exacerbate wildfire risks and expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire compared
to the Approved Project.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-25
FIRE-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would require the
installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) but
would not exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment.
Though the General Plan EIR did not evaluate whether the Approved Project would exacerbate fire risk or
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment due to the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities), the General Plan EIR does indicate that implementation of the Approved Project would have less
than significant impacts related to wildland fires.
Buildout under the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project could require the installation of new
roadways, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, and other utilities to serve development in
the Study Area.
Roadways. The proposed Modified Project does not include new roadways in the Very High FHSZ.
Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project could, however, create new or
expanded roadways in the western, fire-prone areas of the Study Area. Similar to future potential
roadways under the Approved Project, State Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulations would prevent
structures from being placed within 30 feet of a roadway, reducing the potential for new roadways to
exacerbate wildfire risks.
Fuel Breaks. As described in Impact Discussion FIRE-2, the Health and Safety (HS) Element of the
Approved Project includes Policy HS-3.1 which includes coordination with regional jurisdictions to
continue fuel management and use of “green” fire breaks on open space lands. This policy would still
be in place as part of the proposed Modified Project.
Emergency Water Sources. The Health and Safety (HS) Element of the Approved Project includes the
Policy HS-3.8, which encourages cooperation between the water utility companies and Fire
Department to keep water systems in pace with growth and firefighting service needs. This policy
would still be in place as part of the proposed Modified Project.
Power Lines. Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project could require
electrical line installations and connections to provide power to buildings and infrastructure. However,
similar to the Approved Project, the potential future development under the proposed Modified
Project would be required to comply with Infrastructure (INF) Element Strategy INF-2.4.2, which
requires undergrounding of all utility lines in new developments, which would minimize wildfire risks
associated with power lines.
Other Utilities. Potential future development under both the Approved Project and proposed
Modified project could also require the installation and maintenance of water systems, sewer
systems, internet infrastructure, and stormwater systems. However, the proposed Modified Project
does not include land use changes or allow for future potential residential development in wildfire-
prone areas.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-26 APRIL 2024
These types of improvements would involve temporary construction and result in changes to existing
conditions under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project. The installation of roadways,
power lines, and other utilities could increase the risk of wildfire; however, the proposed Modified Project
does not include future potential development in wildfire-prone areas of the Study Area. Additionally,
development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with the most recent
CBC, CFC, Very High VHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, and Cupertino Municipal Code, which provide specific
measures to minimize the ignition and spread of wildfires due to infrastructure. The State and local
regulations are stricter than those evaluated under the General Plan EIR.
Given compliance with State and local regulations, the proposed Modified Project would not require the
installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would result in new or substantially more severe fire risk or
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment when compared to the Approved Project.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
FIRE-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not expose
people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes.
While the General Plan EIR did not evaluate whether the Approved Project would expose people or
structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, the General Plan EIR does indicate that
implementation of the Approved Project, specifically in the wildfire-prone areas, would have less than
significant impacts related to wildland fires. Additionally, the General Plan EIR indicates the Approved
Project would not expose people or structure to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flood
hazards, and therefore impacts related to flood hazards were found to be less than significant. The
General Plan EIR also indicates that the Approved Project would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects due to landslides or slope instability.
As described in General Plan EIR Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, a small portion of the Study
Area is within the 100-year floodplain, including areas immediately adjacent to Permanente Creek,
Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, and Saratoga Creek. Most of the western and central areas of the Study
Area are within the 500-year floodplain. As described in the General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.5, Geology, Soils,
and Seismicity, the southwestern portion of the Study Area is highly susceptible to landslides. The high
landslide susceptibility areas coincide with lands designated as Very High FHSZs.
Both the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project would include residential development
within the 500-year floodplain. Similarly, although the Approved Project would include development in
areas of high landslide susceptibility, the proposed Modified Project would not. The proposed Modified
Project would also be required to comply with the most recent version of the CBC, CFC, and CMC. These
regulations would ensure fire-, floodplain-, and landslide-resilient construction of potential future
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.16-27
development, and therefore would reduce the potential for post-wildfire flooding or landslides
downstream or downslope.
Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and Chapter 4.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, of the General
Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) and Health and Safety (HS)
Elements contain policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that
development could have on exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated
policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential
adverse impacts due to runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes:
Policy ES-5.3. Landscaping In and Near Natural Vegetation. Preserve and enhance existing natural
vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development is proposed within existing
natural areas. When development is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the landscaping to
be consistent with the palate of vegetation found in the natural vegetation. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-
10)
Policy ES-7.2. Reduction of Impervious Surfaces. Minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts
resulting from development and use low impact development (LID) designs to treat stormwater or
recharge groundwater. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-19)
Policy ES-7.3. Pollution and Flow Impacts. Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are
reduced through development review and voluntary efforts. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-20)
Strategy ES- 7.3.1. Development Review. Require LID designs such as vegetated stormwater treatment
systems and green infrastructure to mitigate pollutant loads and flows. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1)
Policy ES- 7.5. Groundwater Recharge Sites. Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts to
find and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino and provide public recreation where
possible. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-23)
Strategy ES-7.8.1. Inter-Agency Coordination. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by
use of flow increase mitigation measures, such as hydromodification controls as established by the
Municipal Regional Permit. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2)
Policy HS- 7.5. Hillside Grading. Restrict the extent and timing of hillside grading operation to April
through October except as otherwise allowed by the City. Require performance bonds during the
remaining time to guarantee the repair of any erosion damage. Require all graded slopes must be
planted as soon as practical after grading is complete. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-47)
Implementation of future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would not expose
people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, or result in new impacts or a substantial
increase in magnitude of impacts when compared to the Approved Project.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
WILDFIRE
4.16-28 APRIL 2024
FIRE-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wildfire.
The analysis of cumulative wildfire impacts is based on impacts of the proposed Modified Project plus
cumulative development in the City of Cupertino and the surrounding region. Future projects proposed
within the Very High FHSZ or WUIFA could subject people and structures to wildfire hazards. As described
previously, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in
magnitude of impacts related to interfering with implementation of emergency response or evacuation
plans; exacerbating wildfire risks exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the
uncontrolled spread of wildfire; exacerbating fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment due to the installation or maintenance of infrastructure; or exposing people or structures to
significant risks as a results of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes when compared to the
Approved Project.
The addition of other potential future development projects in the Study Area and surrounding region
would have the potential to contribute to cumulative wildfire risks. However, future potential
development in the Study Area and surrounding region in the Very High FHSZ or WUIFA would be subject
to the same State and local regulations, including the CBC, CFC, Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, and
CMC. Potential future development projects would be required to undergo separate CEQA review and
identify wildfire impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, cumulative wildfire impacts
would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
5-1 APRIL 2024
Alternatives to the Proposed Modified
Project
The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of feasible alternatives to
the proposed Modified Project that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
proposed project. Section 15126.6, Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project,
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that:
An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the
project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.
Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster
informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives,
which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for
examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no
ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule
of reason.
5.1 PURPOSE
The alternatives evaluated in this Draft EA were developed consistent with Section 15126.6(b) of the
CEQA Guidelines, which states that:
Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have
on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus
on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening
any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As stated, the range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could
feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. As listed in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this Draft EA, the City has identified the following objectives, which build on the framework
of the Vision and Values and reflect the community’s desires for the future of Cupertino and will serve as
the project objectives for the EA.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-2 APRIL 2024
Update the General Plan’s Housing Element to comply with State-mandated housing requirements
and to address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing in the city
between 2023 and 2031.
Include an adequate inventory of housing sites and rezone the sites as necessary to meet the required
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and to provide an appropriate buffer.
To affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).
Incentivize the development of housing, particularly affordable housing, suited to special needs and
all income levels.
Promote a healthy and sustainable Cupertino through support of housing at all income levels that
minimizes reliance on natural resources and automobile use.
Update the City’s Zoning Code and Land Use and Community Design General Plan Element to be
consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal
consistency) and Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency), respectively.
Update the City’s General Plan Mobility Element to minimize environmental impacts associated with
implementation of the Housing Element and be consistent with updated State law and guidance for
vehicle miles traveled.
Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to be consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to
Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency).
5.3 SELECTION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly
accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or
more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the
alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the
lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons
underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of
alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to
eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic
project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
5.3.1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Two project alternatives and the comparative merits of the alternatives are described in this chapter in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. All the potential environmental impacts associated with adoption
and implementation of the proposed Modified Project were found to be either less than significant
without mitigation or less than significant with mitigation, except for impacts to air quality (AIR),
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and transportation (TRANS), which were found to be significant and
unavoidable at the program level. Although the proposed Modified Project results in significant and
unavoidable impacts, the identification of these program-level impacts do not preclude the finding of less-
than-significant impacts for subsequent development proposals analyzed at the project level that do not
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-3
exceed the applicable project-level thresholds. The program-level significant and unavoidable impacts
include the following:
Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would conflict with the growth
assumptions under Plan Bay Area 2040 that are applied to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed Modified Project would therefore conflict with
the air quality emissions forecast in the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Impact AIR-2: Operation of development projects that could occur from implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would generate emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s regional significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5).
Impact AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed Modified
Project could generate a substantial increase in emissions that exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations and health risk in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would exceed the net zero
greenhouse gas emission threshold under Executive Order B-55-18.
Impact GHG-2: The proposed Modified Project would not meet California Green Building Standards
Code nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle parking standards and would exceed the City of
Cupertino’s vehicle miles traveled reduction threshold, and therefore be inconsistent with the
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan.
Impact GHG-3: The proposed Modified Project would result in vehicle miles traveled that would
exceed the City of Cupertino’s reduction target, and therefore conflict with the California Air
Resources Board Scoping Plan and Executive Order B-55-18.
Impact TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would exceed the adopted
Cupertino vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold per service population of 31.30 VMT by 3.5 VMT per
service population, due to forecasted growth through 2040.
Impact TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would cumulatively contribute to
regional vehicle miles traveled.
The alternatives were selected because of their potential to further reduce and avoid these impacts. The
alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed project include:
Alternative A: No Project Alternative (Current General Plan 2040) and
Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites Alternative.
The first alternative is the CEQA-required “No Project” Alternative, which assumes the current General
Plan 2040 remains in effect and is not replaced by the proposed Modified Project. Alternative B assumes
additional housing units would be allowed on parcels with commercial land uses along Stevens Creek
Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard.
5.3.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed Modified Project. The
development intensity for the alternatives varies from the proposed Modified Project. The estimated
growth under each alternative, as well as the proposed Modified Project, is provided in Table 5-1, Total
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-4 APRIL 2024
Forecasted Growth for the Proposed Modified Project and the Alternatives to the Proposed Modified
Project.
TABLE 5-1 TOTAL FORECASTED GROWTH FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT AND THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Category
Proposed
Modified Project
Alternative A:
No Project
Alternative B:
Increased Housing Sites
Housing Units a 29,132 25,820 30,119
Population b 81,037 71,300 83.939
Jobs 44,242 44,242 44,242
Notes:
a. Total housing units accommodated under the proposed Modified Project, Alternative A, and Alternative B.
b. Total population accommodated under the proposed Modified Project, Alternative A, and Alternative B.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2024.
The alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures recommended for the proposed
project and the proposed General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies would apply to Alternative B,
but would not apply to Alternative A. The following discussion compares the environmental impacts of the
alternatives with those of the proposed Modified Project for each of the environmental topics analyzed in
detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EA. The impacts of each alternative are classified
as less than (<), similar or comparable to (=), or greater than (>) the level of impacts associated with the
proposed project. Table 5-2, Comparison of Impacts of the Project Alternatives and the Proposed Modified
Project, summarizes the relative impacts of each of the alternatives compared to the proposed project.
TABLE 5-2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Topic
Proposed
Project a
Alternative A:
No Project
Alternative B:
Increased Housing Sites
Aesthetics LTS = =
Air Quality SU < <
Biological Resources LTS = =
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources LTS = =
Energy LTS < =
Geology and Soils LTS = =
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU < <
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS = =
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS < >
Land Use and Planning LTS > =
Noise LTS < <
Population and Housing LTS > =
Public Services and Recreation LTS < >
Transportation SU > <
Utilities and Service Systems LTS < >
Wildfire LTS = =
Note:
a. The impacts listed in this column represent the highest significance determination for each respective standard of significance.
LTS Less Than Significant
LTS/M Less Than Significant with Mitigation
SU Significant and Unavoidable
< Fewer impact in comparison to the proposed project
= Similar impact in comparison to the proposed project
> Greater impact in comparison to the proposed project
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-5
5.4 ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT
5.4.1 DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required as part of the
“reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the
proposed project with the impacts of taking no action or not approving the proposed project. Consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when the project is the revision of a plan, as in this case,
the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan. Under Alternative A, potential
future development in Cupertino would continue to be subject to existing policies, regulations,
development standards, and land use designations of the existing General Plan 2040.
5.4.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative A when compared to the proposed
Modified Project are described herein.
AESTHETICS
As described in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
any significant impacts related to aesthetics. Like the proposed Modified Project, potential future
development in the Study Area under Alternative A is anticipated to occur in the form of
infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to
existing development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas. General
Plan 2040 reinforces existing uses, heights, and densities in most locations, and therefore would not
substantially increase building height beyond what is previously accounted for under Approved Project.
The westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains are considered scenic
vistas and the Caltrans designated segment of Interstate 280 (I-280) from Santa Clara County line on the
west to I-880 on the east, as an eligible State Scenic Highway is a scenic corridor. Potential future
development under either scenario would occur in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already
developed and/or underutilized. Therefore, implementation of either scenario would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or damage existing scenic resources within a state scenic
highway and impacts would be similar.
Applicable future projects under both scenarios would be subject to the Architectural and Site Review
process, in accordance with CMC Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, or would be required to
comply with Design Standards outlined in the General Plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan, or other
appropriate Conceptual Plans, the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, or the South Vallco Specific Plan.
However, Alternative A would not realize the new or modified General Plan 2040 goals, policies, or
strategies that were prepared as part of the proposed Modified Project. For example, a new policy
requires views of the Montebello foothills to be preserved. Thus, unlike the proposed Modified Project,
which includes this new policy, development under this alternative would not provide the same level of
design consideration related to the visual character or quality of a project site near Montebello Foothills;
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-6 APRIL 2024
thus, aesthetic impacts related to these topics from potential development under Alternative A would be
greater when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
Similar to the proposed Modified Project, Alternative A would result in new lighting sources that could
result in sources of glare. Potential future development under both scenarios would be required to
comply with best management practices in CALGreen and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) that ensure
new land uses do not generate excessive light levels and reduce light and glare spillover from future
development to surrounding land uses. Because Alternative A would result in less development than the
proposed Modified Project, fewer new light and glare sources would be introduced, and impacts would be
less when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
Overall, while Alternative A would not realize the new or modified General Plan 2040 goals, policies, or
strategies that were prepared as part of the proposed Modified Project, development in the Study Area
under Alternative A would be less and would be guided by the current policies and regulations that guide
development in Cupertino. Thus, impacts related to aesthetics would be similar when compared to the
proposed Modified Project.
AIR QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts even with implementation of the Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have the potential to exceed Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds for Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable particulate
matter (PM2.5), as well as conflict with the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Alternative A would continue development as allowed under the Approved Project, which would result in
less development in the Study Area compared to the proposed Modified Project. Development under
both scenarios would be subject to applicable laws and regulations, including those under Cupertino
Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.04.040, Standard Environmental Protection Technical Report Submittal
Requirements, and Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements.
Additionally, future development under both scenarios could result in construction activities near
residential and other sensitive land uses, thus, temporarily elevating concentrations of toxic air
contaminants in the vicinity of sensitive land uses. While the regulatory setting mitigating construction
impacts is the same under both scenarios, less development would occur under Alternative A; therefore,
construction impacts would be fewer when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
Under Alternative A, less development would occur; therefore, fewer direct and indirect criteria air
pollutant emissions from energy (e.g., natural gas use) and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping
equipment) would occur. Therefore, the operational air quality impacts of Alternative A would be less
when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
Like the proposed Modified Project, Alternative A is not the type of project that would result in significant
impacts from odor and impacts would be similar under both scenarios.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-7
Overall, air quality impacts under Alternative A would be fewer when compared to the proposed Modified
Project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would
result in less-than-significant impacts to biological resources. The Study Area is not within any local,
regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan areas. Therefore, neither scenario would conflict with the
conservation strategy in any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan and
impacts would be similar.
Potential future development under both scenarios would occur in already urbanized areas on sites either
already developed and/or underutilized, and/or near existing development without sensitive natural
communities and where special-status species are generally not expected to occur. Accordingly, impacts to
these biological resources under Alternative A would be similar when compared to the proposed Modified
Project.
Impacts to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors under both scenarios would be mitigated. Under both
Alternative A and the proposed Modified Project, potential future development would be required to
comply with the Standard Environmental Protection Requirements under CMC Section 17.04.050,
Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements. Thus, impacts to biological resources
from potential future development as allowed under Alternative A would be similar when compared to
the proposed Modified Project.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EA, the proposed
Modified Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.
Under Alternative A, new development would continue throughout the city under existing plans and
regulations. As explained in Chapter 4.4, there are existing prehistoric, architectural, historical, or
archaeological resources in the Study Area that could all be impacted by new demolition, inappropriate
modification, or inappropriate new construction under the proposed Modified Project or Alternative A.
Like the proposed Modified Project, Alternative A would be subject to the procedures of conduct
following the discovery of human remains set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Public Resources
Code, and the California Code of Regulations, as well as the policies and strategies in General Plan 2040.
Additionally, future potential development under both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative A
would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit
Submittal Requirements. Development in both scenarios would occur on previously disturbed sites and/or
near existing development where buried cultural and tribal cultural resources may be less common.
Though less development would occur under the Alternative A scenario, the development would occur in
similar locations as under the proposed Modified Project, and the potential to impact these resources
would be similar when compared to the proposed project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-8 APRIL 2024
ENERGY
As described in Chapter 4.5, Energy, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
any significant impacts related to energy.
All development that occurs in the state is required to comply with best management practices regulated
in the CALGreen and Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which ensure new development would not
result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Additionally, neither the proposed Modified Project nor
Alternative A would introduce a level of development and population growth that would be anticipated to
necessitate the construction of new energy supply facilities or transmission infrastructure.
Less development would occur under the Alternative A scenario, so energy consumption from
construction would be less when compared to the proposed Modified Project. The energy efficiency
standards in place for new development would ensure that operational energy consumption under the
Alternative A scenario would be similar to consumption under the proposed Modified Project. Therefore,
overall energy demand and consumption would be less under Alternative A when compared to the
proposed Modified Project.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As described in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils.
Future development under both Alternative A and the proposed Modified Project would be subject to the
same federal, State, and local regulations that address and prevent hazards associated with geology, soils,
and seismicity. Both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project encourage development in
urbanized settings where there is less likelihood for impacts from geologic hazards to occur and include
General Plan 2040 policies and strategies that minimize adverse effects to geologic processes, soil erosion,
and loss of topsoil. Although Alternative A would result in less overall development, compliance with
existing regulations related to geologic and seismic safety would apply similarly to both future
development under Alternative A and the proposed Modified Project. Thus, Alternative A would result in
similar impacts when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As described in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would not be
consistent with the GHG emissions thresholds set by Executive Order B-55-18 and the California Air
Resources Board Scoping Plan.
There would be less development under the Alternative A scenario, though the development under the
proposed Modified Project would be limited to infill/intensification on sites either already developed
and/or underutilized, and/or near existing residential and residential-serving development. However, due
to the increase in development, exceedance of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold, and increase in
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-9
population under the proposed Modified Project, overall impacts from GHG emissions under Alternative A
would be less when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As described in Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified
Project would not result in any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Cupertino
is not within two miles of a public airport or within any protected airspace zones defined by the Santa
Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and there are no private airstrips or heliports listed by
FAA in Cupertino, thus there would be no impact under either scenario.
As described in Chapter 4.8, there are sites within the Study Area that are included on a list of hazardous
materials sites. Impact Discussion HAZ-3 and HAZ-4 of this Draft EA concluded that implementation of the
proposed Modified Project could result in the release of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of
school and construction and operation activities on sites with known hazardous materials and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, compliance with CMC Chapter
17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials, in addition to applicable laws, policies, and design standards
governing the release of hazardous materials would results in a less-than-significant impacts under both
the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project. Additionally, implementation of either scenarios
would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
The proposed Modified Project and Alternative A would include the same General Plan 2040 policies to
minimize potential adverse impacts on residential projects within an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. Thus, impacts under the Alternative A scenario would be similar to the
proposed Modified Project.
Because there is less development potential under Alterative A, the risk associated with construction
hazards and hazardous materials is less than under the proposed Modified Project. However, overall
impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Compliance with
existing State and local regulations and procedures would ensure that pre- and post-construction impacts
to water quality would be less than significant. These regulations and procedures would be maintained
under Alternative A.
Potential future development under both scenarios would occur within previously urbanized areas and
would connect to existing drainage systems already in place. Alternative A involves less development
potential, less ground disturbance and potential change in drainage patterns, and less water use from
groundwater sources. As such, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be lesser when compared to
the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-10 APRIL 2024
LAND USE AND PLANNING
As described in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would result in less-than-significant impacts to land use and planning.
The Approved Project was adopted with the purpose of harmonizing changes to existing developed areas
to better serve community needs. Both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative A would aim to
improve connectivity and would not create physical barriers within existing communities. They would also
both support the integration of infill development and would not propose physical features that could
divide a community. Accordingly, impacts would be similar under both scenarios.
Under Alternative A, development would continue to occur throughout the Study Area under Approved
Project and would not conflict with these already approved standards. However, Alternative A would not
implement new or modified General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies, and would not include the
rezoning of parcels to be consistent with the General Plan, included in the proposed Modified Project.
Further, the proposed Modified Project includes forecasted housing projection that meets the City’s
2023–2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as well as additional housing projections that
would accommodate the following RHNA cycles throughout the buildout horizon, to support the
mandatory future Housing Element updates. The proposed Modified Project would also include the
rezoning or properties to increase consistency between the General Plan land use designations and
Zoning Code. Thus, continuing the use of only the Approved Project would conflict with applicable the
land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and impacts
would be greater when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
NOISE
As described in Chapter 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would result in less-
than-significant impacts to noise. The Study Area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan, and therefore would have no impact related to airport or aircraft noise.
Under Alternative A, development would continue to occur throughout the Study Area under Approved
Project, which would include less noise from construction, traffic, or other sources that would increase
ambient noise levels. However, both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative A would be required
to comply with CMC Chapter 10.48, Community Noise Control, Section 17.04.040(D)(1), Vibration
Technical Report Requirements, and Section 17.04.050(G)(1), Noise and Vibration Permit Requirements, as
well as federal, State, and local regulations related to temporary and operational noise.
Because there is less development potential under Alterative A, overall temporary and operational noise
impacts would be less than under the proposed Modified Project.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
As described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in any significant impacts related to population and housing.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-11
Alternative A would not include the additional housing opportunity sites included in the proposed
Modified Project that are required to meet the 2023-2031 RHNA. Additionally, Alternative A would not
include the updated policy framework of the proposed Modified Project that ensure adequate planning
occurs to accommodate the project growth of the city. Therefore, impacts under Alternative A would be
greater when compared to those under the proposed Modified Project.
PUBLIC SERVICES
As described in Chapter 4.13, Public Services, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not
result in any significant impacts related to fire protection services, police services, parks, schools, and
libraries.
Alternative A would result in less housing and thus fewer residents in the Study Area. Therefore, the
Alternative A scenario would result in less demand for public services provided in the Study Area.
Potential future development under Alternative A would be required to comply with all existing City
regulations adopted to ensure that development pays its fair share of the cost of delivering services,
providing park space and libraries, while payment of property taxes would ensure that future
development pays its fair share towards schools. Overall, impacts under Alternative A would be less than
those of the proposed Modified Project.
TRANSPORTATION
As described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not
result in significant impacts related to conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, increasing hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses, or
inadequate emergency access. However, the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact related to an increase in VMT beyond the City’s adopted threshold.
Alternative A would result in less housing and thus fewer residents in the Study Area. Therefore, similar to
the proposed Modified Project, Alternative A would not result in significant impacts related to conflicting
with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, increasing hazards due to
geometric design features or incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access. Additionally, future
potential development under both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative A would be required to
comply with CMC Section 17,04.040(C), Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Report Requirements, and CMC
Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, as
well as federal, State, regional, and local regulations related to transportation.
As described in Chapter 4.14 of this EA, Table 9, Total Project Generated VMT Assessment, of Appendix E,
Transportation Analysis, of this EA, shows that the proposed Modified Project would generate 34.8 VMT
per service population (sum of all residents and employees), which is 1.76 VMT per service population
less than the Approved Project. Accordingly, Alternative A would have worse impacts related to VMT
compared to the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, overall impacts under Alternative A would be
greater than those of the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-12 APRIL 2024
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As described in Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in any significant impacts related to water, wastewater, stormwater, or energy
infrastructure and services.
Demand and consumption trends generally demonstrate that advances in recycling and solid waste
reduction requirements, water-efficient regulations in building and landscaping, and stricter stormwater
retention requirements, would reduce impacts under both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative
A. It is assumed that because Alternative A would result in less overall development than the proposed
Modified Project, there would be less overall water demand, wastewater and solid waste generation, and
energy use. Future potential development under both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative A
would be required to comply with federal, State, regional, and local regulations for managing stormwater
during construction and operation of projects, including CMC Section 17.04.050(F), Control Stormwater
Runoff Contamination. Thus, impacts under Alternative A would be less than those of the proposed
Modified Project.
WILDFIRE
As described in Chapter 4.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
any significant wildfire impacts. Due to compliance with applicable local, regional, and State regulations,
development under both scenarios would not impair the implementation of an emergency response or
emergency evacuation plan or be within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Wildland Urban
Interface Fire Area, nor would either scenario expose people or structures to significant wildfire risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Neither scenario would result in the
installation or maintenance of any infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the
environment.
Alternative A would continue implementation of the Approved Project, including the General Plan policies
and strategies listed in Chapter 4.16. Therefore, potential future development under the Alternative A
scenario would have similar wildfire impacts when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
5.4.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE OBJECTIVES
Under Alternative A, the Approved Project would remain in place and the proposed Modified Project
would not be implemented; therefore, this alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-13
5.5 ALTERNATIVE B: INCREASED HOUSING SITES
5.5.1 DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this alternative is to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts associated with vehicle
miles travelled as evaluated in the Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. Alternative B would
demonstrate increased compliance with Plan Bay Area 2050, the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area, than
the proposed Modified Project. Alternative B assumes all the proposed amendments to the General Plan
2040 and Zoning Code would occur. The housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project
would remain, but there would be additional housing sites. These sites would include those that comply
with the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number,
Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011), that was adopted in August 2020. In general, the intent of AB 2011 is to
make affordable housing by right on commercially zoned lands, and mixed-income housing by right along
commercial corridors. This alternative would focus increased residential density along Stevens Creek
Boulevard and South De Anza Boulevard, which are Priority Development Areas (PDA) and Transit Priority
Areas (TPA) of Plan Bay Area 2050. This would include an additional 18 housing sites totaling 987
additional housing units, as shown in Table 5-3, Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites. As shown in Figure
5-1, Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites, the majority of the additional housing sites would be within
the boundaries of the high-transit corridor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (922 additional dwelling units)
and two additional sites would be on South De Anza Boulevard (65 additional dwelling units). The
alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures and General Plan goals, policies, and
strategies recommended for the proposed Modified Project would apply to Alternative B. The potential
environmental impacts associated with Alternative B when compared to the proposed Modified Project
are described herein.
5.5.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
AESTHETICS
As described in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
any significant impacts related to aesthetics. Like the proposed Modified Project, potential future
development in the Study Area under Alternative B is anticipated to occur in the form of
infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or near existing
development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas. General Plan 2040
reinforces existing uses, heights, and densities in most locations, and therefore would not substantially
increase building height beyond what is previously accounted for under Approved Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-14 APRIL 2024
TABLE 5-3 ALTERNATIVE B: INCREASED HOUSING SITES
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres) Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
A 36610127 0.86 South De Anza Commercial/
Residential
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) P(Res) 15 65 13 56 43
B 36619044 0.44 South De Anza Commercial/
Residential
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) P(Res) 15 65 7 29 22
C 36619045 0.07 South De Anza Commercial/
Residential
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) P(Res) 15 65 1 5 4
D 31623095 1.14 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(Res) 25 65 29 74 45
E 31624047 1.08 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(Res) 25 65 27 70 43
F 31625042 0.88 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(Res) 25 65 22 57 35
G 31626090 2.2 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(Res) 25 65 55 143 88
H 32631019 3.79 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0 65 0 246 246
I 32632051 0.68 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 17 44 27
J 36903002 1.05 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 26 68 42
K 36905044 1.92 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 48 125 77
L 36940038 0.93 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 23 60 37
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-15
TABLE 5-3 ALTERNATIVE B: INCREASED HOUSING SITES
Site
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres) Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b
M 37501014 0.51 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 13 33 20
N 37501021 1.31 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 33 85 52
O 37501022 1.03 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 26 67 41
P 37502021 0.84 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 21 55 34
Q 37506005 2.31 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 25 65 58 150 92
R 36905007 0.46 Heart of the City
- Central
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial
/Residential P(CG, Res) P(Res) 25 65 12 30 18
S 3263404,
32634066 5.1 Heart of the City Commercial Very High
Density P(CG, Res) P(CG,
Res) 0 65 0 332 332
Notes:
a. Dwelling unit density is expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre.
b. The net new is the proposed maximum density minus the existing maximum density.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space 0.25 0.5 Mies GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
-Residential
Additional Housing Sites D Residential
Note: This map is intended to show general locations of identified housing opportunity sites by Assessor Parcel Numbers or APNs, and is not intended to be used to identify project specific development boundaries.
Project-specific development boundaries will be determined on a project-by-project basis as future development is proposed.
Source: ESRI, 2022; ABAG, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023. Figure 5-1
Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-17
The westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains are considered scenic
vistas and the Caltrans designated segment of Interstate 280 (I-280) from Santa Clara County line on the
west to I-880 on the east is an eligible State Scenic Highway is a scenic corridor. Potential future
development under either scenario would occur in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already
developed and/or underutilized. Therefore, implementation of either scenario would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or damage existing scenic resources within a state scenic
highway and impacts would be similar.
Applicable future projects under both scenarios would be subject to the Architectural and Site Review
process, in accordance with CMC Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, or would be required to
comply with Design Standards outlined in the General Plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan, or other
appropriate Conceptual Plans, the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, or the South Vallco Specific Plan.
Additionally, both alternatives would benefit from the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals,
policies, and strategies.
Alternative B would result in new lighting sources that could result in sources of glare. Potential future
development under both scenarios would be required to comply with best management practices in
CALGreen and CMC that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels and reduce light and
glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses. Because Alternative B would increase
housing opportunities in commercial corridors beyond what was evaluated in the proposed Modified
Project, more new light and glare sources would be introduced, and impacts would be greater when
compared to the proposed Modified Project.
Though development in the Study Area would be increased, development under Alternative B would
follow the new or modified General Plan 2040 goals, policies, or strategies, and regulations that guide
development in Cupertino, and would be located on infill sites. Thus, impacts related to aesthetics would
be similar when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
AIR QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts even with implementation of the Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements in CMC Chapter 17.04. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have the
potential to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), as
well as conflict with the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Alternative B would increase housing opportunities along commercial corridors, which would result in
more development in the Study Area compared to the proposed Modified Project. Development under
both scenarios would be subject to applicable laws and regulations, including those under Cupertino
Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.04.040, Standard Environmental Protection Technical Report Submittal
Requirements, and Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements.
Additionally, future development under both scenarios could result in construction activities near
residential and other sensitive land uses, thus, temporarily elevating concentrations of toxic air
contaminants in the vicinity of sensitive land uses. While the regulatory setting mitigating construction
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-18 APRIL 2024
impacts is the same under both scenarios, more development would occur under Alternative B; therefore,
construction impacts would be greater when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
Both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative B would result in the introduction of a population
growth which goes beyond the growth projections contained in Plan Bay Area 2040, which underpins the
growth assumptions used for the emissions forecasts in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, like the
proposed Modified Project, Alternative B would also be considered inconsistent with the applicable AQMP
and impacts with regards to attainment of air quality standards would be similar under both scenarios.
Like the proposed Modified Project, Alternative B is not the type of project that would result in significant
impacts from odor and impacts would be similar under both scenarios.
Because emissions from the transportation sector produce the greatest emissions and as discussed in
Section 5.5.2.14, Transportation, VMT would be less under Alternative B when compared to the proposed
Modified Project, overall impacts under Alternative B would be less when compared to the proposed
Modified Project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would
result in less-than-significant impacts to biological resources. Alternative B would increase development
potential along commercial corridors. The additional potential future development would occur in the
form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized in highly urbanized
areas. Additionally, under both Alternative A and the proposed Modified Project, potential future
development would be required to comply with the Standard Environmental Protection Requirements
under CMC Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements. Thus,
impacts to biological resources from potential future development as allowed under Alternative B would
be similar when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EA, the proposed
Modified Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.
Under Alternative B, potential future development would occur at similar locations as under the proposed
Modified Project with increased development potential along commercial corridors. As explained in
Chapter 4.4, there are existing prehistoric, architectural, historical, or archaeological resources in the
Study Area that could all be impacted by new demolition, inappropriate modification, or inappropriate
new construction under the proposed Modified Project or Alternative B. Like the proposed Modified
Project, Alternative B would be subject to the procedures of conduct following the discovery of human
remains set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Public Resources Code, and the California Code of
Regulations, as well as the policies and strategies in General Plan 2040. Additionally, future potential
development under both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative A would be required to comply
with CMC Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements.
Development in both scenarios would occur on previously disturbed sites and/or near existing
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-19
development where buried cultural and tribal cultural resources may be less common. Though more
development would occur under the Alternative B scenario, the development would occur in similar
locations as under the proposed Modified Project, and the potential to impact these resources would be
similar when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
ENERGY
As described in Chapter 4.5, Energy, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
any significant impacts related to energy.
All development that occurs in the state is required to comply with best management practices regulated
in the CALGreen and Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which ensure new development would not
result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Additionally, it is assumed that neither the proposed
Modified Project nor Alternative B would introduce a level of development and population growth that
would be anticipated to necessitate the construction of new energy supply facilities or transmission
infrastructure.
More development would occur under the Alternative B scenario, so energy consumption from
construction would be greater when compared to the proposed Modified Project. However, this
development would be on infill sites and near residential serving development, thus decreasing emissions
and energy consumption from travel. Therefore, overall energy demand and consumption would be
similar under Alternative B when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As described in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils.
Future development under both Alternative B and the proposed Modified Project would be subject to the
same federal, state, and local regulations that address and minimize hazards associated with geology,
soils, and seismicity. Both the Alternative B and proposed Modified Project encourage development in
urbanized settings where there is less likelihood for impacts from geologic hazards to occur and include
General Plan policies and strategies that minimize adverse effects to geologic processes, soil erosion, and
loss of topsoil.
Although Alternative B would result in more overall development, it would be in the form of
infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or near existing
residential and residential-serving development making impacts to geology and soils less likely.
Additionally, compliance with existing regulations related to geologic and seismic safety would apply
similarly to both future development under Alternative B and the proposed Modified Project. Thus,
Alternative B would result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-20 APRIL 2024
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As described in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG emissions and would not be consistent with
the GHG emissions thresholds set by Executive Order B-55-18 and the California Air Resources Board
Scoping Plan.
There would be more development under the Alternative B scenario, though the additional development
potential would be limited to infill/intensification on sites within commercial corridors. This would reduce
the need for residents to drive to residential serving businesses and would thus decrease GHG emissions.
Additionally, VMT reduction policies and strategies under the proposed Modified Project would also apply
to Alternative B.
Though there would be more development potential under Alternative B, because emissions from the
transportation sector produce the greatest emissions and as discussed in Section 5.5.2.14, Transportation,
VMT would be less under Alternative B when compared to the proposed Modified Project, overall impacts
under Alternative B would be less when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As described in Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified
Project would not result in any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Cupertino
is not within two miles of a public airport or within any protected airspace zones defined by the Santa
Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and there are no private airstrips or heliports listed by
FAA in Cupertino, thus there would be no impact under either scenario.
Though potential future development would be increased under the Alternative B scenario, all
development that could occur from implementation of the proposed Modified Project or Alternative B
would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to hazards and
hazardous materials. Additionally, and General Plan policies and strategies and compliance with CMC
Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials, would further reduce impacts related to hazardous materials.
Furthermore, implementation of either scenarios would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, which would not increase due to additional residential development.
The proposed Modified Project and Alternative B would include the same General Plan 2040 policies to
minimize potential adverse impacts on residential projects within an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. Thus, impacts under the Alternative B scenario would be similar to the
proposed Modified Project.
Thus, though there would be more development potential under Alternative B, the location of this
development and the requirement to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards would
result in a similar impact when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-21
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Compliance with
existing State and local regulations and procedures would ensure that pre- and post-construction impacts
to water quality would be less than significant. These regulations and procedures would be maintained
under Alternative B.
Potential future development under both scenarios would occur within previously urbanized areas and
would connect to existing drainage systems already in place. Alternative B involves more development
potential, more ground disturbance and potential change in drainage patterns, and more water use from
groundwater sources. As such, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be greater when compared
to the proposed Modified Project.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
As described in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would result in less-than-significant impacts to land use and planning.
Both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative B would aim to improve connectivity and would not
create physical barriers within existing communities. They would also both support the integration of infill
development, while Alternative B further promotes this by providing additional housing opportunities
along commercial corridors. Therefore, implementation of either development scenario would not conflict
with any applicable land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect and impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
NOISE
As described in Chapter 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would result in less-
than-significant impacts to noise. The Study Area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan, and therefore would have no impact related to airport or aircraft noise.
Under Alternative B, development under the proposed Modified Project would be implemented, with
additional residential sites along commercial corridors. This would result in additional noise from
construction, traffic, and other sources that would increase ambient noise levels. However, both the
proposed Modified Project and Alternative B would be required to comply with CMC Section 10.48,
Community Noise Control, Section 17.04.040(D)(1), Vibration Technical Report Requirements, and Section
17.04.050(G)(1), Noise and Vibration Permit Requirements, as well as federal, State, and local regulations
related to temporary and operational noise.
While there is more development potential under Alterative B and overall temporary noise from more
construction would be greater than under the proposed Modified Project, because as discussed in Section
5.5.2.14, Transportation, VMT would be less under Alternative B when compared to the proposed
Modified Project, overall long-term operational noise impacts under Alternative B would be less when
compared to the proposed Modified Project.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-22 APRIL 2024
POPULATION AND HOUSING
As described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in any significant impacts related to population and housing.
Alternative B would include additional housing opportunity sites beyond what is included in the proposed
Modified Project required to meet the 2023-2031 RHNA. Additionally, Alternative B would include the
updated policy framework of the proposed Modified Project that ensures adequate planning occurs to
accommodate the project growth of the city. Therefore, impacts under Alternative B would be similar
when compared to those under the proposed Modified Project.
PUBLIC SERVICES
As described in Chapter 4.13, Public Services, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not
result in any significant impacts related to fire protection services, police services, parks, schools, and
libraries.
Alternative B would result in more housing and thus more residents in the Study Area. Therefore, the
Alternative B scenario would result in greater demand for the public services provided in the Study Area.
Potential future development under Alternative B would also be required to comply with all existing City
regulations adopted to ensure that development pays its fair share of the cost of delivering services,
providing park space and libraries, while payment of property taxes would ensure that future
development pays its fair share towards schools. Overall, impacts under Alternative B would be greater
than those of the proposed Modified Project.
TRANSPORTATION
As described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not
result in significant impacts related to conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, increasing hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses, or
inadequate emergency access. However, the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact related to an increase in VMT beyond the City’s adopted threshold.
Alternative B would result in more infill housing in PDAs and TPAs and thus an increase in residents in the
Study Area. However, these additional residents would reside along TPAs and PDAs and provide housing
close to walkable or transit-served commercial and office spaces. Like the proposed Modified Project,
Alternative B would not result in significant impacts related to conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation system, increasing hazards due to geometric design features or
incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access. Additionally, future potential development under
both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative B would be required to comply with CMC Section
17,04.040(C), Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Report Requirements, and CMC Section 17.08, Evaluation of
Transportation Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as federal, State, regional,
and local regulations related to transportation.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
PLACEWORKS 5-23
However, Alternative B would result in more residents concentrated along TPA and PDA corridors, and
therefore less VMT compared to the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, overall impacts under
Alternative B would be less when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As described in Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in any significant impacts related to water, wastewater, , stormwater, or energy
infrastructure and services.
Demand and consumption trends generally demonstrate that advances in recycling and solid waste
reduction requirements, water-efficient regulations in building and landscaping, and stricter stormwater
retention requirements, would reduce impacts under both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative
B. Future potential development under both the proposed Modified Project and Alternative B would be
required to comply with federal, State, regional, and local regulations for managing stormwater during
construction and operation of projects, including CMC Section 17.04.050(F), Control Stormwater Runoff
Contamination. However, it is assumed that because Alternative B would result in more overall
development than the proposed Modified Project, there would be greater overall water demand,
wastewater and solid waste generation, and energy use. Thus, impacts under Alternative B would be
greater than those of the proposed Modified Project.
WILDFIRE
As described in Chapter 4.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EA, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
any significant wildfire impacts. Due to compliance with applicable local, regional, and State regulations,
development under both scenarios would not impair the implementation of an emergency response or
emergency evacuation plan or be within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Wildland Urban
Interface Fire Area, nor would either scenario expose people or structures to significant wildfire risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Neither scenario would result in the
installation or maintenance of any infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the
environment. Therefore, potential future development under the Alternative B scenario would have
similar wildfire impacts when compared to the proposed Modified Project.
5.5.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE OBJECTIVES
As listed in Section 5.2, Project Objectives, the primary purposes of the proposed Modified Project are to
plan for the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing in the city between
2023 and 2031. This includes rezoning sites to be consistent with the land use designations, affirmatively
furthering fair housing, incentivizing development of housing to meet all income levels, and promoting a
healthy and sustainable Cupertino that minimizes reliance on natural resources and vehicle use. Because
Alternative B would increase opportunities for residential development within PDA and TPA areas of the
city, this alternative would both support housing for all income, reduce reliance on vehicle use, and
increase housing on previously disturbed sites. Therefore, Alternative B would meet all the project
objectives.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
5-24 APRIL 2024
5.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed Modified Project and the
alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior”
alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally
superior alternative is the alternative to the proposed Modified Project that would be expected to
generate the least number of significant impacts. Identification of the environmentally superior
alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative to the proposed Modified Project selected
may not be the alternative to the proposed Modified Project that best meets the goals or needs of
Cupertino. Because CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires an evaluation of a reasonable range of
alternatives to the proposed Modified Project, the proposed Modified Project under consideration cannot
be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Additionally, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project”
alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives.
As shown in Table 5-2, Alternative B would, in comparison to the proposed project, result in reduced
environmental impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation.
Therefore, as shown in Table 5-2, Alternative B would be the environmentally superior alternative.
PLACEWORKS 6-1
CEQA-Mandated Sections
This chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the proposed Modified Project based on the analyses
presented in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA. The topics covered in this chapter include impacts
found not to be significant, impacts found to be significant and unavoidable, growth-inducing impacts,
and significant irreversible changes to the environment. A detailed analysis of the effects that the
proposed Modified Project would have on the environment, and proposed mitigation measures to
minimize significant impacts, are provided in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA.
6.1 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, Effects Not Found to Be Significant, allows environmental issues for which
there is no likelihood of significant impact to be “scoped out” and not analyzed further in the
environmental analysis. This section explains the reasoning for the determination that the proposed
Modified Project would have no effect within an entire environmental topic or under specific criteria
within an environmental topic. As shown below, there would be no impacts to agriculture, forestry, or
mineral resources as a whole; therefore, these topics are not evaluated in Chapter 4, Environmental
Analysis, of this EA. Furthermore, there would be no impacts to some of the criteria for biological
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. These specific criteria are
identified in the corresponding subsection of this chapter and are not required to be evaluated in
Chapter 4.
6.1.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The proposed Modified Project is within the city of Cupertino, which is an urbanized area with no
agricultural resources. Maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency categorize land within the Study Area as Urban and Built-Up Land.1 There are
no agricultural lands classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) within the Study Area. Potential future development permitted as a result of the proposed
Modified Project would not occur within lands zoned for agricultural use in the Study Area. Therefore,
there would not be a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
According to 2006 mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the City
does not contain any woodland or forestland cover;2 hence, the Study Area does not contain land zoned
1 California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2020,
accessed on January 8, 2024.
2 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover Map,
accessed on January 8, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS
6-2 APRIL 2024
for Timberland Production, nor does the Cupertino Zoning Map identify any areas zoned for Timberland
Production.3 Consequently, there would be no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.
6.1.2 MINERAL RESOURCES
Although Cupertino does have mineral resource zones (MRZ) classified as MRZ-2, which are areas where
adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, and MRZ-3, which are areas
containing mineral deposits for which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data, the Study
Area is largely urbanized. With the exception of the four areas described below, there are no areas in the
Study Area identified for protection or conservation with regard to mineral resources, given those areas
are already developed and/or not considered suitable for conservation.4
There are four mineral resource areas in the general area of Cupertino, including two in unincorporated
lands of Santa Clara County but within Cupertino’s boundary agreement areas, and two are within the city
limit. The Hansen Permanente and Stevens Creek sites have been designated by the State as having
mineral deposits of regional or state significance. However, these two sites are under the jurisdiction of
Santa Clara County, and the proposed Modified Project does not propose future potential development
on these sites.
The two sites in the Study Area that are classified as mineral resource areas for which the State requires
policies supporting preservation and extraction are not within the boundaries of the proposed Modified
Project; therefore, the proposed Modified Project would have no impact on these areas. Regardless, most
of the areas have been developed with residential and other urbanized uses. Consequently, because the
mineral resource areas within the Study Area have been developed and are not considered suitable for
conservation, there would be no impact to mineral resources.
6.1.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impacts to biological resources are evaluated in Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources. The following standards
of significance were determined to have no impact in Chapter 4.3:
Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project, like the Approved Project, would
occur outside the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and would not be within any other
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Additionally, potential future
3 City of Cupertino, 2005 General Plan, Zoning Map, http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=291, accessed on
January 8, 2024.
4 City of Cupertino, General Plan 2040, Chapter 5, Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element, pages ES-9-ES-10.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS
PLACEWORKS 6-3
development under the proposed Modified Project would also occur in urbanized areas without sensitive
natural communities. Thus, no impact would occur under either criterion.
6.1.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts related to geology and soils are evaluated in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils. The following
standard of significance was determined to have no impact in Chapter 4.6:
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project, like the Approved Project, would not
include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would
occur regarding soil capability to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. Thus, no impact would occur under this criterion.
6.1.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials. The following standard of significance was determined to have no impact in Chapter 4.8:
For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or working
in the project area?
The Study Area is not within two miles of a public airport or within any protected airspace zones defined
by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, and there are no private airstrips or heliports
listed by FAA in Cupertino. Thus, no impact would occur under this criterion.
6.1.6 NOISE
Noise-related impacts are evaluated in Chapter 4.11, Noise. The following standard of significance was
determined to have no impact in Chapter 4.11:
For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The Study Area is not within two miles of a public airport or within any protected airspace zones defined
by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, and there are no private airstrips or heliports
listed by FAA in Cupertino. Thus, no impact would occur under this criterion.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS
6-4 APRIL 2024
6.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that “direct and indirect significant effects of the
project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the
short- and long-term effects.” Chapter 2, Executive Summary, of this EA, contains Table 2-1, Summary of
Impacts and Mitigation Measures, which summarizes the significant impacts, mitigation measures, and
levels of significance with and without mitigation. The identification of these program-level impacts do
not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project
level that do not exceed the thresholds of significance. As detailed in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, Chapter 4.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this Draft EA, the following impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable after feasible mitigation measures are applied:
Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would conflict with the growth
assumptions under Plan Bay Area 2040 that are applied to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed Modified Project would therefore conflict with
the air quality emissions forecast in the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Impact AIR-2: Operation of development projects that could occur from implementation of the
proposed Modified Project would generate emissions that would exceed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s regional significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5).
Impact AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed Modified
Project could generate a substantial increase in emissions that exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations and health risk in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would exceed the net zero
greenhouse gas emission threshold under Executive Order B-55-18.
Impact GHG-2: The proposed Modified Project would not meet California Green Building Standards
Code nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle parking standards and would exceed the City of
Cupertino’s vehicle miles traveled reduction threshold, and therefore be inconsistent with the
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan.
Impact GHG-3: The proposed Modified Project would result in vehicle miles traveled that would
exceed the City of Cupertino’s reduction target, and therefore conflict with the California Air
Resources Board Scoping Plan and Executive Order B-55-18.
Impact TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would exceed the adopted
Cupertino vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold per service population of 31.30 VMT by 3.5 VMT per
service population, due to forecasted growth through 2040.
Impact TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would cumulatively contribute to
regional vehicle miles traveled.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS
PLACEWORKS 6-5
6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe the extent to which the proposed
project would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would probably be unable
to reverse. The three CEQA-required categories of irreversible changes are described herein.
6.2.1 CHANGES IN LAND USE THAT COMMIT FUTURE
GENERATIONS
As described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the proposed Modified Project
maintains the land use pattern of General Plan 2040. Potential future development under the proposed
Modified Project would occur in existing urban areas and would be concentrated on a limited number of
parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized,
and/or near existing residential and residential-serving development. However, some potential future
development may occur on vacant non-urban sites that are already designated for development. Once
future development under the proposed Modified Project occurs, it would not be feasible to return the
developed land to its existing (pre-project) condition. Therefore, there is potential that some of the
development allowed under the proposed Modified Project would lead to irreversible changes in land use.
6.2.2 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCIDENTS
Irreversible changes to the physical environment could occur from accidental release of hazardous
materials associated with development activities; however, compliance with the applicable regulations
and General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and programs, as described in Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, irreversible
damage is not expected to result from the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified
Project.
6.2.3 LARGE COMMITMENT OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
Implementation of development under the proposed Modified Project would result in the commitment of
limited, renewable resources, such as lumber and water. In addition, potential future development under
the proposed Modified Project would irretrievably commit nonrenewable resources for the construction
of buildings, infrastructure, and roadway improvements. These nonrenewable resources include mined
minerals, such as sand, gravel, steel, lead, copper, and other metals. Future buildout under the proposed
Modified Project also represents a long-term commitment to the consumption of fossil fuels and gasoline.
Increased energy demands would be used for construction, lighting, heating, and cooling of residences,
and transportation of people within, to, and from the Study Area. However, as shown in Chapter 4.5,
Energy, and in Section 4.15.1, Water , and Section 4.15.4, Solid Waste, of Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this EA, several regulatory measures and General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies
encourage energy and water conservation, alternative energy use, waste reduction, alternatives to
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS
6-6 APRIL 2024
automotive transportation, and green building. Potential future development under the proposed
Modified Project would be required to comply with all applicable building and design requirements,
including those in Title 24, California Buildings Standards Code, relating to energy conservation. In
compliance with CALGreen, the State’s Green Building Standards Code, future potential development
under the proposed Modified Project would be required to reduce water consumption by 20 percent,
divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials.
Additionally, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be fully electric
and include EV charging infrastructure. Therefore, while the construction and operation of potential
future development under the proposed Modified Project would involve the use of nonrenewable
resources, compliance with applicable standards and regulations and implementation of General Plan
2040 goals, policies, and strategies would reduce the use of nonrenewable resources to the maximum
extent practicable; therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not represent a large commitment of
nonrenewable resources in comparison to a business-as-usual situation.
6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describes the ways in which a proposed
project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical growth-inducing factors might be the
extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or under-served
area, or the removal of major barriers to development.
This section evaluates the proposed Modified Project’s potential to create such growth inducements. As
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires, “[it] must not be assumed that growth in an area is
necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” In other words, negative
impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the projected growth would cause
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Growth-inducing impacts fall into two general categories: direct or indirect. Direct growth-inducing
impacts are generally associated with providing urban services to an undeveloped area. Indirect, or
secondary growth-inducing impacts consist of growth induced in the region by additional demands for
housing, goods, and services associated with the population increase caused by, or attracted to, a new
project.
As described in detail in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EA, the General Plan is the policy
document that plans ahead to accommodate the amount of reasonably foreseeable growth given past
growth trends and the ability of existing services and infrastructure to support future growth. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not directly induce growth, but rather is a
response to growth that is likely to occur within with Study Area. Because the General Plan 2040 includes
recommendations for future development and infrastructure, it has the potential to indirectly induce
growth. However, the General Plan itself is the City’s effort to adequately plan for this growth.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS
PLACEWORKS 6-7
Furthermore, this additional growth would likely occur incrementally over a period of approximately 8 to
15 years, and a policy framework is in place to ensure adequate planning occurs to accommodate it
regardless of the development timeline. The proposed Modified Project results in concentrated and infill
development and implements energy and water conservation requirements related to existing and new
development, thereby minimizing consumption of non-renewable resources to the extent practicable.
6.3.1 DIRECT IMPACTS
The proposed Modified Project is a plan-level document and does not propose any specific development;
however, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would induce growth by increasing the
development potential in the Study Area, as shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, in
Chapter 3, Project Description. As shown in Table 3-8, the 2040 forecast of the proposed Modified Project
is approximately 81,037 total population and 29,137 housing units. State law requires the City to promote
the production of housing to meet its fair share of the regional housing needs distribution made by ABAG.
In addition, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in regional benefits by
promoting growth that encourages less automobile dependence, which could have associated air quality
and GHG benefits. Encouraging infill and concentrated growth would help to reduce development
pressures on lands outside the Study Area.
6.3.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS
The proposed Modified Project could be considered growth inducing because it includes policies and
strategies that encourage new growth in the Study Area. Potential future development would be
concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already
developed and/or underutilized, and/or near existing residential and residential-serving development.
However, future potential development and growth would be required to comply with the City’s General
Plan 2040, zoning regulations, and standards for public services and utilities; secondary effects associated
with this growth do not represent a new significant environmental impact that has not already been
addressed in the individual resource chapters of this EA. Additionally, population growth would likely
occur incrementally over a period of approximately 8 to 15 years and would be consistent with the
regional planning objectives established for the Santa Clara County region.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS
6-8 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 7-1
Organizations and Persons Consulted
This Draft EA was prepared by the contributors listed and includes content and information provided by
the lead agency, other agencies, consultants, and other contributors.
7.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Cupertino
Community Development Department
Public Works Department
City Attorney Department
7.2 OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Tribes
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Tamien Nation
Ohlone Indian Tribe
Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
7.3 CONSULTANTS
PlaceWorks: Environmental Prime Consultant
ECORP: Noise
Fehr & Peers: Transportation
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ORGANIZATIONS & PERSONS CONSULTED
7-2 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
www.PlaceWorks.com
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE