Cupertino planners review state-mandated safety element update, flag evacuation and wildfire concerns

The Cupertino Planning Commission held a study session July 8 to review a state law-mandated update to the city's health and safety element, hearing a PlaceWorks presentation that emphasized risks from flooding, extreme heat and wildfire and outlined policy concepts for evacuation, fire safety, hazardous materials and climate resilience.

PlaceWorks project manager Jacqueline Protsman Rohrer told the commission, "A safety element is 1 of the mandatory elements of a general plan focusing on natural and human caused hazards within and surrounding Cupertino, as well as emergency preparedness and response." The presentation explained the update is required after the city's housing element update and will integrate with the Climate Action Plan, the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan and the city's emergency response plan.

The consultant team described two technical studies prepared for the update: a vulnerability assessment carried out under SB 379 (government code section 65302.6/65302(g) requirements) and an AB 747 evacuation study completed by Fair & Pierce that maps routes, locations and capacity under different hazard scenarios. The vulnerability assessment examined exposure and adaptive capacity for 45 population groups and city assets and concluded Cupertino is most vulnerable to flooding, extreme heat and wildfire; it identified seniors, people with chronic illness or disabilities, households in poverty and people experiencing homelessness as the most at-risk population groups.

Commissioners, staff and members of the public raised implementation questions and policy tradeoffs. Commissioners asked how the update will interact with projects currently under review, and staff replied the safety element update will not revise the housing element or retroactively change sites already approved; project environmental review will apply the safety element in effect at the notice-of-preparation baseline when an EIR is prepared. Staff said the draft safety element will return for additional review later in 2025 and that the intent is to seek final approvals by the end of the year.

On policy, PlaceWorks offered revisions and new concepts grouped under emergency preparedness and response, fire hazards, hazardous materials, seismic/geologic hazards, flooding and a new climate change resilience topic to meet SB 379 requirements. Examples of proposed approaches included requiring new multiaccess ingress/egress for developments in evacuation-constrained areas, coordinating with Santa Clara County Fire and the county sheriff on evacuation and alerting systems, integrating the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan into the safety element, prioritizing vegetation management along roadways, and encouraging shade and green infrastructure to limit extreme heat exposure.

Speakers from the public pressed for clearer, actionable outreach and for protections that avoid imposing unaffordable requirements on existing homeowners. Jennifer Griffin (citizen) urged continued CEQA oversight and warned against removing environmental review for large developments; Peggy Griffin (citizen) asked the city not to add financial burdens or recurring inspections for homeowners and requested maps and site-specific environmental assessments for hazardous sites; a speaker identified as David (citizen) said specific hillside sites with limited evacuation routes (for example, Everlidge Court) must be evaluated before allowing additional density.

Commissioners recommended the draft emphasize public education and interagency coordination. Commissioner Linscott highlighted residents newly reclassified into very-high fire hazard zones who say they lack clear guidance about roles and actions. Commissioner Hitchcock urged explicit policy language to ensure the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is adequately staffed and to rebuild volunteer programs such as CERT. Multiple commissioners asked PlaceWorks to distinguish policy expectations for new development and redevelopment versus requirements placed on existing single-family homeowners, and staff repeated that building and fire codes (state-adopted regulations) apply separately from general-plan policy.

PlaceWorks and staff noted state law changes are rapid and that some recent bills (for example AB 306 and other legislation mentioned during the meeting) may affect implementation tactics, though the consultants said the safety element remains primarily a policy document rather than a direct code-change vehicle. The vulnerability assessment and evacuation study are still in draft form and will be posted with the upcoming policy draft; staff said they will update the safety element background materials and appendices to include the technical studies and historical hazard records.

The meeting did not include a formal vote on the safety element; the session served to gather commissioner direction and public comment ahead of a forthcoming draft. Staff and the consultant team invited further feedback and said they will return with a public draft and additional review steps later this year.