Download - K. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY · K. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY Increasing public awareness and general scientific consensus that global climate change

L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . J U N E 2 0 1 3

A P P L E C A M P U S 2 P R O J E C T E I RV . S E T T I N G , I M P A C T S A N D M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S

K . G R E E N H O U S E G A S E M I S S I O N S A N D S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5k-GHG.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 481

K. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Increasing public awareness and general scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring have placed a new focus on CEQA as a potential means to address a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This section begins by providing general background information on climate change and meteorology. It then provides data on the existing global climate change setting, discusses the regulatory framework for global climate change, and evaluates potential GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Modeled project emissions are estimated based on the land use associated with the proposed project, project trip generation, energy use, and other variables. The section then evaluates whether the project could cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change using methods and assumptions outlined in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.1 The information and analysis provided in this section rely primarily on the Climate Action Team 2006 Final Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, various California Air Resources Board (ARB) staff reports, and extensive documentation provided by Apple on the energy-related characteristics of the proposed project. Closely related to global climate change is the issue of sustainability, which relates to the long-term use of resources. Sustainable development guidelines have been adopted by cities, counties, and State agencies throughout California. This section also includes a discussion on concepts of sustainability and their relation to the proposed project. 1. Global Climate Change Setting

The following discussion provides an overview of global climate change, its causes, its potential effects, emission sources, and inventories. a. Global Climate Change Background. A description of global climate change and its sources is provided below.

(1) Global Climate Change. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. Global surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C (1.1 °F ± 0.4°F) between 1906 and 2005. The rate of warming over the last 50 years of this period is almost double that over the last 100 years.2 The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other GHGs are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. GHGs are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities, and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.3

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 3 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Just as the glass in

a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe. Thus, although an excess of GHG results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature.





GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4)

Nitrous oxide (N2O)

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhanc-ing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally-occurring gases such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmos-phere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e). Table V.K-1 shows the GWPs for each type of GHG. For example, SF6 is 22,800 times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO2. The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six GHGs. Table V.K-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases

Gas Atmospheric Lifetime

(Years) Global Warming Potential (100-Year Time Horizon)

Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 25 Nitrous Oxide 114 298 HFC-23 270 14,800 HFC-134a 14 1,430 HFC-152a 1.4 124 PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800

Source: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.





Carbon Dioxide. In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form, as CO2. Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals and plants, volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter, and evaporation from the oceans. Human-caused sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral produc-tion, and deforestation. Natural sources release approximately 150 billion tons of CO2 each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tons of man-made emissions of CO2 each year. Natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO2 and consequently the gas is building up in the atmosphere.

Methane. CH4 is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Decomposition occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH4 emissions in California and in the United States as a whole. Agricultural processes such as intestinal fermentation, manure management, and rice cultiva-tion are also significant sources of CH4 in California. CH4 accounted for approximately 6 percent of gross climate change emissions (CO2e) in California in 2002. Total annual emissions of CH4 are approximately 500 million tons, with manmade emissions account-ing for the majority. As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric CH4 – a chemical break-down in the atmosphere – cannot keep pace with source emissions, and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.

Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. N2O is a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. N2O emissions accounted for nearly 7 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO2e) in California in 2002.

Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride. HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol.4 PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufac-turing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry leads to greater use of PFCs. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO2e) in California in 2002.

(2) Impacts of Climate Change. The potential impacts of global climate change are described in the following section.

4 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that became effective on January 1, 1989, and was intended to

protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.





Temperature Increase. State-of-the art climate models indicate that temperatures in California may be expected to rise 3°F to 10.5°F by the end of the century.5 Because GHGs persist for a long time in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere cannot be tied to a specific point of emission. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipi-tation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:

Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;

Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation and reduction in sunlight from the addition of GHGs and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and

Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., from deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global temperature. The impact of human activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the observational record. For example, surface temperature data show that 11 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record for global surface temperature.6 Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which would induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include, but are not limited to:

The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack, resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;

Rise in the global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice caps in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;

Changes in weather that include widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and tropical cyclones;

Decline of the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for a significant amount of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;

Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depend-ing on the future temperature scenario) in high-ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century; and

High potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Delta and levee systems due to the rise in sea level.

5 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July. 6 California, State of, 2009. California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program. The Future

is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. September.





Precipitation and Water Supply. Global average precipitation is expected to increase overall during the 21st century as the result of climate change, but will vary in different parts of the world. However, global climate models are generally not well suited for predicting regional changes in precipitation because of the scale of regionally important factors, such as the proximity of mountain ranges that affect precipitation.7 Most of California’s precipitation falls in the northern part of the State during the winter. A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers, as the greatest demand for water comes from users in the southern part of the State during the spring and summer.8 The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent over the next 100 years. The extent to which various meteorological conditions will affect groundwater supply is unknown. Warmer temperatures could increase the period when water is on the ground by reducing soil freeze. However, warmer temperatures could also lead to higher evaporation or shorter rainfall seasons, shortening the recharge season. Warmer winters could increase the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge. However, the additional runoff would occur at a time when some basins, particularly in Northern California, are being recharged at their maximum capacity. Where precipitation is projected to increase in California, the increases are focused in Northern California. However, various California climate models provide mixed results regarding changes in total annual precipitation in the State through the end of this century; therefore, no conclusion on an increase or decrease can be made. Considerable uncertainties about the precise effects of climate change on California hydrology and water resources will remain until there is more precise and consistent information about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change.9 The Los Altos District (LAD) of the California Water Service supplies water to the project site. LAD received 32 percent of its water from wells. The other 68 percent is purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).10 Local reservoirs, the South Bay Aqueduct, and the San Felipe Central Valley Project supply water to the SCVWD. In addition, the SCVWD receives water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).11 The Sierra Nevada snowpack, including the Hetch Hetchy watershed, provides the majority of the SFPUC’s total water needs. The SFPUC is a member of the Water Utilities Climate Alliance, which is a coalition of water utilities that is improving climate change research and developing strategies for adapting to climate change impacts on water supply.12

7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, op. cit. 8 California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit. 9 California, State of, 2006. Department of Water Resources, Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into

Management of California’s Water Resources. July. 10 California Water Service Company, 2011. Los Altos District. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. 11 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 12 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2009. Water Utilities Climate Alliance. Website: www.wucaonline.org/.





Sea Level Rise. Rising sea level is one of the major areas of concern related to global climate change. Two of the primary causes for a sea level rise are the thermal expansion of ocean waters (water expanding as it heats up) and the addition of water to ocean basins by the melting of land-based ice. From 1961 to 2003, the global average sea level rose at an average rate of 0.07 inches per year, and at an accelerated average rate of about 0.12 inches per year during the last decade of this period (1993 to 2003).13 Over the past 100 years, sea levels along California’s coasts and estuaries have risen about 7 inches.14 Sea levels could rise an additional 55 inches by the end of the century as global climate change continues.15 Although these projections are on a global scale, the rate of sea level rise along Califor-nia’s coast is relatively consistent with the worldwide average rate observed over the past century. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that changes in worldwide sea level rise will also be experienced along California’s coast.16 Sea level rise of this magnitude would increasingly threaten California’s coastal regions with more intense coastal storms, accelerated coastal erosion, threats to vital levees, and disruption of inland water systems, wetlands, and natural habitats. Residents may also be affected if wastewater treatment is compromised by inundation from rising sea levels, given that a number of treatment plants discharge to the Bay.

Water Quality. Water quality depends on a wide range of variables such as water temperature, flow, runoff rates and timing, waste discharge loads, and the ability of watersheds to assimilate wastes and pollutants. Climate change could alter water quality in a variety of ways, including through higher winter flows that reduce pollutant concentrations (through dilution) or increase erosion of land surfaces and stream channels, leading to higher sediment, chemical, and nutrient loads in rivers. Water temperature increases and decreased water flows can result in increasing concentrations of pollutants and salinity. Increases in water temperature alone can lead to adverse changes in water quality, even in the absence of changes in precipitation.

Public Health. Global climate change is also anticipated to result in more extreme heat events.17 These extreme heat events increase the risk of death from dehydration, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress, especially with people who are ill, children, the elderly, and the poor, who may lack access to air conditioning and medical assistance. According to the California Climate Change Center, more research is needed to understand the effects of higher temperatures and how adapting to these temperatures can minimize health effects.18

13 California, State of, 2009. California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program. The Future

is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. September. 14 Ibid. 15 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), 2013. San Francisco Bay Scenarios for

Sea Level Rise Index Map http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/index_map.shtml 16 California, State of, 2006. Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into

Management of California’s Water Resources. July. 17 California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit. 18 Ibid.





(3) Emissions Inventories. An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary human-generated sources and sinks of GHGs is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on global, United States, California, and local GHG emission inventories.

Global Emissions. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 27 billion metric tons of CO2e per year.19 Global estimates are based on country inventories developed as part of programs of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

U.S. Emissions. In 2010, the United States emitted about 1,633.2 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e, with each individual at home releasing approximately 4 metric tons per year. Of the four major sectors nationwide – residential, commercial, industrial and transportation – transportation accounts for the highest amount of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2009, total U.S. GHG emissions rose by 7.3 percent, but emissions decreased from 2008 to 2009 by 6.1 percent. This decrease was primarily due to: (1) a decrease in economic output resulting in a decrease in energy consumption across all sectors; and (2) a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels used to generate electricity due to fuel switching as the price of coal increased, and the price of natural gas dropped sharply. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent.20

State of California Emissions. According to ARB emission inventory estimates, California’s gross emissions of GHGs decreased 1.5 percent, from 463.6 MMT21 of CO2e emissions in 2000 to 456.8 million in 2009, with a maximum of 488.8 million in 2007.22 During the same period, California’s population grew by 9.1 percent, from 33.9 to 37.2 million people and GHG emissions per person decreased from 13.7 to 12.4 metric tons of CO2e. The year 2009 saw a 5.8 percent decrease in Statewide GHG emissions, driven by a noticeable drop in on-road transportation, cement production, and electricity. The year 2009 also reflects the full effects of the economic recession and higher fuel prices. As the economy recovers, GHG emissions are likely to rise again without other mitigation actions. California has the fourth lowest per-capita CO2 emission rate from fossil fuel combustion in the country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments

19 Combined total of Annex I and Non-Annex I Country CO2e emissions. United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change, 2007. GHG Inventory Data. Websites: unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/ items/3814.php and maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02.pdf.

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. The U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. Website: www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

21 A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons. 22 California Air Resources Board, 2011. Trends in California GHG Emissions for 2000 to 2009 by Category as

Defined in the Scoping Plan. December. Websites: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-09_trends.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_trends_00-08_2010-05-12.pdf (accessed November 2011).





that have lowered the State’s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise.23 ARB is responsible for developing the California GHG Emission Inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the State and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program, discussed below. ARB’s current GHG emission inventory for the years 2000 to 2009 (using categories established by ARB) is shown in Figure V.K-1. The emission inventory estimates are based on the actual amount of all fuels combusted in the State, which accounts for over 85 percent of the GHG emissions within California. Figure V.K-1: California GHG Emissions by Sector (2000-2009 Average)

Electric Power 23%

Commercial and Residential 9%

Industrial18%

Recycling and Waste1.5%

High GWP 3.5%

Agriculture 7%

Transportation 38%

Note: The High GWP sector encompasses miscellaneous sources.

Source: ARB, 2011. Trends in California GHG Emissions for 2000 to 2009 – by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan. December. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-08_2010-05-12.pdf.

Bay Area Emissions Inventory. The BAAQMD has also prepared an inventory of GHG emissions for the Bay Area. The latest version of the inventory, updated in 2010, provides informa-tion on 2007 emissions.24 Transportation and industrial/commercial uses are the largest sources of

23 California Energy Commission, 2007. Inventory of California GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 - Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA. December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report.

24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Source Inventory of Bay Area GHG Emissions. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx. February





GHG emissions, each contributing 36.4 percent of the region’s total CO2e emissions in the year 2007. The estimated GHG emissions for the year 2007 for the nine Bay Area counties totaled 95.8 MMT of CO2e. The Bay Area GHG emissions by sector for the year 2007 are shown in Figure V.K-2. Figure V.K-2: Bay Area GHG Emissions by Sector (2007)

Off-Road Equipment3%

Industrial / Commercial37%

Agricultural / Farming1%

Transportation36%

Electricity / Co-Generation16%

Residential Fuel Usage7%

Source: BAAQMD, 2010. Source Inventory of Bay Area GHG Emissions. February. b. Regulatory Framework. The regulatory framework and governmental activities addressing GHG emissions and global climate change are discussed in this section. Although GHG emissions are being addressed on an international level, federal, State, regional, and local activities are most applicable to the proposed project and are discussed below.

(1) Federal Regulations. The United States has historically had a voluntary approach to reducing GHG emissions. However, on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled [549 U.S. 497 (2007)] that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). While there currently are no adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of GHG emissions, the U.S. EPA commenced several actions in 2009 to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change, including the ones described below. On September 22, 2009, the U.S. EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emission sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide the U.S. EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This publicly-available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost-effective oppor-tunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs, along with vehicle and engine manufacturers, will





report at the corporate level. An estimated 85 percent of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this rule. On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed a final action under the CAA, finding that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles contribute to global climate change. This U.S. EPA action does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, the findings are a prerequisite to finalizing the GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles mentioned below. The U.S. EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, U.S. EPA denied these petitions. On April 1, 2010, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a final joint rule to establish a national program consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce GHG emis-sions and improve fuel economy. U.S. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The U.S. EPA GHG standards require light-duty vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon. In December 2010, the U.S. EPA issued its plan for establishing GHG pollution standards under the CAA in 2011. The agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries – two of the largest industrial sources, represent-ing nearly 40 percent of the GHG pollution in the United States.25 On August 9, 2011, U.S. EPA and the NHTSA announced the first-ever standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. The final combined standards of the Heavy-Duty National Program will reduce CO2 emissions by about 270 MMT and save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles built for the 2014 to 2018 model years. The heavy duty sector addressed in the U.S. EPA and NHTSA rules (including the largest pickup trucks and vans, semi-trucks, and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses in between) accounts for nearly 6 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions and 20 percent of transportation emissions. In addition, air quality will continue to improve as less fuel use leads to reduced ozone and particulate matter.

(2) State Regulations. The ARB is typically the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. There are many regulations and statutes in California that address, both directly and indirectly, greenhouse gas emissions, such as renewable portfolio standards (SB 1078, SB 107, SB 2(1X)) and energy efficiency standards (Title 24, Cal. Code Regs.). Key State regulatory activities specifically addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are discussed below.

25 U.S. EPA, 2010. Press Release. December 23.





Assembly Bill 1493 (2002). In a response to the transportation sector’s significant contribution to California’s CO2 emissions, AB 1493 (Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires the ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. These standards (starting in model years 2009 to 2016) were approved by the ARB in 2004, but the needed waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption was not granted by the U.S. EPA until June 30, 2009. The ARB responded by amending its original regulation, now referred to as Low Emission Vehicle III GHG, to take effect for model years starting in 2017 to 202526.

Executive Order S-3-05 (2005). Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05 on June 1, 2005, which proclaimed that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. To combat those concerns, the executive order established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets, which established the following goals:

GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010;

GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and

GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is required to coordinate efforts of various State agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. A biannual progress report must be submitted to the Governor and State Legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and report possible mitigation and adaptation plans to address these impacts.

Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act. California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is AB 32, passed by the State legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The ARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT CO2e. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 requires the ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11, 2008, and contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve the reduction of approximately 169 MMT of CO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 596 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent from 2002-2004 average emissions). The Scoping Plan also includes ARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards:

Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e);

The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);

26 California Air Resources Board, 2010. California Clean Car Standards – Pavely, Assembly Bill 1493. Website:

arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm (accessed November 2011).





Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e); and

A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e). The Scoping Plan identifies 18 emission reduction measures that address cap-and-trade programs, vehicle gas standards, energy efficiency, low carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, regional trans-portation-related GHG targets, vehicle efficiency measures, goods movement, solar roof programs, industrial emissions, high speed rail, green building strategies, recycling, sustainable forests, water, and air. The measures would result in a total reduction of 174 MMT CO2e by 2020. On August 24, 2011, the ARB unanimously approved both ARB’s new supplemental assessment and re-approved its Scoping Plan, which provides the overall roadmap and rule measures to carry out AB 32. The ARB also approved a more robust CEQA equivalent document supporting the supplemental analysis of the cap-and-trade program. ARB also announced that it would be delaying the date that entities would be required to comply with its cap-and-trade program until 2013. ARB has not yet determined what amount of GHG reductions it recommends from local government operations and local land use decisions; however, the Scoping Plan states that land use planning and urban growth decisions will play an important role in the State’s GHG reductions because local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how land is developed to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions (meanwhile, ARB is also developing an additional protocol for community emissions). ARB further acknowledges that decisions on how land is used will have large impacts on the GHG emissions that will result from the transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and natural gas emission sectors. The Scoping Plan states that the ultimate GHG reduction assignment to local government operations is to be determined. With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects an approximately 5.0 MMT CO2e reduction due to implementation of SB 375. In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed the ARB and the newly created Climate Action Team (CAT) to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that could be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. On January 18, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-1-07, further solidifying California’s dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Executive Order sets a target to reduce the carbon intensity of California transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 and directs the ARB to consider the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a discrete early action measure. In 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O’Neil issued an injunction preventing implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, ruling that it is unconstitutional. In 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stayed the District Court’s injunction, allowing implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard while the appeal is pending. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued its decision. In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on GWP Refrigerants, and Landfill CH4

Capture).27 Discrete early action measures are measures that were required to be adopted as regula-

27 California Air Resources Board, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October.





tions and made effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5. The ARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures. These measures relate to truck efficiency, port electrification, reduction of PFCs from the semiconductor industry, reduction of propellants in consumer products, proper tire inflation, and SF6 reductions from the non-electricity sector. The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce State-wide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT.28

Senate Bill 1368 (2006). SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32 and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September 2006. SB 1368 requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to establish a GHG emission performance standard for baseload generation from investor- owned utilities and local publicly-owned utilities These standards cannot exceed the GHG emission rate from a baseload combined-cycle natural gas fired plant. The legislation further requires that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet the standards set by the PUC.

Executive Order S-1-07 (2007). Executive Order S-1-07 indicates that the transportation sector accounts for over 40 percent of Statewide GHG emissions and establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by a minimum of 10 percent by 2020.

Senate Bill 97 (2007). SB 97, signed by the Governor in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; Public Resources Code, Sections 21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directed the OPR to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Resources Agency guidelines for mitigating GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines in January 2010, which went into effect in March 2010. The amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitiga-tion measures. The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis, but preserve the discretion granted by CEQA to lead agencies in making their own determinations based on substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs when they perform individual project analyses.

Senate Bill 375 (2008). Signed into law on October 1, 2008, SB 375 supplements GHG reduc-tions from new vehicle technology and fuel standards with reductions from more efficient land use patterns and improved transportation. Under the law, the ARB approved GHG reduction targets in February 2011 for California’s 18 federally designated regional planning bodies, known as Metropoli-tan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The ARB may update the targets every 4 years and must update them every 8 years. MPOs in turn must demonstrate how their plans, policies and transportation investments meet the targets set by the ARB through Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). The SCS are included with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a report required by State law. How-

28 California Air Resources Board, 2007. “ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32”

News Release 07-46. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr102507.htm. October 25.





ever, if an MPO finds that their SCS will not meet the GHG reduction target, they may prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS). The APS identifies the impediments to achieving the targets.

Executive Order S-13-08 (2008). Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-13-08 on November 14, 2008, which directs California to develop methods for adapting to climate change through preparation of a Statewide plan. The executive order directed OPR, in cooperation with the California Resources Agency (CRA), to provide land use planning guidance related to sea level rise and other climate change impacts by May 30, 2009.

Assembly Bill 900 (2011). Signed into law in 2011, AB 900 allows projects that meet certain criteria to be designated “Environmental Leadership Development Projects.” Projects certified as such must still undergo the normal review required under CEQA, but in the event of litigation, covered projects are subject to a streamlined litigation process.29 One of the criteria under AB 900 requires that the ARB must find that the project would “not result in any net additional emissions of greenhouse gases, including greenhouse gas emissions from employee transportation.” Apple submitted an application under AB 900 to the Governor’s Office on April 19, 2012. ARB conducted its own independent review of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and on June 14, 2012 issued Executive Order LP-12-002 determining that the project would not result in any net additional greenhouse gas emissions. ARB’s analysis was conducted independently from the CEQA process, using different methodologies. For example, when assessing whether the project meets the AB 900 standard of producing “no net additional” GHG emissions, the ARB used a different, “Full Occupancy” baseline than the August 2011 conditions baseline used in this EIR. Apple submitted a supplement to its application on April 3, 2013. ARB reviewed this supplement and, in a letter dated April 29, 2013, the Executive Officer confirmed that ARB’s determination that the project would not result in any net additional greenhouse gas emissions remains valid.

(3) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through the following plans, programs, and guidelines.

Clean Air Plans. BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with the State and federal Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health through implementation of a control strategy designed to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants. The most recent CAP also includes measures designed to reduce GHG emissions.

BAAQMD Climate Protection Program. The BAAQMD established a climate protection program to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The climate protection program includes measures that promote

29 On April 23, 2012, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior

Court challenging the constitutionality of parts of California Public Resources Code Section 21185. That section, enacted under AB 900, requires in part that any challenges to the land use approvals of an AB 900 certified leadership project under CEQA must be initiated in the California Court of Appeal. On April 9, 2013, the Hon. Frank Roesch, judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, issued a Statement of Decision determining that the jurisdictional restriction in Public Resources Code Section 21185(a)(1) is unconstitutional. As of May 23, 2013 that litigation was pending.





energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy, all of which assist in reducing emissions of GHG and in reducing air pollutants that affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 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 recom-mended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. The guidelines also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines30 were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. In May of 2012, the BAAQMD filed an appeal of the court’s decision, the results of which are pending. In view of the court’s order, the BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the thresholds of significance from the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines be used as a generally applicable measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts.31 Following the court order, the BAAQMD released revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in May of 2012 that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance thresholds. The BAAQMD recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA Guidelines adopted in 1999.32 However, the 1999 CEQA Guidelines do not contain a threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. Under the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a local government may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goals. If a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and General Plan that addresses the project’s GHG emissions, it can be presumed that the project will not have significant GHG emissions under CEQA.33 The 2011

30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2013. Website: baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-

Research/CEQA-Guidelines.aspx 32 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts

of Projects and Plans. December 33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.





Guidelines also included a quantitative threshold for project level analyses based on estimated GHG emissions as well as per capita metrics.

(4) Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the federally recognized MPO for the nine county Bay Area, which includes Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino. In 2009, MTC adopted its current RTP, Transportation 2035: Change in Motion, before the ARB adopted GHG reduction targets in 2011. Thus, there is not an applicable SCS for the City and project. Plan Bay Area is a collaboration between MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). In March 2011, Plan Bay Area released its Initial Vision Scenario, which presents a first draft of targeted growth areas and regional projections. Based on the Initial Vision Scenario, Plan Bay Area adopted a preferred SCS scenario. On March 22, 2013 the Draft Plan Bay Area was released and the Plan Bay Area EIR was released on April 2, 2013 for public review and comment.34 These documents are expected to be certified and adopted in the summer of 2013.

(5) Joint Venture: Silicon Valley. The City of Cupertino is a member of the Joint Venture: Silicon Valley (JVSV), a not-for-profit corporation whose mission is to bring people together from business, government, education, and the community to act on regional issues affecting economic vitality and quality of life. JVSV’s covers all of Santa Clara County and portions of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Alameda counties. The organization is governed by a board of business, government, education, and community leaders.35 In May 2007, JVSV formed a Public Sector Climate Task Force with the goal of reducing GHG emissions from public agency operations through regional goals and coordinated emission reduction efforts.

(6) City of Cupertino General Plan. The City of Cupertino addresses global climate change and GHG emissions through its General Plan, primarily the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.36 The following plan goals, policies and strategies would be expected to reduce GHG emissions over the long-term in the City. Policy 5-1: Principles of Sustainability

Incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning and development system. Strategies

4. Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Plan. Prepare and implement a comprehensive sustainability energy plan as a part of the City’s General Plan. This plan will specifically include recommendations regarding:

a. Reduction of energy consumption.

b. Reduction of fossil fuels.

c. Use of renewable energy resources whenever possible.

34 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, 2013. Website:

onebayarea.org. 35 Joint Venture: Silicon Valley, 1998. The Joint Venture Way: Lessons for Regional Rejuvenation, Vol. 1 & 2. 36 Cupertino, City of, 2005. Cupertino General Plan. November.





d. Improve City-wide water usage and conservancy.

e. Reduce water consumption by the City.

f. Promote residential and business water reduction. Policy 5-2: 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. Strategies

1. Alternate Energy Sources. Encourage the use of solar energy and other alternate, renewable energy resources for all new and significantly renovated private and public buildings. Ensure that all homes have an acceptable balance of access to the sun and protection from it. Promote new technologies, such as waterless water heaters to effect this change.

2. Comprehensive Energy Management Plan. Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy manage-ment plan for all applicable public facilities, equipment and procurement and construction practices.

3. Consistency with State and Federal Regulations. Review and evaluate applicable City codes, ordi-nances, and procedures for inclusion of local, state and federal policies and standards that promote the conservation and efficient use of energy and for consistency with the goal of sustainability. Change those that will promote energy efficiency without a punitive effect.

5. Incentive Program. Implement an incentive program to include such items as reduced permit fees for building projects that exceed Title 24 requirements. Promote other incentives from the State, County and Federal Governments for improving energy efficiency by posting information regarding incentive, rebate and tax credit programs on the City’s web site.

6. Solar Access Standards. Ensure compliance with the State of California Subdivision Map Act solar access standards in order to maximize natural heating and cooling opportunities for future residences. Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees and landscaping for energy efficiency.

7. Energy Cogeneration Systems. Encourage the use of energy cogeneration systems through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users and public facilities.

8. Regulation of Building Design. Ensure designers, developers, applicants and builders meet California Title 24 Energy Efficient Building Standards and encourage architects, building designers and contractors to exceed “Title 24” requirements for new projects through the provision of incentives. Encourage either passive solar heating and/or dark plaster interior with a cover for swimming pools, cabanas and other related accessory uses where solar access is available. Encourage the use of alternative renewable sources where feasible, and develop energy audits or subvention programs.

9. Use of Discretionary Development Permits (Use Permits). Require, as conditions of approval for new and renovated projects, the provision of energy conservation/efficiency applications.

10. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Encourage alternative, energy efficient transportation modes such as “clean” multi-modal public transit, car and vanpooling, flexible work hours, and pedestrian and bicycle paths.

Policy 5-3: Green Building Design

Set standards for the design and construction of energy and resource conserving/efficient building (Green Building Design).





Strategies

1. “Green Building” Program. Prepare and implement “Green Building” standards for all major private and public projects that ensure reduction in energy consumption for new development through site and building design.

2. Building Energy Audits. Participate in and encourage building energy audits, where feasible, for commercial, industrial and city facilities and convey to the business and industrial communities that energy conservation/efficiency is, in the long term, economically beneficial.

Policy 5-6: Walking, Jogging and Bicycling

Encourage walking, jogging and bicycling instead of driving in the City. Policy 5-28: Interagency Coordination

Actively pursue interagency coordination for regional water supply problem solving. Policy 5-29: Coordination of Local Conservation Policies with Region-wide Conservation Policies

Coordinate city-wide water conservation efforts with the Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts being conducted on a regional scale. Many of these conservation efforts are outlined in the Santa Clara Valley Water District Drought Plan and Countywide Water Use Reduction program. Policy 5-31: Water Use Efficiency

Promote efficient use of water throughout the City. Strategies

1. Landscaping Plans. Require water-efficient landscaping plans that incorporate the usage of recycled water for landscape irrigation as part of the development review process.

Policy 5-38: Commercial/Industrial Recycling

Expand existing commercial and industrial recycling programs to meet and surpass AB 939 waste stream reduction goals. Policy 5-40: On-site Garbage Area Dedication

Modify existing, and require for new developments, on-site waste facility requirements for all multi-family residential, commercial and industrial land uses to have 50 percent of their garbage area dedicated to recycling and no more than 50 percent garbage. Policy 5-44: Reuse of Building Materials

Encourage the recycling and reuse of building materials, including recycling materials generated by the demolition and remodeling of buildings. Strategies

1. Post Demolition and Remodeling Projects. Encourage contractors to post demolition and remodeling projects on the Internet announcing the availability of potential reusable materials.





2. Sustainability Setting

The following discussion summarizes concepts of sustainability from three sources: 1) the City of Cupertino General Plan (which is also described above); 2) the North Vallco Master Plan; and 3) the American Planning Association Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. a. City of Cupertino General Plan. The General Plan notes that sustainable planning “integrates and balances environmental decisions with economic considerations and recognizes the symbiotic relationship between the natural environment, the community and the economy.”37 Sustainability-related policies from the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element are listed above, under the Global Climate Change Setting. The Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element seeks to incorporate the principles of sustain-ability into Cupertino’s planning and development system, and implementation strategies in the element are based on the following fundamental principles:

Linking: the linking of Resource Management and Economic Determinations when evaluating development projects;

Conservation/efficiency: the protection, intelligent use and reuse of renewable and nonrenewable resources;

Reduction of waste: reuse, recycling and use reduction;

Resource management: for the benefit of future generations;

Prevention/mitigation of significant environmental impacts;

Restoration of impacted environmental resources;

Innovation in building technologies, including the substitution of materials;

Community participation: the comprehensive involvement of City government, city residents and the private sector; and

Education: preparation and dissemination of educational materials. b. North Vallco Master Plan. The North Vallco Master Plan contains development guidelines encompassing an approximately 240-acre district surrounding the project site (refer to Chapter IV, Planning Policy, for additional detail). The Master Plan, which has not been adopted by the City Council and has no legal force or effect, is discussed here for informational purposes. The following principles of the North Vallco Master Plan are based on sustainability concepts:

Walkability/Connectivity: Consistent with company security requirements, plan new development patterns and amenities to facilitate walkability and convenient connections in the study areas and adjacent areas.

Sustainability: New development should be encouraged to comprehensively utilize the knowledge and technology available throughout the planning, design, and construction process to help achieve sustainability through energy efficiency and resource conservation.

37 Cupertino, City of, 2005. Cupertino General Plan, Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element. November.





Efficient Land Utilization: Developable land is a rapidly diminishing resource in Silicon Valley and new development in the study area should use the land efficiently and wisely.

Minimization of Traffic Impacts: As change occurs, organize new development to minimize congestion in this part of the City. Plan short-term development in a forward-looking matter, e.g., in a way that improves the integration of land use, development form and transportation infrastructure.

c. American Planning Association Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. The Ameri-can Planning Association (APA) is the primary professional organization for those in the fields of metropolitan and regional development, community development, urban design, and environmental planning. The APA has defined sustainability as being “prepared for possible future outcomes; antici-pating and adapting to change.”38 The APA’s Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability39 is a comprehensive policy-oriented approach to sustainable development and was adopted by the APA Board of Directors in 2000. The APA Policy Guide links global un-sustainability indicators (e.g., global warming, declining fisheries, soil degradation, species extinction, and economic inequity) and un-sustainability indicators in the United States (e.g., suburban sprawl, segregation, loss of agricul-tural land and open space, traffic congestion, and loss of wetlands and degradation of water resources) to general policy objectives intended to promote sustainability. The intent of the APA Policy Guide is that the following general objectives be used to create and implement sustainability policies in a diversity of planning environments:

Reduce dependence on fossil fuels, extracted underground metals and minerals.

Reduce dependence on chemicals and other manufactured substances that can accumulate in nature.

Reduce dependence on activities that harm life-sustaining ecosystems.

Meet the hierarchy of present and future human needs fairly and efficiently. The APA Policy Guide identifies the following specific policy positions:

1. Encourage alternatives to the use of gas-powered vehicles through public transit, alterna-tively-fueled vehicles, and bicycle and pedestrian-oriented design.

2. Encourage all types of development to use alternative energy sources and meaningful energy conservation measures.

3. Encourage development, agriculture, and other land uses that minimize the use of extracted underground minerals.

4. Encourage development and businesses to reduce the use of chemicals and synthetic compounds.

38 American Planning Association, 2010. Policy Guide on Surface Transportation. Website: www.planning.org/

policy/guides/adopted/surfacetransportation.htm (accessed April 18, 2012). April. 39 American Planning Association, 2000. Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. Website: www.planning.org/

policy/guides/adopted/sustainability.htm (accessed April 18, 2012).





5. Encourage methods of landscape design, landscape and park maintenance, and agriculture that eliminate use of synthetic fertilizers and pest control and encourage the use of compost and water conservation.

6. Support compact and mixed-use development that minimizes the need to drive, and the reclamation of brownfield sites.

7. Conserve undeveloped land, open space, and agricultural land; consciously restore ecosys-tems and avoid disruptions to natural ecosystems and floodplains.

8. Encourage forms of development, business, and agriculture that reduce the use of water and employ innovative wastewater treatment.

9. Equitably protect public health, safety, and welfare.

10. Encourage businesses, communities, institutions, and development that pursue reduction and re-use of by-products and waste.

11. Encourage participatory and partnership approaches to planning that involve the local community.

12. Support partnerships and initiatives with other organizations that: support development of technologies that promote sustainability; and provide the best available data for making informed decisions about development.

13. Support policies, programs, and legislation that improve sustainability. 3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This section evaluates significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to GHG emissions that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The consistency of the project with general sustainability principles is also discussed. a. Criteria of Significance. Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, or to rely on a quantitative analysis or perform-ance-based standards. In making a significance determination, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. An individual development project typically does not generate a sufficiently large quantity of GHG emissions to affect global climate change; therefore, the global climate change impacts of the proposed project are discussed in the context of cumulative impacts, which is the approach in the BAAQMD Guidelines. This section begins by establishing the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section identifies GHG emissions associated with existing operations on the project site and evaluates the GHG emissions expected to result from the project.





The BAAQMD adopted GHG thresholds of significance in its May 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guide-lines but has since set them aside in light of a March 2012 Alameda Superior Court order. The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds for construction GHG emissions but recommends quantifica-tion and disclosure of these emissions. Local agencies are encouraged to adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions. This EIR analyzes whether the project’s GHG emissions would be cumulatively significant. The BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines thresholds of significance for operational-related GHG emissions for land use development projects40 are:

Compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy (an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases); or

Annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e; or

4.6 metric tons CO2e per service population (residents + employees) per year. These significance thresholds were adopted as part of the May 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. As noted, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that they be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. The BAAQMD also recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended Thresholds of Signifi-cance contained in its CEQA Guidelines adopted in 1999.41 However, the 1999 CEQA Guidelines do not contain a threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. The court’s invalidation of BAAQMD’s thresholds presents uncertainty for current project applicants and local agencies regarding proper evaluation of air quality and GHG emissions in CEQA documents. Although reliance on the thresholds is no longer required, local agencies still have a duty to evaluate impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions. In addition, CEQA grants local agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresholds previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.42 Accordingly, the City of Cupertino has not adopted its own GHG emission thresholds and is using the BAAQMD’s thresholds to evaluate project impacts in order to evaluate the potential effects of the project on global climate change. The City believes that these protective thresholds are appropriate in the context of the size, scale, and location of the project. The BAAQMD’s approach to developing a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions was to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation and policy adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, if a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Alameda County Superior Court did not address the science behind the thresholds or the merit of the thresholds. Therefore, the City of Cupertino finds that, despite the court ruling, the

40 These include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. 41 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts

of Projects and Plans. December. 42 Public Resources Code Section 21082; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15064.7, 15064.4 (addressing GHG impacts);

see also Citizens for Responsible and Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327 (upholding city’s GHG emissions threshold based on AB 32 compliance).





science and reasoning contained in the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available. For that reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the thresholds in the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The project would result in significant adverse impacts on global climate change if it would:

Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, defined as:

○ Resulting in operational-related GHG emissions that exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2e a year, and

○ Resulting in operational-related GHG emissions that exceed 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per capita service population (employees) per year; or

Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts as identified below.

(1) Construction Activities. The project would result in the demolition of all structures within the project site (consisting of approximately 2,657,000 square feet of building space) and the ultimate construction of 3,420,000 square feet of office, research, and development uses; 245,000 square feet of auditorium, fitness center, and Valet Parking Reception uses; 92,000 square feet of utility plants; and parking and ancillary buildings (such as security receptions and landscape mainte-nance buildings). Of the 3,420,000 square feet of new occupied office and research and development space, 2,820,000 square feet of building space would be developed as part of Phase 1 and the remain-ing 600,000 square feet of building space would be constructed at various locations along North Tantau Avenue at a future date as part of Phase 2. The project would require approximately 1,690,000 cubic yards of excavation (net) and 1,620,000 cubic yards of fill (net) for Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined.43 Phase 1 would result in a balanced site and Phase 2 would require approximately 150,000 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. Phase 1 would require approximately 45,000 cubic yards of top soil import and Phase 2 would require an import of 5,000 cubic yards, for a total top soil import of 50,000 cubic yards. Thus trucks would export/import a total of 200,000 cubic yards of soil during the duration of the project. Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels would create GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 would be emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment.

43 “Net” indicates the final change in proposed excavation and fill after all excavation and fill has been accounted

for.





Construction emissions for the proposed project are shown in Table V.K-2. Construction is expected to occur for a total of 48 months, resulting in total GHG emissions of approximately 47,883 metric tons of CO2e. The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. As shown in Table V.K-2, construction of the project would generate approximately 17,864 metric tons of CO2e in the first year of construction, approximately 15,683 metric tons of CO2e in the second year, approximately 13,127 metric tons of CO2e in the third year, with substantially lower emissions in the fourth year of construction. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Table V.K-2: Project Construction Emissions (Metric Tons)

Year CO2e 1 17,864 2 15,683 3 13,127 4 1,209

Total 47,883

Source: LSA Associates, Inc. and ENVIRON, 2013. In connection with the proposed project’s designation as an environmental leadership development project under California Public Resources Code Section 21183, the project applicant agreed to fully offset the construction emissions of the project by participating in California’s Direct Access program for supplying renewable power and renewable energy credits to certain exiting Apple Cupertino-area facilities, including the existing campus. However, the construction emissions analysis in this section does not assume emissions reductions associated with the Direct Access program. The calculation of construction emissions, as shown in Table V.K-2, incorporates the following construction protocols that are incorporated as part of the project (see Chapter III, Project Description) to promote the use of cleaner-burning fuels, increase efficiency, and reduce construction-related emissions.

To the maximum extent feasible, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators would be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

To the maximum extent feasible, all contractors would use equipment that meets the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB) most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.

Excluding the following equipment, all diesel-powered off-road equipment used on-site would meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Tier 2” exhaust emission standards, and engines would be equipped with California ARB “Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies” (which include diesel particulate filters) or would be certified to meet the U.S. EPA “Tier 4 Interim” standard for particulate matter emissions. Equipment that would meet U.S. EPA “Tier 2” exhaust emission standards but would not be equipped with California “Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy” would be limited to:





○ Scrapers 623G

○ Scrapers 633B

○ Four of the six proposed Scrapers 657G

Trucks used at the site to haul material and/or soil would be model year 2007 or newer (or meet equivalent U.S. EPA emission standards).

Require all aerial and personnel lifts less than 50 horsepower to be fueled with natural gas or propane.

Idling time would be minimized by either shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes. Clear signage would be provided for construction workers stating these limits at all access points.

Construction equipment would be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications.

When feasible, the project would use locally produced and/or manufactured building materials for construction of the project.

A minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition waste would be diverted from landfills, to the satisfaction of the City.

The project would use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials that are resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, including low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials.

As noted above, the BAAQMD does not have an adopted quantitative threshold for construction GHG emissions, but recommends the incorporation of construction practices that would reduce construction emissions. The construction management plan, which is part of the project and would be enforced through the City’s conditions of approval, would ensure that the construction practices listed above are implemented to reduce construction-related GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level.

(2) Project Operation Impacts. The proposed project would include numerous green features intended to reduce energy consumption (and associated greenhouse gas emissions). For purposes of assessing impacts, this analysis evaluates GHG emissions associated with conditions on the site as of August 2011, at the time the Notice of Preparation was published. Under the August 2011 baseline conditions, approximately 4,844 employees worked on the project site. The current employee numbers on the site reflect Apple’s relocation of its employees in preparation for the project and Hewlett Packard’s consolidation of its employees in Palo Alto. The existing capacity of the site is approximately 9,800 employees and the site historically has operated closer to full capacity. However, the conditions of August 2011 function as the baseline for CEQA purposes, and reflect a cautious approach to evaluating the GHG emissions of the project (one that may over-estimate the impacts of the project).44

44 Because the site would likely return to full utilization without the project, the ARB used a “Full Occupancy

Baseline” in its assessment of whether the project meets the AB 900 standard of producing “no net additional” GHG emissions.





Several measures have been incorporated by Apple into the project design that would reduce emissions in comparison to existing conditions. These measures include: Site Design

Services and facilities would be concentrated on one campus, reducing vehicle trips among dispersed Apple facilities.

The Central Plant would function as the primary consolidation point for heating, cooling, and electricity, resulting in economies of scale efficiencies for the Phase 1 development.

Approximately 10,500 of the 10,980 proposed parking spaces would be provided in sub-grade levels or within a parking structure, allowing for the provision of additional open space.

At least 800 trees would be preserved on the site, at least 90 trees would be transplanted, and at least 6,200 new trees would be planted.

Water

Pervious area on the site would be increased from approximately 43 acres to approximately 102 acres.

Trees would be primarily native and/or drought-resistant species, and trees of diverse ages would be planted.

Low-flow fixtures would be incorporated into buildings.

Recycled water would be used, if available.

Overall water use would be 30 percent below that of a typical Silicon Valley corporate campus of similar size.

Energy Efficiency

Energy-efficient building systems would be incorporated into the design, such as: high-efficiency radiant conditioning systems; light-emitting diode (LED) electric lighting; natural ventilation; and user-responsive energy management systems.

Buildings would be designed for passive heating and cooling. Renewable Energy Generation

100 percent of the project’s overall energy needs would be provided by renewable energy, through the use of photovoltaic systems and fuel cells, and participation in the State of California Direct Access Program, followed by, if needed, market purchase of renewable energy credits from new sources that are Green e-certified.

Photovoltaic cells capable of generating 15,000,000 kilowatt hours/year would be installed on the roof of the Main Building, the roof of the Main Parking Structure, and as part of Phase 2 development.45

45 Arup, 2012. MEP – Central Plants, Energy and Equipment Summary.





300 electrical vehicle charging stations would be provided on-site (with built-in expansion potential for 1,000 charging stations).

Noise

Mechanical equipment on the project site would be designed such that the operation of such equipment would not generate noise levels exceeding 65 dBA (daytime) and 55 dBA (nighttime) at the nearest residential uses. Design features could include barriers and noise insulation.

Green Building Standards

The project would exceed the sustainability requirements established by the California Green Buildings Standard Code (CalGreen, Title 24, Part 11) and the California Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Chapter 6).

Methodology. The methodology and qualitative description of the sources of GHG emissions

related to transportation, electricity, water use, and solid waste disposal are described below.

Existing Baseline (2011) Emissions. The starting point of the analysis is evaluating and quantifying existing emissions at the project site, in order to measure whether emissions from the proposed project would be significant. GHG emissions generated from the existing uses on the project site were estimated using emission factors from the U.S. EPA and ARB, as well as studies commis-sioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission and CalRecycle. The analysis calculated emissions from trip estimates from the survey of existing on-site uses. Energy use data for existing uses on the project site were used to calculate emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. As shown in Table V.K-3 (below), the total existing operational emissions have been quantified as 29,513 metric tons per year of CO2e. Additional details on the calculation methods are provided in Appendix D. These existing annual emissions are then compared to the project’s annual operational emissions in reaching the significance determinations, as discussed further in the following sections.

Transportation. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in California and represents approximately 38 percent of annual CO2 emissions generated in the State. For land use development projects, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips are the most direct indicators of GHG emissions associated with the project. Please refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, for a discussion of the project’s effects on the transporta-tion system. The proposed project is forecast to generate 3,274 net new AM peak-hour trips, 3,099 net new PM peak-hour trips and approximately 35,106 net new daily trips. The proposed project would provide 300 electric vehicle parking/charging spaces and would install the necessary infrastructure to allow for up to 1,000 designated electric vehicle parking/charging stations by 2020. The greenhouse gas emission estimates assume that all 300 parking spaces for electric vehicles would be utilized. Additionally, as discussed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, Apple provides shuttles to the campus from various cities throughout the Bay Area. Using actual ridership data in conjunction with pick-up locations and routes, the greenhouse gas analysis accounts for shuttle vehicle emissions based on trip length and vehicle type.





The vacation of Pruneridge Avenue and closure of the street to public travel would divert vehicles previously traveling through the site to routes around the site on North Tantau Avenue, East Home-stead Road, and North Wolfe Road. According to traffic modeling conducted by Fehr and Peers, this re-routing would not cause an overall regional increase in VMT.46 Transportation emissions were calculated using emission factors from the ARB’s EMFAC2011 for the year 2016. In later years, more stringent motor vehicle exhaust emission standards would cause the operational GHG emissions of the project to decline to below the level of the August 2011 baseline.

Electricity and Natural Gas. Buildings represent approximately 39 percent of primary energy use and 70 percent of electricity consumption in the U.S.47 Electricity use can result in GHG produc-tion if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. The project’s energy requirements would be met through on-site photovoltaics, fuel cells using natural gas, and participation in California’s Direct Access Program, and, if needed, by market purchase of renewable energy credits from new sources that are Green-e certified. The project would install approximately 650,000 square feet of photovoltaics on the roofs of the Main Building and Main Parking Structure. To offset the emissions of the natural gas needs of the project’s gas fired boilers and fuel cells, Apple has committed to purchasing renewable and biogenic48 directed biogas. Directed biogas could be delivered to the project site by an off-site renewable biogas producer by means of the existing natural gas pipeline. As with electricity, there is no means of ensuring the actual molecules of biogas are consumed at the customer’s site. Thus, the gas may not be physically delivered to the site, as the biogas may actually be utilized at another location along the pipeline route (requiring the use of natural gas on the project site). The BAAQMD and ARB do not consider biogenic sources in the quantification of GHG emissions.49 Therefore, all GHG emissions associated with biogenic fuel sources used for the project were not included in this analysis. All off-site electricity acquired by the project would be obtained via Direct Access transactions, and would consist of renewable sources, such as wind, solar, and landfill gas-to-power projects, or renewable energy credits (market purchase of renewable energy credits from new sources that are certified Green-e Energy providers). All natural gas used at the project site would be offset by directed biogas. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate any greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity or natural gas use.

Water Use. Water- and wastewater-related GHG emissions are based on water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. Each element of the water use cycle has unique energy intensities (in units of kWh per million gallons). Recognizing that the

46 Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2013. Apple Campus 2 Transportation Impact Analysis. 47 U.S. Department of Energy, 2003. Buildings Energy Data Book. 48 The term biogenic refers to CO2 emissions sources that result from materials that are derived from living cells, as

opposed to CO2 emissions derived from fossil fuels, limestone, and other materials that have been transformed by geological processes. Biogenic CO2 contains carbon that is present in organic materials that include, but are not limited to, wood, paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, and food, and animal and yard waste.

49 BAAQMD, 2011, op. cit.





actual energy intensity in each component of the water use cycle will vary by utility, the California Energy Commission (CEC) assumes that approximately 3,950 kWh per million gallons are consumed for water that is supplied, treated, consumed, treated again, and disposed of in northern California. Water use for the proposed project is estimated at 520 acre-feet per year (under the Apple Campus 2 Design Scenario identified in the Water Supply Assessment for the project).50 Water usage data from the 2009 City of Milpitas Water Master Plan (the best available information from a City with similar commercial land uses) indicates that water usage for similar commercial land uses could be substan-tially higher. 51 Therefore, to provide the most conservative analysis, a water rate of 774 acre-feet per year was assumed in this analysis. GHG emissions associated with project water use were estimated using emission factors from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the Water Energy Team of the Climate Action Team (WetCat).52

Solid Waste Disposal. Solid waste generated by the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Average waste generation rates from a variety of sources are available from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).53 Land filling and other methods of disposal use energy as part of transporting and managing waste, and these activities produce addi-tional GHGs to varying degrees. Land filling, the most common waste management practice, results in the release of CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials. CH4 is 25 times more potent a GHG than CO2. However, landfill CH4 can also be a source of energy. In addition, many materials in landfills do not decompose fully, and the carbon that remains is sequestered in the landfill and not released into the atmosphere. Based on data from the City of Los Angeles the average employee generates 10.53 pounds of solid waste per day. It is estimated that Apple’s solid waste diversion policies result in an 80 percent reduction in waste from average employee waste generation. However, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a 63 percent reduction would be achieved, consistent with average waste diversion estimates from CalRecycle. GHG emissions from total project waste were calculated using methods established by the ARB.54

Project Emissions. When calculating project GHG emissions to compare to the thresholds of significance, BAAQMD recommends that the lead agency consider project design features, attributes, and local development requirements as part of the project as proposed and not as mitigation measures. Therefore, as indicated above, the energy conservation and sustainability measures incorporated into the project were included in the analysis. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using the methodologies described above.

50 Yarne & Associates, Inc., 2012. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment. 51 Milpitas, City of, 2009. Water Master Plan Update. December. Website: www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/

eng_mp_water.pdf. 52 California Public Utilities Commission and the Water Energy Team of the Climate Action Team (WetCat), 2010.

Implementing a Public Goods Charge for Water. July. Website: www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/ cwpu2009/0310final/v4c02a19_cwp2009.pdf.

53 California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery, 2010. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGen Rates/ Commercial.htm.

54 California Air Resources Board, 2012. Air Resources Board Staff Assessment of the Apple Campus 2 Application for Environmental Leadership Development Project. June. Website: opr.ca.gov/docs/ARBDeterminationAppleCampus2.pdf.





Table V.K-3 shows the calculated GHG emissions for existing on-site uses and both phases of the proposed project. With the project’s use of renewable energy, motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of GHG emissions (approximately 96 percent of the total) associated with the project. Solid waste and water use are less than 4 percent of the total emissions for the proposed project. Additional calculation details are provided in Appendix D. Table V.K-3: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year)

Emissions Source Operational Emissions

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Existing Emissions (August 2011 Baseline)

Energy 12,155 – – 12,155 Mobile 16,817 – – 16,817 Water 332 – – 332 Waste 10 209 Total Existing Emissions 29,513

Proposed Project Phase 1 Emissions Transportation (Vehicles) 29,644 – – 29,644 Transportation (Shuttles) 4,072 – – 4,072 Water 373 – – 373 Solid Waste – 42 – 890 Total Phase 1 Emissions 34,979 Phase 1 Net New Emissions (over August 2011 Baseline) 5,466

Proposed Project Phase 2 Emissions Transportation (Vehicles) 2,808 – – 2,808 Transportation (Shuttles) 365 – – 365 Water 25 – – 25 Solid Waste – 4 – 82 Total Phase 2 Emissions 3,280

Total Project Emissions 38,258 Net New Emissions (over August 2011 Baseline)b 8,745 Note: Column totals may vary slightly due to independent rounding of input data. – Estimates not available for this pollutant and/or category. a Total project emissions differ from the sum of project Phase 1 and Phase 2 emissions due to rounding. b Given the ongoing litigation over the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (discussed above), it is possible that the Low Carbon

Fuel standard could be invalidated. This would only change transportation emissions; water and solid waste emissions are not affected by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. If the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is not implemented, then the emission calculations provided above would be altered as follows: • Phase 1 Emissions (Metric Tons per Year CO2e): from vehicles: 30,719; from shuttles: 4,220; Total Phase 1

Emissions: 36,201; Net New Emissions: 6,688. • Phase 2 Emissions (Metric Tons per Year CO2e): from vehicles: 2,910; from shuttles: 378; Total Phase 2 Emissions:

3,395 • Total Project Emissions (Metric Tons per Year CO2e): 39,596; Net New Emissions 10,083.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc. and ENVIRON, 2013. Based on the City’s significance criteria, a project would have a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would generate less than 1,100 metric tons per year CO2e or would result in emissions per employee of less than 4.6 metric tons per year CO2e. Buildout of the project would result in 9,356 net new employees.





Model results indicate that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project (combined) would generate approxi-mately 38,258 metric tons per year CO2e. As discussed above, existing uses as of August 2011 on the project site generate 29,513 metric tons per year CO2e, which means the proposed project would generate 8,745 net new metric tons of CO2e emissions per year. Taking into account total project emissions, and dividing these emissions by the total number of project employees (14,200), the project would result in a per service population emission rate of approximately 2.7 metric tons per year. While the annual emission rate would exceed the 1,100 metric tons per year threshold, the annual per capita emissions would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per employee per year, and would therefore not exceed the significance criteria. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project would therefore not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact on the environment. The significance determination of this analysis is dependent on the project’s use of all renewable energy sources. As part of the AB 900 process, Apple and the City entered into a letter agreement through which Apple agreed that all measures required for AB 900 certification “shall be conditions of approval, and those conditions will be fully enforceable by the City of Cupertino.” Implementation of conditions of approval would ensure that all energy used on the site would be derived from renewable sources, whether generated on-site, purchased via Direct Access transactions with an Energy Service Provider, or purchased renewable energy credits from new sources that are certified Green-e Energy providers. Conditions of approval would also require Apple to annually submit documentation to the City verifying that all energy provided to the site is derived from renewable sources of electricity such as wind, solar, and landfill gas-to-power projects. In addition, this docu-mentation would include annual verification that all fuel cell and boiler gas is derived from directed biogas. Therefore, with the implementation of the required conditions of approval, the project’s GHG emis-sions would not have a significant impact on the environment.

Project Emissions under Full Occupancy Scenario. This discussion of full occupancy emissions is provided for informational purposes only. As described in the analysis above, the determination of significance for the purposes of CEQA utilizes occupancy conditions at the time of publication of the NOP (August 2011), and at that time employment on the site (4,844 employees) was well below the employee capacity of the site (9,800 employees). The site has historically operated at or near full capacity; however, the August 2011 baseline condition reflects Apple’s relocation of its employees in preparation for the project and Hewlett-Packard’s consolidation of its employees in Palo Alto. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, new vehicle trips associ-ated with the project, when compared to traffic conditions under full occupancy of the existing buildings, would be approximately 16,873 trips – far fewer than the 35,106 net new daily trips assumed in this EIR analysis under the August 2011 baseline. As shown in Table V.K-3 above, the primary sources of emissions associated with the project are vehicles. Therefore, the project would generate substantially fewer emissions when compared to a full occupancy scenario. As part of the ARB’s Executive Order LP-12-002,55 which confirms that the project generates net zero GHG emissions with respect to AB 900, the ARB calculated GHG emissions under the full occupancy

55 California Air Resources Board, 2012. Exective Order LP-12-002 Relating to Determination of Any Net Addi-

tional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21183, subd.(c). June.





baseline at 54,482 metric tons per year of CO2e. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would result in a net reduction of emissions totaling 16,224 metric tons CO2e per year, when compared to the full occupancy scenario.

(3) Compliance with the ARB Statewide GHG Emission Reduction Strategies. The Cal/EPA CAT and the ARB have developed several reports to achieve the State’s GHG targets that rely on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community groups, and State incentives and regulatory programs. These include the CAT’s 2006 “Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature,”56 ARB’s 2007 “Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California,”57 and ARB’s “Climate Change Scoping Plan: a Framework for Change.”58 These reports identify strategies to reduce California’s emissions to the levels proposed in Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. The adopted Scoping Plan includes proposed GHG reductions from direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade systems. In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed ARB to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. In June 2007, ARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants,59 and Landfill Methane Capture60). Discrete early action measures are measures that are required to be adopted as regulations and made effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 38560.5. The ARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures.61 ARB’s focus in identifying the 44 early action items was to recommend measures that ARB staff concluded were “expected to yield significant GHG emission reductions, [and] are likely to be cost-effective and technologically feasible.” The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce Statewide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT. Accordingly, the 44 early action items focus on industrial production processes, and the agriculture and transportation sectors. Early action items associated with industrial production and agriculture do not apply to the proposed project. The trans-portation sector early action items such as truck efficiency, low carbon fuel standard, proper tire inflation, truck stop electrification, and the strengthening of light duty vehicle standards are either not specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with the project but are under the control of other regulatory agencies. State measures include emission reductions assumed as part of the Scoping Plan, including light-duty vehicle GHG standards (Pavley Standards), the low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency measures.

56 California Air Resources Board, 2006. Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 57 California Air Resources Board, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. 58 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. December. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid.





Table V.K-4 outlines the project’s compliance with the ARB Statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. Table V.K-4: Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies a

Strategy Project Compliance Energy Efficiency Measures

Energy Efficiency Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance stan-dards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities). Renewables Portfolio Standard Achieve a 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide. Green Building Strategy Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.

Compliant The proposed project would be required to comply with the updated Title 24 standards for building construction. In addition, the project as designed would utilize all renewable sources for its energy needs, which would be enforced via a condition of approval and annually verified.

Water Conservation and Efficiency MeasuresWater Use Efficiency Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Approximately 19 percent of all electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distri-bute and use water and wastewater. Increasing the effic-iency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions.

Compliant Trees would be primarily native and/or drought-resistant species. Low-flow fixtures would be incorporated into buildings, and recycled water would be used, if available. Overall water use is estimated to be 30 percent below that of a typical Silicon Valley corporate campus of similar size.

Solid Waste Reduction MeasuresIncrease Waste Diversion, Composting, and Commercial Recycling, and Move Toward Zero-Waste Increase waste diversion from landfills beyond the 50 percent mandate to provide for additional recovery of recyclable materials. Composting and commercial recycling could have substantial GHG reduction benefits. In the long term, zero-waste policies that would require manufacturers to design products to be fully recyclable may be necessary.

Compliant Apple currently operates a comprehensive integrated recy-cling and waste management program including electronic waste recycling, recycling of polystyrene, and food compost-ing. Apple estimates current diversion of waste is approxi-mately 80 percent, and has identified a goal to improve that rate. In addition, per the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance, the construction contractor would be required to salvage or recycle at least 60 percent of the debris from construction to meet City requirements. The project sponsor would be required to prepare a Waste Man-agement Plan as a part of the building/demolition permit application process, and at the completion of project con-struction, would be required to submit a Construction Recy-cling Report showing the amount and type of materials recycled and disposed. The project contractor would develop a plan to meet or exceed the stated goals for recycling and salvage. As part of the project, a minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition waste would be diverted from landfills.





Table V.K-4: Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies a Strategy Project Compliance

Transportation and Motor Vehicle MeasuresVehicle Climate Change Standards. AB 1493 (Pavley) required the State to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the ARB in September 2004. Light-Duty Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement additional measures that could reduce light-duty GHG emissions. For example, measures to ensure that tires are properly inflated can both reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency.

Compliant The project does not involve the manufacture, sale, or purchase of vehicles. However, vehicles that operate within and access the project site would comply with any vehicle and fuel standards that the ARB adopts.

Adopt Heavy- and Medium-Duty Fuel and Engine Efficiency Measures. Regulations to require retrofits to improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks that could include devices that reduce aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance. This measure could also include hybridization of and increased engine efficiency of vehicles. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. ARB identified this measure as a Discrete Early Action Measure. This measure would reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. (See previous discussion of the recent Low Carbon Fuel Standard litigation.)

Compliant Specific regional emission targets for transportation emissions would not directly apply to the project. However, the project would continue and expand an extensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program already in place. The specific measures include a guaranteed ride home program (all carpool, vanpool, and transit participants), shuttle service, carpool incentive program, bike to work program, flexible work hours, telecommuting option, vanpool program, bicycle racks and lockers, and other on-site amenities.

Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Local governments will play a significant role in the regional planning process to reach passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Local governments have the ability to directly influence both the siting and design of new residential and commercial developments in a way that reduces green-house gases associated with vehicle travel.

Measures to Reduce High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases. ARB has identified Discrete Early Action measures to reduce GHG emissions from the refrigerants used in car air conditioners, semiconductor manufacturing, and consumer products. ARB has also identified potential reduction opportunities for future commercial and industrial refrigeration, changing the refrigerants used in auto air conditioning systems, and ensuring that existing car air conditioning systems do not leak.

Compliant New products used, sold, or serviced in the project site would comply with future ARB rules and regulations as these new rules and regulations are implemented by the agency.

a Source of strategies and measures is the California Air Resources Board, Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October 2007.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2013.





The proposed project would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, or the early Statewide action measures in light of the sustainability measures incorporated into the project design that would be conditions of approval. The proposed project would be compliant with the strategies developed by the State to reduce GHG emissions; implementation of conditions of approval would ensure this con-sistency throughout the life of the project. In addition, in developing the thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, the BAAQMD identified the emissions level for which a project would conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emissions. The project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance and therefore, the project would be consistent with California legislation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

Consistency with Sustainability Concepts. The purpose of the sustainability analysis is not to identify additional environmental impacts of the project, but to provide a more complete understand-ing of the project’s environmental implications as they relate to long-term resource use. The analysis derives from the City’s General Plan, North Vallco Master Plan, and the policy positions outlined in the APA Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. In general, the project would substantially meet accepted sustainability principles.

Alternative Transportation. The project would be generally consistent with this sustainabil-ity principle. Class II bike lanes (i.e., lanes set aside in streets exclusively for bikes) are located on all public streets around the project site, including East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, North Wolfe Road, and Pruneridge Avenue. With the exception of some portions of Pruneridge Avenue between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue, pedestrian access is provided on these streets via sidewalks. Consistent with company security requirements, private pedestrian and bicycle paths would be developed throughout the site for Apple employees. Apple would also provide on-site amenities to employees to reduce mid-day trips. In addition, Apple would supplement the existing bike paths and sidewalks on North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, and Vallco Parkway to improve the bike and pedestrian experience on these streets, since they would serve to replace the connections lost due to the removal of Pruneridge Avenue. Those improvements would enhance the bike and pedestrian environment, and provide alternative routes to the segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site. Apple also offers its employees a comprehensive TDM Program, which is designed to reduce the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. As part of the project, Apple would expand its current TDM program to include a number of new or expanded program elements, including the following:

○ Apple Transit. Apple would increase coach service areas and frequency, and provide priority drop off locations for transit users at its transit center.

○ Mass Transit Shuttle Links. Apple shuttle services would be expanded to include connections to future high-capacity corridors such as VTA BRT lines, electrified Caltrain lines, and Santa Clara BART extensions.

Off Campus Bicycle Infrastructure. Off-campus bicycle infrastructure would be improved, including: bike lanes, bike paths, high-visibility striping, bike boxes at key intersections and other features to encourage safe cycling to and from the site.





Campus Walking/Cycling Commutes. Apple would prioritize walking and cycling to the site for those employees who live closest to the campus by providing more convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to the Main Building, providing bike lockers closest to the entrances of the Main Building, and increasing the distance between on-site parking and work space (i.e., accommodating much of the project parking underground or in structures, at a distance from work space).

○ Transit Center. Apple would provide a transit center with an information desk for employees to retrieve maps and information on alternative commute options. The information desk would be easily accessible from the Main Building.

○ Parking Monitoring System. Apple would develop a parking monitoring system that would measure individual parking space utilization and collect data to optimize other TDM programs. For example, arrival time information would help guide new shuttle schedules throughout the Apple transit system. The system would complement other TDM programs by identifying open parking spaces in various zones and directing employees to the closest zone with an open space, which could help reduce on-site congestion. Some of the data collected would be included in an annual parking utilization report submitted as part of TDM reporting.

○ Expanded Bike-Sharing Program. Apple would provide at least 1,000 bikes within the project site to enhance mobility and promote cycling as a viable commute option.

○ Electric Vehicle Charging. Apple would provide at least 300 charging spaces for electrical vehicles. While electrical vehicles would not necessarily reduce project vehicle trips, they would achieve other environmental benefits related to air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Conservation. The project would be consistent with this sustainability principle. Energy-efficient building systems such as high-efficiency radiant conditioning systems, LED electric lighting, natural ventilation, and electrical vehicle charging stations and energy-efficient ICT (Information and Communication Technology) systems would be incorporated into the design of the project. All of the project’s overall energy needs would be provided by renewable energy, primarily through photovoltaic systems and fuel cells using directed biogas, supplemented with off-site renewable energy sources.

Minimize Use of Extracted Underground Minerals and Synthetic Chemicals. The project would be generally consistent with this sustainability principle. As described above, the promotion of alternative transportation would reduce the demand for gasoline, which is derived from extracted underground minerals. In addition, the use of “Green Building Materials” and the reuse of demolished construction material would also reduce the demand for mined materials. Because the management plan for open space and landscaped areas on the project site would be developed when the landscape plan is refined, it is unknown if the project would use organic methods to maintain open space throughout the site. However, orchard maintenance on the project site would include organic techniques and integrated pest management, and trees would be primarily native and/or drought-resistant species. Fertilizers are made with petroleum inputs and pesticides and herbicides all rely on synthetic chemicals. Therefore, it is recommended that the project’s integrated





pest management plan include methods of pest prevention that specify the use of pesticides only as a last resort in pest control.

Reclamation of Brownfield Sites. The project would be consistent with this sustainability principle. The project site is not subject to large-scale remediation plans. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-4, would ensure the safe transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials during project construction. In addition, the proposed project would result in redevelopment on already-urbanized land, which, like the reclama-tion of brownfields, could reduce development pressures on greenfield sites.

Reduce Disruption to Natural Ecosystems. The project would be consistent with this sustainability principle. With implementation of the project, approximately 102 acres of land would be landscaped and function as private open space. The increase in open space that would occur as part of the project would be accomplished primarily through the provision of a substantial amount of underground and structured parking (approximately 10,500 of the 10,980 spaces), and the consolidation of building space. Of the approximately 4,506 existing trees currently on the project site, at least 887 trees would either be retained or transplanted, and at least 6,000 trees would be planted on the site. The trees that would be preserved are primarily located along the periphery of the site and along the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce impacts related to bird habitat and bird species, and protected trees on the project site.

Reduce the Use of Water and Employ Innovative Wastewater Management. The project would be consistent with this sustainability principle. Stormwater runoff would be improved on the project site since the project would increase the amount of pervious area on the site from approximately 43 acres to 102 acres. In addition, trees on the site would be primarily native and/or drought-resistant species, thus reducing the need for landscape irrigation on the project site. Other water conservation features include a rainwater capture system at the Main Building and low-flow fixtures in buildings. Recycled water would also be used on the site if an extension to a recycled water line is feasible. The overall water use on the project site would be 30 percent below that of a typical Silicon Valley corporate campus of similar size.

Reuse of Waste Products. The project would generally be consistent with this sustainability principle. Apple currently operates a comprehensive integrated recycling and waste management program including electronic waste recycling, recycling of polystyrene, and food compositing. Apple estimates current diversion of waste is approximately 80 percent, and has identified a goal to improve that rate. The project would also be subject to The City of Cupertino Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance,62 which requires at least 60 percent of the debris from construction, demolition, and renovation projects to be diverted from landfills through salvage and recycling practices. As part of the project, a minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition waste would be diverted from landfills.

62 Cupertino, City of, 2010. Municipal Code 16.72.





c. Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any signifi-cant global climate change impacts. d. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, or future projects, that when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (a) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs across the world. Land use projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some specific effects felt in California. However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts and global warming. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. No individual project would result in a measurable impact on global climate change. Therefore, this section has addressed climate change primarily as a cumulative impact. As noted above, in developing the thresh-old of significance for GHG emissions, the BAAQMD identified the emissions level for which a project would conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emis-sions. According to the BAAQMD, if a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. As indicated in the analysis presented above, the proposed project, with the required conditions of approval, would not exceed the project-level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD and therefore the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions and global climate change.