The URL can be used to link to this page

Desk items �;� � � ti S H UTE M I HALY ��-- WEINBERGERL�P - 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANClSCO, CA 94102 ELLEN J. GARBER T:415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816 Attorney www.smwlaw.com garber@smwlaw.com MEMORANDUM TO: Carol Korade, City Attorney FR.OM: Ellen J. Garber DATE: February 25, 2014 RE: Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Application.s iNTRODUCTION and SUMMARY OF CONCLU5IQNS The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 ("SB 50")' preempts the issue of impacts of new development on school facilities. Therefore, if a developer agrees to pay the fees established by SB 50, the impacts on school facilities may not be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"),2 no mitigation for impacts on school facilities may be required, and the project may not be denied due to impacts on schools or due to the inadequacy of school facilities. Hence, state law Iimits the City's discretion to (i) consider the effects of new development on the ability of schools to accommodate enrollment, (u) require mitigation, and (iu) deny projects. A relatively recent case, Chcctivanakee Uni�erl School District v. County of Madet-a (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1016, holds that develapment applications may be analyzed Lmder CEQA, and mitigation may be required, if the potendal impacts are indirectly caused by the operation or construction of schools on the non-school physical environment. � Gov. Code §§ 65995-65998 and Educ. Code §§ 17620-17621. 2 Pub. Resources Code � 21000 et seq. Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION I. SB 50 Pursuant to SB 50, which was enacted in 199$, impacts on school facilities are not to be considered in an EIR, and SB 50 fees constitute adequate mitigation of those impacts. As SB 50 states, payment of fees "shall be the exclusive method[] of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities," and "aze . . . deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Gov. Code §§ 65996 {a) and(b). See Part II,below. In addition, A state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the baszs of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 ar 65995.7, as applicable. Gov. Code § 65995(i}. Even where applicants have agreed to pay schflal impact mitigarion fees, however, if the proposed development, including the school expansion it requires, would cause other environmental impacts--traffic or construction impacts, for example—then those impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA. This is discussed in Part III,below. - II. Impacts of New Development On School Facilities SB 50 limited the scope of CEQA analysis of impacts on school faciliries, making the fees set forth in Government Code section 65995 "the exclusive means of both `considering' and `mitigating' school facilities impacts of projects. The provisions of [S.B. 50] are `deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigatian."' Kostka &Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2012), § 14.28 (citations omit�ed). According to the Kostka&Zischke treati.se, SB 50 appears to transform CEQA review of impacts on school facilities into a ministerial fiinction after the applicant agrees to pay the required rnitigation faes. Id, § 14.28 (concluding that the law limits nat only mitigation but also the scope of the EIR).3 No case expressly reached 3 Cf. 9 Mi11er& Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25.49, 25-213 to 25-214, fns. omitted("SB 50 employs three pzimary means to preempt the field of development (footnote continued) S H UT E M I H A LY �--WCINBERGEl2LLP Memo to Caro1 Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 3 this conclusion until the Chawanakee Unified School District case, discussed below, but logic seemed to dictate this outcome based on the statutory language. Therefaxe, if a project applicant has agreed to pay school nutigation fees, the lead agency may not consider the following items in an ETR, nor deny the project based on these considerations: • irnpacts on the physical structures at the school (on school grounds, school buildings, etc.) related to the ability to accommodate enrollment; • mitigation measures above and beyond the school mi�igation fee ; � other non-fee mitigation measures the school district's ability to accommodate enrollment. 3. Physical Effects on the Environrnent Because oF School Facilities Despite the restrictions on environmental review and mitigation discussed above, SB 50 also states that"[n]othing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the ability of a local agency to mitigate the impacts of land use approvals other than on the need for school facilities, as defined in this section." Gov. Code, § 65996(e). This leaves the agency free to reject a project based on impacts other than impacts on the need for "school facilities."4 Any number of impacts could fall outside of this definition; for example, impacts on wildlife in the develapment site, impacts on aix qualiry, or inadequate water supply. fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities and to overtum [Mira and its progeny]. First, it provides for a cap on the amount of fees, cl�arges, dedications or other requirements which can be levied against new construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second, SB 50 removes denial authority from local agencies by prohibiting refusals to approve Iegislative or adjudicative ac�s based on a developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped fse amounts, or based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits mitigation measures which can be required, under the Caiifornia Environmental Quality Act or otherwise, to payment of the statutorily capped fee axnounts and deems payment of these amounts `to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation [.]"' (emphaszs in original). 4 SB 50 de�nes "school facilities" as "any sehool-related consideration relating to �school district's abiliry to accommodate enrollment." Gov. Code § 65996(c). SHUTE MIHALY ��--WC(Nt3ERGER�� Mema to Carol Korade, City Attomey February 25, 2014 Page 4 In 2011, the court in Chawanakee Unif-ced School District cazefully interpreted the statutory language of SB 50 and held that while an EIR need not azialyze the impacts on school facilities as a result af accommodating more students, the document must consider the irnpacts on traffic of additional students traveling to the school and cansider other impacts to the non-school physical environment from construction of additional facilities. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028-1029.5 Courts have found the physical activities caused by school growth to be outside the definition of"school faciliries," and therefore not shielded from review by SB 50. For example, as discussed above, Chawanakee Unified School District interpreted the traffic associated with more students traveling to a school to be something other than impacts on school facilities, and therefore subject to review and mitigation under CEQA. Accordingly, traffic impacts resulting from rnore students traveling to Che schoal, dust and naise from construction of new or expanded school facilities, and any other impacts to �1ie non-school physical environment were not impacts on"school facilities," and must be addressed in an EIR. According to the court in Chawanakee: Consequently, the phrase `impacts on school facilities' used in SB 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. As a matter of statutory interpretation . . . the prepositional phrase `on school facilities' limits the type of impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigaeon to the adverse physical changes . to the school grounds, school buildings and `any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment.' Therefore, the project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facili�ies are not excused from being considered and mitigated. 196 Ca1. App. 4t1�at 1028 (internal citation omitted). Hence,the lead agency must determine whether impacts fal.l outside the definition of"school facilities," thereby making them subject to environmental review. In light of the Chawanakee case,however, the agency's discretion to conduct environmental review, to require mitigation, and to consider denying the would be limited to physical effects on the non-school environment. 5 While SB 50 was not at issue in tlus case, in City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unifaed School Dist. (2009) 176 CaI. App. 4th 889 the cozzrt held that an EIR prepared in connection with the constxuction of a new school properly analyzed health and safety issues, air quality, traffic impacts, and land use issues. SHUTL-'� MlHALY IT--WEINBERCER�� Memo to C�rol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 5 Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following impacts potea�.ally caused by school expaiasion or construction: • traffic impacts associated with more students traveling ta school; • dust and noise from construction of new ar expanded school facilides; � effects of construction of addirional school facilities (temporary or pezmanent) on wildiife at the construction site; � effects of construction of additional school facili�ies on air quality; • other"indirect effects"as de�ned by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a}(2) (growth-inducing effects, changes in pattern of land use and population density,related effects on air and water and other natural systems). See Chawanakee Unified School District, 1.96 Cal. App. 4th at 1029. CONCLUSION When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing schaol facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially ministerial. Agencies must accept the fees man.dated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities. However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or current case law prohibits an agency from conducting environmental review of an application that creates significant environmental impacts on non-school-facility settings or sites, regardless of whether the applicant has agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50. 567716.2 ' SHUTE MIHAI_Y �;�--WEINE3CRGER�u� �� IRVINE C(J�P�A►�1Y� � s�n�� is�� October 14,2014 Mayar Giibert Wnng& Members of the City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Tor�e Avenue, Cupertino,CA 95�14-3202 Dear Mayrar Wang & Members af the City Council The purpose of this letter is ta reiterate the desire of the Irvin�Company to redevelop the Namptons site located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino.Situated nn 12.4 acres,with 342 existing Apartments, the redevelopment of this site strategically located next ta the new Apple Campus 2, is smart growth. The staff report has recommended a lower density which makes redevelapment infeasible given the econarnics af such an undertaking. Irvine's prior IeEter dated February 2014,suggested a redevelopment range of 65 to 110 DUs per acre. Indicating our preference was to reach the higher range of 110 DUs per acre.Staff has recommended belaw that range at 55 DUs per acre, 120 units less than the lowest end of the range. In fact, one of the goals sited in the staff report for the Balanced Plan, indicates the plan should, "Provide densities for existing sites that allow enough of an ir�centive to assume that the sites would be de�elaped in the 2014-2022 period (HCD criterion)". Unfortunately only adding 344 units to the existing site containing 342 praductive apartments daes not incentivize redevelopment. After studying the project further over the last several months, and learning more abaut the expectations for public benefits,Wolfe Interchange assessment district participatian,green building standards, schoc�l fe�s, and designing a project with first class architeeture, landscape architecture and cammunity amenities,the amount af units needed to support rede�elopment of the Hampton's falls rnid-range of our original estirnate at 88 DUs per acre, 274 units less than the high end nf our range. That would allow redeveloping a tatal of 1,090 units on the site,with 342 existing and 748 new units. Therefore, we request that the City Council consider intreasing the number of units vn the Hampton's site ta a minimum of 748 new units,added to our existing 342 to meet the criteria estabiished by HCD providing the ineentive ta invest in Cupertino and upgrade the area wiCh Class A Apartment Hornes and the improvements required for redevelopment. Redevelopment of the Hamptan's makes practical sense for the fallowing reasons: 1. The Harnptons are locaked within walking and bicycling distance frorn Apple's new campus, Cupertina's biggest emplayer.The Hamptons also provides housing for existing and future employees throughout the region and will pravide the added benefit of reducing VMT for thos� em�loyees who choose to live closer ta where they work. 690 N. McCarthy Blvd., Suite 100 � Milpitas, CA 95035 2. Ervine Company and Apple have agreed ta language for the General Plan to lowef heights on the Hamptons to 6Q ft, within the 50 ft.setback where the project is adjacent to Apple's bounda�. In addition, in the interest af working with Apple on issues of p�ivacy and security and buffering between the two properties, we have pro�ided a draft Cooperative Agreement to Appfe for their review.This dacument will guide the redevelopment of the Hamptons between the two pa rties. 3. The rede�elopment of the Hamptans will contribute to the improvements to the Wolfe in�erchange on a fair share basis, 4. The redevelnpment of the Hamptons daes not impact Cupertino Schools.The prajec# is Ivcated in the Santa Clara Unified Schoal District for K-12 educatian. lrvine Company has begun discussions with Santa Clara an mitigation far schoof impacts. 5. The Irvine Company has the resources ta design and build an outstanding project in the City of Cupertino; we also have a tradition and history of nat selling aff assets. We witl be the landowner, develnper and property manager for the long term.The City and residents can be cornfartable with the reputation, quality and financial resources that come with the Irvine Company brand. We Inok forwa�d to cantinuing to work with the City of Cupertino on the successful redevefopment of the Hamptons and will be able ta da so with the appropriate allocation of units to the site. Please da not hesitate tn contact me,should you need anything further an this matter. SincereEy, �'��'��.�'`,�;„ ��r`�`�..�� , Carlene Matchniff ��'"�� VP, Entitlements& Public Affairs Irvine Campany cc: Vice Maynr&Council Member Rod Sinks Council Mernber Barry Chang Cauncil Mernber Orrin Mahoney Council Member Mark Santoro Planning Cammission, City of Cupertino David Brandt, City M�nager Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager& Oirector of Community Develapment - ��1 '�3 Beth Ebben i� From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:00 AM To: Beth Ebben Cc: Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Fwd: Housing Element: Seeking Your Support For Marina Foods Site Desk item please! Thanks! Piu Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Brophy<pauldbrophy�,vahoo.com> Date: October 13, 2014 at 6:10:02 AM PDT To: marina food<marinafood2002(cr��yahoo.com> Cc: "aartis e,cupertino.org" <aartis(cr�,cupertino.or�>, Piu Ghosh<PiuG ,cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Housing Element: Seeking Your Support For Marina Foods Site Reply-To: Paul Brophy <pauldbroph�na,vahoo.com> Dear Mr. Huang, Thank you for your letter. I'm forwarding it to Aarti and Piu so they can in turn send it to my colleagues on the Planning Commission as well as put it into the public record for our residents and Council members to consider. I would encourage you to attend our meeting on October 14 to express your views as well. Whether or not a site is eventually included in the Housing Element that the City Council approves, a concept for redevelopment of your property that includes a residential component would certainly be considered by a future Planning Commission. I think that the challenge (and opportunity) facing yourself and your architects would be to not just maintain retail space, but to propose a design that keeps it as a vibrant, highly patronized part of our community. Paul Brophy On Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:45 PM, marina food <marinafood2002Cc�yahoo.com>wrote: Dear Commissioner Brophy, My name is Steve Huang. I've been the proud owner and operator of the Marina Foods retail center in Cupertino for almost 30 years. I've dedicated my professional caxeer to bringing a variety of fresh groceries to the community as well as overseeing the surrounding retail stores. 1 With the Aloft hotel and new Apple cafeteria recently moving in next door, I know that it's been long overdue for me to renew and refresh the look of our retail plaza for the community, especially since we are located in such a central part of Cupertino's Stevens Creek retail corridor. I believe that revitalizing the facilities will allow all of our plaza's retailers to remain competitive for the long run and provide the community a more vibrant, walkable village of retail options. I am asking for your support in allowing us to rebuild our retail center in Cupertino. We want to remain here as the owner, developer, and anchor store to all of the retailers that have served the community for so long. However, we are not a large developer with the financial resources to do so without your support in allocating a number of residential units to our project so that it can be financially viable for redevelopment. As a potential mixed-use retail center in such a prominent crossroads section of Cupertino, we have already brought on board an internationally acclaimed architect (Dahlin Group) to work on conceptual designs with the City. In addition, we plan on retaining the best professionals to make sure our project is a major success for Cupertino. Dahlin Group envisions a beautifully designed mixed-use village that will be a gathering place for shoppers and residents alike. We absolutely want the building to be built to LEED standards, and envision smooth integration with the surrounding community. With a revitalization of our retail plaza, we can better serve the community with outdoor seating areas, beautiful landscaping, and retail offerings that will be for all citizens of Cupertino, not just targeted for ethnic customers. I'm aware that the City staff has recommended other sites to receive the required Housing Element allocation of residential units and that our Marina site has been placed as an Alternate. I'd like to share a few of my thoughts, particularly on why the Marina location does meet the criteria for a strong housing site: • Traffic/Trans�ortation: The Marina site sits adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd, where it's conveniently easy to ride VTA anywhere in town, whereas most of the staff- recommended allocation is located in the same area of Cupertino (Vallco, Hamptons, United Furniture, Barry Swenson sites). This is an inordinate amount of residential units flooding the same area of Cupertino at the same time, alongside what will already be crowded streets from the Main Street project, Rose Bowl project, and Apple Campus 2. I can only imagine how crowded that section of Cupertino will be and the effects on traffic (and Cupertino High School). • Location: The staff marked our site down due to it not being a "Corner Lot/Public Interface." I think, on the contrary, that housing should not be on a Corner Lot in Cupertino. The Marina parcel is not immediately fronting Stevens Creek Bivd and is tucked into the rear of the block. Dahlin Group has conceptualized a number of designs in which the residential units and retail can integrate very well into the surroundings. Our residential front would be planned for Bandley Drive and Alves Drive, while our retail would transition into the rest of the Stevens Creek corridor. • Sin�le Ownership: The staff gave our site negative marks for "Single Ownership" criteria. In fact, our parcel is under single ownership and we maintain great relationships with all of our neighbors. • Existinq Use:The staff gave our site negative marks for"Existing Use." However, according to the staff s description of this criteria (Housing Commission Staff Report,Aug. 28, 2014),we are not a site with existing housing, condos, or well-established organizations.Also, we have strong interest to redevelop and bring back our retail tenants. • Likelihood for Redevelopment: We are the owners; we have interested investors on standby; we have already hired architects and begun discussing arrangements with our neighbors. All we need is an allocation of residential units that would allow the project to be financially viable for us to start building something new and great for the community. z For the Marina site, our intention is to bring back all the retail that currently exists on our plaza, and more than anything, our desire is to have Marina Foods return as the anchor. Our priority will be to work closely with the City staff and Commissioners to design something that is a win- win for everyone, where the community can shop at a brand new retail center and enjoy more housing options, while the City is able to further revitalize the natural downtown area of Cupertino. However, without this project becoming financially viable, we will likely have to stay the course and continue operating as is, and our site in the center of town is likely to remain stagnant for another 30 years. Our hope is that now, while we have strong momentum and desire to build something new for the city, that we can work together to do something special at the Marina site. Thank you so much for your consideration and support, and please feel free to reach me if I can help in any way. Sincerely, Steve Huang Marina Food 10122 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-255-2648 3 ��1 � 3 � SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY 4ctobex 13,2014 Via�vernight Delivery and E-Mail Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission Cupertino City HaII 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: General Flan Amendment: Office Allocation for Vallco Shopping District Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company ("Sand Hill") regarding the treatment of the Vallco Shopping District("Vallco") in the General Plan Amendment. Sand Hill is in the midst of acquiring the Va11co parcels for potential redevelopment, so we are keenly interested in working with the City of Cupertino ("City")to develop a feasible plan that can benefit all stakeholders. I am writing to request that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan include an office alloca.tion for Vallco of 2,400,OQ0 square feet and the height limits set out in"Alternative C," as analyzed in the draft General Plan's environmental review. Without this specific of�'ice allocation,as well as the necessary retail and housing components,there will not be adequate critical mass to make it possible for Sand Hill, or any other prospective developer,to successfully redevelop Vallco. Vallco presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched in the City of Cupertino. The site sits at a prime location in the City, yet for many reasons, it has long been neglected and numerous redevelapment efforts were either abandoned or have failed. Sand Hill has the fmancial capacity and proven track record with such projects and is poised to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for: a dynamic downtown where the community can live, work and play. Sand Hill plans ta completely transform the current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, sustainabie mixed-use neighborhood. 4ur plan envisions a balanced mix of 600-700 residential units, approximately 640,000 square feet of retail, a full service hotel, and 2,000,000 square feet of office space. The overarching vision is to create a pedestrian oriented"town center"consistent with the General Plan vision that will have synergies between the uses and nearby projects, such as Main Street. sf-34b7260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241• MENLO PARK,CA 94025•(650)344-1500•FAX(650)344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of�he Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page Two The benefits to the City of such a project go welt beyond creating a sense of place. With b00,000 square feet,the retail component of the project would be the same size as Santana Row and would generate millions in sales tax revenues way in excess of what is being collected today. Property taxes would also increase significantly, perhaps by 800%, given the billion-dollar plus investrnent Sand Hill is prepared to make in the City of Cupertino. In addition,we recognize that in order to obtain increased height limits for Va11co under Alternative C, projects must comply with the new General Plan's community benefits program. Although our specific project plans are still developing,the community benefits we anticipate providing include ground floor retail components and [transit improvements aad amenities, space for public entities, senior housing, construction of a new, or expansion to, a community facility/community gathering place,creation or dedication of new or expanded park, cash in-lieu contribution for such community benefits]. We would also be amenable to exploring, with other properiy developers,the potential of providing a community shuttle program in order to provide transporta.tion between employment and community centers. As required by the General Plan,these community benefits will be equivalent to at least 15 percent in value of the parcel attributed to the increase in height. The opportunity to transform the Vallco site is now. Sand Hill has a real plan,the capabilities to implement it, and the history of working closely with the City and the community. Prior attempts at Va11co redevelopment ha.ve all run into the same problem: full ownership of the site is needed for a successful project, and the current split and passive ownership structure has made parcel assemblage extremely difficult. After neazly three years of intensive negotiations with the various Vallco ownership entities, Sand Hill is now in the process of completing purchases for the entire mall. Single ownership will remove the key bazrier to redevelopment that has hampered the site for decades. However, in order to close on the Va11co parcels, Sand Hill needs assurance now that it can build a project that is financially viable. At present,the development allocation recommended in the Staff Report precludes such a projec�, and thus, a feasible redevelopment of the property. In particular, the Staff Report's recommendations to limit office to 1,000,000 square feet and heights to 75 feet(west of Wolfe Road) and 90 feet{east of Wolfe Road)does not work for our plan,or any plan for that matter. Redevelopment of Vallco is a substantial undertaking. It entails demolition of approximately 1.2 million squaze feet of existing buildings and construction of an entire new downtown over 50 acres. The General Plan's vision for a redeveloped Vallco is ambitious: a"town center"layout, a newly configured street grid, an expanded Wolfe Road bridge of I-280 to accommodate a bikeable and walkable"boulevard,"a new town square and plazas interspersed throughout. The General Plan calls for high-quality architecture and materials befitting a gateway site. Sand HiII shazes this vision, but such elements are all very costly. While retail uses are critical for completing the overall vision, such uses do not support the type of aznenities we and the City want to provide. Ir�arder for cornplcte redevelopment to sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK,CA 94025•{650)344-1500•FAX(650) 344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission 4ctober 13, 2014 Page Three be financially feasible, the project must include 2,000,000 square feet of office already studied in the EIR. Further, in order to provide this office square footage, while also respecting the neighborhoods to the west, increased height must be allowed, including up to 160 feet on the east side of Wolfe Road. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the General Plan allocate to the Vallco Shopping District: • 2,000,000 square feet of office space; • Include the site in the Housing Element, including at least 600 units of housing; + 600,000 square feet of retail; and • Heights analyzed in"Altemative C"be permitted(i.e., up to 85 feet west of Wolfe Road and up to 160 feet east of Wolfe Road, with cammunity benefits). * * * * * * Sand Hill is proud of what it has done in the City of Cupertino. We have partnered with the City and the community on a number of successful co*nmercial, retail and residential projects since the 1990's. As with those prior projects, we view Vallco as a long-term inveshnent. We aze a local owner and take pride in our commitment to the community and the City. Main Street is now under construction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2016. We iook forward to continued collaboration with the City and community in the redevelopment of Va11co. Sand Hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realize a long-term community vision for a revitalized Vallco. The development team and funding is in place to move forward now. However,we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City Council that without the necessary office,residential and retail allocations outlined above, we will not be in a position to redevelop Vallco and it will likely continue to languish for decades to come. Thank you f your consideration. � ec 1' ubmitted, r�''. Pet r Pau Principal and Founder sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK,CA 94025•{650)344-1500•FAX(650)344-Ob52 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13, 2Q 14 Page Fow Sand Hill Property Company cc: Mayor Gilbert Wong Vice Mayor Rod Sinks Councilmember Barry Chang Councilmember Orrin Mahoney Councilmember Mark Santoro David Brandt, City Manager Aarti Shrivasta.va, Assista.nt City Manager and Community Development Director Reed Moulds, Sand Hill Property Company sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK,CA 94025•(650)344-1500•FAX{650) 344-0652 .. � 3 �� S A N T A October 9,2014 CLARA UN�FIED Piu Ghosh S C�I O O L Community Development Department DrSTRICT City of Cupertino ---- - 10300 Torre Avenue 1889:.awrer.ce T2d. CUpCI'C1A0,CA 95014 Santa C'.ara,CA 95051 4 C 8) 42 3-2 000 RE: City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment,Housing Update �ZEY ROSE I�,Ed.D. SUPERIN'IE�tDE:'�: Dear Mr,Ghosh, The Santa Clara Unified School District appreciates the opportunity to provide input for the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report(EIR). The Amendment and Hausing Elements have several unpacts to schools. Pedestrian friendly communities are a catalyst for residential intera.ction, outdoor activities and walicing or biking to schaol. Student safety is paramount for the District an.d safe routes to schools help to protect the students and parents walking and/or bicycling to school. The District requcsts safe routes to the schools to be identified prior to large residential development projects. Students are extremely sensitive receptors to pollution and the air quality around the school can have a significant effect on students'heaEth. The increased traffic congestion,construction equipment,and ongoing airborne contaminants due to the projects should be studied relative to the proximity of the schools. The increase in vehicle trips may also affect the transportation of students to and from the schoals. Alternative C, The Proposed Project,evalua.tes adding 4,421 units to the City af Cupertino,some of which will be located within the Santa Clara Unified School District attendance boundaries, including Housing Element Site 10(The Hamptons).The Housing Element Site 10 cunrently has 342 units and plans to add an additiona1820 residenrial units. The increase in residential wnits will create additional students for the Santa Clara Unified School District. Laurelwood Elementery and Wilcox High School,two of the three schoals for this attendance boundary,are currently over capacity. The Santa Clara Unified School District will not have capacity for the additional students until a new elementary and a new high schoal is constructed. The Proposed Project also presents an increase of 5,383,910 square feet of office and commercial constcuction. Every 1,664 square feet of commercial or industrial development creates the need for one additional housing unit in the Santa.Clara area for new employees of the businesses. The District's schools do not currently have the capacity to accommodate the students from these homes. Developers need to collaborate with the District in order to remedy these capacity shortfalls within the Santa Clara Unified School District due to the develapment growth. Education Code 17620,paragraph(5), states a city"...shall not issue a building permit for any consiruction absent certification by the appropriate schooi district that any fee, charge, dedica.tion, or other requirement levied by the governing board of that school district has been complied with, or of the district's determination that the fee,charge,dedication, or other requirement dces not Q��°��QN apply to the construction." Santa Clara Unified School Distriet requests the City of Cupertino to °w�°�° -��----�— uphold the code section above and not issue building permits without the appropriate response llVA K.BE:VDIS J►M CATOVA ALBfiRT(30:VZ.�LE"L [t�srir�xoLrr-.R.�t�.�� 'he mi�sior of San�a Ciara i.Inified School Distri�t is to prepare stu�'�� ,NC)RE\-�RATERMA\N Of ali ages and abilities �o succeed in an ever-changing world.�� 1!f 1CHE1.E RYAI� RIS'I'd°HfiFt S'fA\1PCLIS from the District. When the City does not enforce this section of the code, Santa Clara Unified is not able to appropristely plan for student gowth within the District. The Santa Clara Unified School District is requesting the City of Cupertino to encourage developers work with the District to mitigate these impacts as well as the fees rela.ted to additional classrooms and/or schools. Please cantact Michal Hea1y,rnhealy@scusd.net with any questions. ,� S' cerely, "~..—... Mark Allgire, CPA,Assist t uperintendeirt,Business Services MA:mh Page j 2 �� Ivo�E.Samsan ivor.samson oQdentons.com 5alans FMC SN�t Doritan Partner D +1 415 882 2491 dentons.com DeMons US LLP 525 Market SVeet 28th Floor San Francisco,CA 9A105-2708 USA . � T +1 415 882 5060 ��An,` ,/ F +1 415 862 0300 �-��' �� October 13, 2014 BY E-MAlL & FEQERAL EXPRESS (planning@cupertino.org) Mr. Paul Brophy Chair, City af Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Tarre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Sears' Comments on Praposed General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Brophy: Sears Hoiding Corparation ("Sears") respect#u{ly withdraws the comments submitted in my letter of October 9, 2014 and will no longer be participating in the proceedings related to the proposed General Plan Arnendment. Thank you (and the Pianning Cnmmission staff)for your consideration throughout this process. Very t�uly yours, Dentons US LLP Ivor E. Samson !ES/kzc cc: Aarti Shirvastava 63??758S�V-I Beth Ebben From: Aarti Shrivastava Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:48 PM To: Piu Ghosh Cc: Beth Ebben Subject: FW: Sears/City of Cupertino: Sears' Comments on Proposed General Plan Amendment Attachments: Sears Cupertino GPA Review Letter(83016251_3).PDF Aarti From: James, Katherine Carr [mailto:katherinecarr.james@dentons.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:38 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Aarti Shrivastava; Samson, Ivor E.; Adams, Matthew Subject: Sears/City of Cupertino: Sears' Comments on Proposed General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Brophy, Attached please find Sears' comments on the Proposed General Plan Amendment that is being forwarded for your review and consideration by Mr. Ivor Samson of this office. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Samson directly should you have any questions regarding the attached. ��"'� Katherine Carr James Legal Secretary Assistant To: Edward Low, Shannon E. McSwain, Ivor E. Samson, Sara Dutschke Setshwaelo D +1 415 882 5057 � US Internal 45057 katherinecarr.james@dentons.com Website DenEons US LLP 525 Market Street, 26th Floor; San Francisca, CA 94105-2708 SNR Denton is praud to join Salans and �MC as a founding member of Dentons. C7entons is an internatinnal legal practice providing client services worldwide thraugh iis member firms and affilistes. This email rnay be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If yau are r�at fhe intended recipient, disclosure, copying, distribution and use are prohibited; p(ease natif}r us immediately and delete this copy from your system. Please see dentons.com far Legal Notices. 1 �1�� Ivor E.Samson ivor.samson dentons.com ! i � 8alans�NfC SNit Dentan Partner D +1 415 882 2491 denfons.com Dentons US LLP 525 Market Street 26th Floor San Francisco,CA 94105-2708 USA T ;1 415 882 5Q00 F +�a15 882 0300 {�ctober 9, 2014 BY E-MAIL& FEDERAL EXPRESS (planning@cupertino.org) Mr. Paul Braphy Chair, City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95�14 Re: Sears' Comments on Proposed General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Brophy: This ietter is provided on behalf of the Sears Halding Corporation ("Sears"}, which owns and operates the Sears store in the Vallco Mall at#he corner af North Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. We have reviewed the Cupertinn General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report(DElR) (June 2014} and its subsequent Respanse to Comments Document(August 2014) to identify the effects of the Proposed Project on the Sears property and store operations. This letter describes Sears' concerns associated with the proposed modifications to zaning and increased densification in the vicinity of the Vallco Mall. Planning Conte� The 5ears store is located at 10101 North Wolfe Road (APN under Sears ownership: 316-20-080, 316- 20-081, 316-20-082}. The parcels are located within the Heart of the City Special Area and the South Vallco Park Gateway West area. The Sears property is currently zoned as P (General Commercial), as indicated by the Heart of the City Specific Plan (revised 2012) The prapased General Plan Amendment also indicates that both the Sears property and the mall are currently zoned as P (Regional Shopping). The Sears site is also included in the South Vallco Master Plan (adopted 2008). The current and future land use as indicated in that Master Plan is Regional Shopping MaU. The Master Plan includes a number of objectives, including "improve cnnnections for vehicular access", "minimize traffic impacts on local neighborhoods", and "promote compatibility with existing and new davelopments". The General Plan Amendment includes the Sears site within the Heart of the City Special Area, South Vallco Park Gateway West, Study Area 6 and Housing Site#11. The General Plan Amendment Proposed Project would modify the zoning of the South Vallco Park Gateway West area, including the Sears site, to P (Regianal Shopping, OP, Res}. The height limit would be increased from 60 feet to a maximum of 85 feet if certain conditions are met. Additionally, Housing Site#11, which includes the Vallco Shopping District, has been identified as having #he potential for and reasonable yield of 80Q residential units. i • �:' Mr. Paul Brophy Salans FMC StVR b�nt�n October 9, 2014 dentons.com Page 2 Land Use Compatibility Effects of the General Pian Amendment Housing Site#'f 1 is proposed to include 800 new residential units. Additionally, the land use assumptions used in the traffic model for the area in the vicinity of the Vallco Mall, according to the Response to Comments Document, include the addition of 2,000,000 square feet of office, 489 hotel rooms, and the reduction of 445,171 square feet of commercial space. This loss of commercial space is in conflict with the policies included in the South Vallco Master Plan and the Neart of the City Specific Plan and potentially jeopardizes the Vallco Shopping District as a regional shopping center. The replacement o#the regional shopping center with alternative uses, as assumed by the EIR analysis, would potentially adversely impact Sears' business by reducing the appeal of the store for regional shnppers. It will introduce adjacent uses that are not necessarily compatible with the current regional shopping use. While the assumptions of the traffic study are simply a forecast af future use, it should be clear that if the existing regional shopping space is retained, and some magnitude of affice, residential and/or hotel use added to the area, then the traffic analysis greatly understates the resulting effects on the surrounding transportation network and traffic conditions would be worse than described. General Plan Amendment's Effects on Circulation Traffic flow in the vicinity of the Sears site already operates at constrained levels, and the Proposed Project will only make things worse. The General Plan Amendment greatly increases the development potential in the vicinity of the Vallco Mall. The increased development intensity and new land use types will cause significant traffic congestion impacts in the vicinity of the Sears site. The increased tra�c congestion will make access to the Sears store more difficult, impacting the competitiveness of the retail site as a regional shopping destination. Even without the addition of Proposed Praject traffic, several intersections in the vicinity of Sears are forecast ta deteriorate to a deficient level of service due to regional growth. The General Plan Amendment Proposed Project further increases total traffic volumes on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard by greater than �0 percent(in terms of average daily traffic), greatky exacerbating the forecast . traffic problems. The Proposed Project will result in significant project impacts at the following intersections in close proximity to the Sears site: • Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp; • Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp; • Walfe Rd/Miller Ave& Stevens Creek Blvd; • Tantau Ave 8 Stevens Creek Blvd; and • I-280 SB Ramp & Stevens Creek Blvd. Additionally, the Proposed Project will result in significant freeway impacts on bnth directions of I-280. These significant impacts wi{I result in deterioration of Iocal circulation and make it more difficult to access the Sears site. The Proposed Project's traffic impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the DEIR, as mitigations were not requi�ed in order to implement the Praposed Project. A traffic impact fee program is proposed in the DEIR, but no timeframe for adoption of a fee program is included and there is no guarantee that the potential mitigations listed will be included in the fee program or implemented in conjunction with new development. The fee program must go through a lengthy analysis and review ��!�► Mr. Paul Brophy Salafls FAAC SNR Denton October 9, 2014 dentons.com Page 3 process prior to the start of fee coliection. Fee accounts will only start accumulating upon adoption of the fee program ordinances, and there is no certainty that deficiencies in the vicinity of the Sears site will be addressed as they arise. The DEIR notes that a Project Study Report{pSR) is needed for the widening of North Wolfe Road at the 1-280 interchange, but no trigger for the PSR is identified, nor is a funding source identified. Traffic impacts in areas outside of Cupertino's jurisdiction are also left as"significant and unavoidable." Mitigation of these impacts are left up to the discretion of other agencies without a funding saurce indicated. We are concerned that the tra�c congestion resulting from the Proposed Project will not be sufficiently addressed, resulting in difficulty accessing the Sears store and negatively impacting business. Comments on Traffic Findings The traffic analysis identifies a number of significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. However, we are concerned that the magnitude of the impacts is not sufficient(y stated and/or insufficient information is provided to fully identify impacts. Same of the more serous concerns regarding the analysis' methodology and haw it may be understating the traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Sears site are as follows: • The traffic analysis does not study the Proposed Project's effects on the intersection of Perimeter Road and Stevens CreeK Boulevard. Perimeter Road represents a major access point for the Sears property and the Vallco Mall. Higher densities within the Vallco Shopping District will undoubtedly increase use of Perimeter Road and traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and are shown in the DEIR to significantly increase with the addition of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the operation of this intersection with the Proposed Project is of particular concern. • No analysis of peak Satu�day conditions was performed. While a Saturday analysis may not be necessary City-wide, given that the Vallco Mall is a regional shopping attractnr(and planned by the City as such), weekend peak traffic activity should be studied. Ensuring adequate circulation in both the weekday PM peak period and weekend afternoon peak periods are both critical to the success of the Sears store. • The Transportation and Tra�c chapter in the EIR does not reference or acknawledge the Stevens Creek BRT praject, currently in the planning stage. The ultimate effect of the BRT project on the roadway network is not currently known, but solutions under consideration, such as dedicated transit lanes or other transit priority treatments, may significantly affect vehicle operations and the viabiiity of the roadway network subject to the conditions of the Proposed Project. • The traffic analysis assumes completion of all Apple mitigation measures in the 2040 No Project scenario. However, the Apple Campus 2 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis(May 2013) indicates that imprnvements at the I-280/Wo{fe Road interchange and the I-280/Stevens Creek Road interchange would be significant and unavoidable impacts since they are in Caltrans'jurisdiction. Additionally, as noted in that same analysis, Apple is only contributing its pra-rata share for the improvement at Wolfe RoadNallco Parkway. The remainder of the funding and the timeframe of the improvements have not been determined. If these improvements were not constructed, then the impacts of the Proposed Project on the Sears property would be even greater than identified. �� Mr. Paul Brophy s�i�ris�nnc sH�oenxon October 9, 2014 dentans.ram Page 4 � While the DEIR did not contain information on the trip generation or detailed land use assumptions used in the traffic analysis, the Revision to the DEIR provide a marginal amount of additional information. However, it is unclear what trip rates were assumed in those calculations. Summary of Concerns In summary, we understand the City's desire to meet the demand for jobs in the area and to meet it's regional housing requirements. However, we are concerned that the increase in land use densities from the Proposed Project will be inconsistent with the South Vallco Master Plan and will negatively affect the Sears property and stare operations. These concerns are summarized below: • The densification �f nearby land use will significantly increase congestion and introduce additional traffic impacts, making it more difficult to access the Sears site. The increased travel time to the Sears site, and increased circulation and parking time may make it more likely that custamers will find alternate locations to meet their shopping needs. A traffic impact fee program is proposed as the solution to the identified traffic impacts. While this may ultimately help address Citywide circulatinn needs, we are cancerned that the fee program will not sufficiently provide the congestion relief when and where the impacts are generated. • The traffic analysis appears to understate the impacts of the Proposed Project by not evaluating Saturday conditions or conditions at Perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard; by assuming an extensive reduction in retail square footage at South Vallco Park Gateway West; and by assuming the impiementatian of projects in the baseline scenario that may not be fully funded and programmed. • The modification of zoning within the South Vallco Park Gateway West area may lead to a reduction in commercial square footage within the Vallco Shopping District, as assumed in the traffic analysis. This may reduce the regional attractiveness of the shopping area, to the detriment of existing retail businesses. It also is contrary to the policies enacted as part of the Heart of the City Specific Plan and South Vallco Master Plan, both of which emphasize maintaining the character of the regional shopping center and compatibility af existing and future uses. The Alternatives chapter of the DEIR analyzed the impacts of two alternative land use scenarios. Both alternative land use scenarios result in fewer traffic impacts than the Proposed Project. In particular, Land Use Alternative B results in much less congestion at intersectians and on the freeway, and a lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT} per capita. Land Use Alternative B achieves the City's goals of increasing density and providing mixed-use development opportunities, but without the severity of traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, we encourage the City ta consider adopting one of the land use alternatives to the Proposed Project in order to reduce the ProjecYs detriment to existing businesses. Additional ways in which the City can he[p address these cancerns incfude: • Implementing the fee program promptly, and ensuring that i# includes the full slate of improvement projects necessary ta mitigate traffic impacts. Projects funded by the fee program should be implemented as soon as sufficient funding is available and prioritized based on the location of the development. + Working closely with Caltrans and surrounding jurisdictions to ensure that traffic irnpacts in Caltrans or other jurisdictions are mitigated and improvements implemented in a timely manner. � r :�r Mr. Paul Brophy Salans FMG SNR psn#on �� OCtOb@f 9, 2014 dentnns.cam Page 5 • As development projects are proposed, require that they be compatible with existing land uses. This includes verifying that development activity daes not diminish access to existing land uses or the business viability of those uses. Thank you for this opportunity tn comment on the City's proposed General Plan Amendment. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, Dentons US LLP ,.•-.� ..-"'" Ivor E. Samson I ES/kzc cc: Aarti Shirvastava � �� 3 �� GREENSFELDER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LLC llAVID 5. CiREENSFELDER M�1 NAG1:'�'G PR/:VCIPAL J 10.708.8927 E'HOhE UAVID�wGREENSFELDER.NET MEMORANDUM TO: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director FROM: David Greensfelder, Managing Principal RE: Vallco/Office Allocation DATE: October 14, 2014 As stated in the Retail Strategy Report prepared earlier this year, for a variety of reasons the Vallco Shopping Mall is an unusual project. The Mall is well located yet suffers from significant vacancy. Complicating redevelopment plans that have been suggested from time to time by various parties are difficult to ascertain development costs due to assumed high acquisition and demolition costs, multiple ownerships and leasehold interest holders, interested parties with varying opinions about if and how the project might be redeveloped, and varying views of what a particular piece of the asset is worth or how it might be impacted by a particular development plan. In sum, any redevelopment scenario will be complicated and costly to say the least. The question has been posed: How big should the office component be if Vallco were to be redeveloped. The answer to this question would vary depending on many factors including market timing, anticipated lease and capitalization rates, anticipated construction costs, other project-related "soft" costs, and cost of acquisition. Ultimately it can be assumed that office and residential are the two highest and best uses (ie. the use[s] that yield the highest value for the property) for the Vallco property. It is understandable in a mixed-use project that any project sponsor will be keenly interested in maximizing the developable square footage for the highest and best use(s) given the anticipated high cost of acquisition, termination of leasehold interests,carry, and development hard and soft costs (including among things infrastructure,parking, amenities, or dedications for public benefit). Certainly,concentrating office space at Vallco would make sense given the size of the potentially developable area, location in the trade area, and proximity to transportation and freeways. There are also many precedents for successfully integrating office into mixed-use projects. BAE's Market Study suggests a net new demand of 2.4-3.0 million SF of office in addition to the remaining approximately 500,000 SF of unallocated office space. Given BAE's findings, a range of up to 2,000,000 SF of office at Vallco could be considered reasonable, perhaps even necessary to create an economically viable project. Of course balancing competing priorities from various stakeholders (i.e. City, developer,community,users, community benefit,etc.) is part of the process of crafting any large-scale development plan. Ultimately, determining the "right" allocation of office space will require review and analysis of a comprehensive development pro-forma for the proposed project. DF.VELOPMENT AND CONSULTING • RETAIL • HOIISING • L.�r.o Use • Eco�voMics �^^ '� � � '►'` � MEIV�C)RANDU�tI DATE October 14, 2014 To Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino FROM Steve Noack, PlaceWorks SUBJECT Genera) Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)—Updated Late Comments Received after the 45-Day Comment Period Table 1, below, lists and provides a brief response to written comments that were received by the City on the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR after the close of the public comment period.The 45-day public comment period ended on August 1, 2014. This memo responds to comments received between August 2 through October 13, 2014.' These comments are reproduced at the end of this memo. No other late comments on the Draft EIR have been received as of the date of this memo. These comments do not contain "significant new information," as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15088.5, which includes new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, new mitigation measures or alternatives, or information indicating that the Draft EIR is fundamentally or basically inadequate. No revisions need to be made to the Draft EIR. ' This memo updates our October 8, 2014 memo that addressed late comments received through October 13, 2014. 1��i�l�<-�tt��l�t��i7�ae�,�;::t� ��i�� ( E3�rkrl�:��, C..��ifi€�rr;i�:, �1r�.ai;? � :�?�.��.:>�3..:, � ��.j�;�;��`:�r�:�.�::��; �RESPONSES ame Date Received Topic Response3 �hn Frey 8/8/2014 Traffic, Emergency Impacts to traffic congestion are discussed in Chapter 4.13, Response,Schools, Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49. Aesthetics(increased The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional height) Growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5. Impacts to fire protection services,police services and schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services and Recreation,beginning on pages 4.12-1,4.12-8 and 4.12-18,respectively. Impacts to public service providers were found to be less than significant. Impacts due to increased height limits under the proposed Project are discussed in Chapter 4.1,Aesthetics,of the Draft EIR.As discussed in Chapter 4.1,impacts were found to be less than significant in all areas where potentiai future development involving increased height is being considered. See Response to Comment B11-01 in Chapter 5 of the Response to Comments Document. �rbara Rogers 8/25/2014 �^�Senior Housing,Non-EIR The comment is acknowledged. � ~^��mm�� related arlene Matchniff 9/9/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged. �n Whisenhunt 9l8/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged.Please see the responses to letter B- 16 in the August 28,2014 Response to Comments Document. uby Elbogen 9/12/2014 Water supply,schools Impacts schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services antl Recreation,beginning on page 44.12-18. Impacts to schools were found to be less than significant. Impacts to water supply were discussed in Chapter 4.14,Utilities and Service Systems,beginning on page 4.14-1. Water supply impacts were found to be less than significant. October 14,2014 � Page 2 � �RESPONSES ame Date Received Topic Response3 uby Elbogen 9/16/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged. abrina Risk 9/16/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged. �ish McAfee 9116/2014 Traffic Impacts to traffic congestion are discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Tra�c,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49. The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5.With respect to parking,future development would be required to provide sufficient parking as required in Title 19,Zoning,Chapter 19.124,Parking Regulations of the Municipal Code. :eve Hill 9I1612014 Traffic Impacts to all modes of transportation are discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49. The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5. �yllis Dickstein 1016/2014 General EIR,Response to Impacts to water supply are discussed in Chapter 4.14,Utilities and Comments Document, Service Systems,beginning on page 4.14-13.The cumulative impacts Water Supply,EIR Process analysis in the EIR accounts for regional grovuth.See Draft EIR, pages 4-4 to 4-5.Water supply impacts were found to be less than significant. �i Wetlesen � �1016/2014 Traffic The comment is acknowledged.Table 4.13-15 is edited to include the revisions mentioned. ark Allgire,Santa Clara 1019/2014 Air Quality,Public Schools, Air Quality impacts,including impacts to sensitive receptors,are nified School District Non-EIR related discussed in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of the Draft EIR. Section 4.2.3.3, Sensitive Receptors,on pages 4.2-18 to 4.2-19 describes the types of sensitive receptors,including children.Air Quality impacts are described beginning on page 4.2-22. Impact AQ-4,beginning on page 4.2-57,discusses the impacts of the proposed ProjecYs on sensitive receptors and concludes that impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b.The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for emissions due to traffic,construction,and existing airborne October 14,2014 � Page 3 �RESPONSES ame Date Received Topic Response3 contaminants throughout the city. Impacts to school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services&Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18. Impacts on school facilities were found to be less than significant due to implementation of General Plan policies and strategies,as well as mandatory payment of developer impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill 50(SB 50).As discussed on page 4.12-18,the California State Legislature,under Senate Bill 50,has determined that payment of school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation.All new developments proposed pursuant to the adoption of the proposed Project wili be required to pay the school impact fees adopted by the SCUSD,and this requirement is considered to fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project on school facilities,which could include the construction of new schools as noted by the commenter. Traffic related safety issues are discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic,Impact TRAF-3„which concludes that the proposed Project wouid not create safety impacts. or E.Samson,Dentons 10/9/2014 Land Use Compatibility, The commenter requests that these comments be withdrawn. See � S LLP Traffic, Economic impacts, Comment Letter LC-16 below. Non-EIR related atherine Alexander 10/10/14 Traffic,Noise,Quality of The commenter requests that these comments be superseded by their Life,Non-EIR related comments submitted on October 13,2014. See Comment Letter LC- 15 below. atherine Alexander 10/13/14 Traffic,Noise,Quality of The commenter describes existing conditions.�� Life,Non-EIR related Traffic impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.13,Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.The analysis was conducted in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara VTA. October 14,2014 � Page 4 � �RESPONSES ame Date Received Topic Response3 Noise impacts to noise are discussed in Chapter 4.10,Noise,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.10-27. Impacts on school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services and Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15131,Economic and Social Effects, economic or social effects of a project,such as effects on property values and communiry character,shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment unless they lead to significant physical effects. or E.Samson,Dentons 10/13/14 Non-EIR related The commenter's formal withdrawal of their October 9,2014 letter is S LLP acknowledged. �ter Pau,Principal and 10/13114�� Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged. �under,Sand Hill •operty Company :s used to organize the comments submitted on the Draft EIR in the Response to Comments Document.Type A=Agencies and Service Providers and Type B=Private Individuals and Organizations; The Late Comment letters are attached to this memo. s provided in the Response to Comments Document,published on August 28,2014. October 14,2014 � Page 5 October 14,2014 ( Page 6 From:John Frey[mailto:johnfreyca@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:58 PM To: City Council Subject: Growth and the straining of our services . Dear Honorable City Council Members, I am writing you on my concerns about our growth and straining of our services. I have lived in Cupertino for approximately 22 years and grew up in Mtn. View/ Palo Alto. I have firsthand witnessed how Silicon Valley changed from the orchards I rode my bike though to the concrete jungle we now live in. I truly understand businesses need to grow and that they provide valuable tax revenue to Cupertino. But when I see our businesses being bulldozed then replaced with buildings with businesses on the bottom and APARTMENTS/CONDOS above them, it is a bit upsetting. Is our City Planning strategy to become like San Francisco or San Jose? Or are we going to make Cupertino one of the most balanced Cities in Santa Clara? Where businesses are welcomed and residents have a safe beautiful neighborhood to raise their children in. When we approve plans to build these high rises we take away from this. We put more cars on our roads, more calls for service from our Deputies and Fire/Paramedics, and more children in our schools.All but one of which, I have not seen any growth in. Our roads have not gotten wider, there are no more Deputies patrolling though their beats have increased. This also can be said about our Fire/ Paramedics too. We do have construction on new classrooms (etc.) in our schools but these school are in established neighborhoods that were designed for single family homes back in 60's, 70's, and part of the 80's. Traffic around these schools are becoming a parking lot. Blocking city residents from being able to exit their neighborhoods and sometime their own driveways. I have personally talked to Deputies who have stated to me that if they work in the west end of Cupertino and a call comes out on the east end of Cupertino, they know it can take up to 30 mins. or more depending on the time of day. When you approve apartments/condos above old businesses, you indirectly create a whole new beat for each floor added. This adds many more calls for service with the same amount of Deputies we have had since I moved here back in 90's with no one to replacing the vacuum. We need more Deputies! I know we are building a "new downtown" off of Stevens Creek Blvd. I also know we are building the new Apple 2 building off of Wolfe. These are hugh projects and will bring more strain on our services and way of life here in Cupertino. Some for the good and i feel more for the bad. The bad is the high density housing and traffic! It really has to stop, we cannot support any more of these projects without destroying our way of life here in Cupertino. If a single family home has to cost 2 million dollars, then unfortunately it is the cost of living here in Cupertino. We have no more room for this type of high density growth! Or are we going the way of being the San Francisco of the South Bay? I know every one of my neighbors feel the same way about limiting the growth. I know a few years ago we had a petition passed that City Hall cannot approve any construction above 3 stories without voter approval (correct me if I am wrong). That was due to the big eye sore at the Crossroads (Stevens Creek and De Anza) being built with high density housing. Please, don't make the citizens of Cupertino have to speak up again. All of you live here and represent us. Control the Planning Commission and preserve what is left of our city community! Thank you for your consideration to this matter! Respectfully, John Frey -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket a�comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:04 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela Subject: Re: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting Hi, C.J. and thanks for your courtesy. I'm sorry I didn't see reference to senior housing in the staff report. But glad it was there--and not surprised that it would have been included. As the City is fortunate to have excellent members of staff. Please accept my apologies for not reading well enough to find the staff reference. And e�:tend my apologies, as appropriate. Thnx, again, C.J. Love, BR On Aug 25, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Christopher Valenzuela <ChristopherV@cupertino.org> wrote: Hi Barbara, I have forwarded your comment below to the Housing Commission as I didn't see the Housing Commission included on your prior e-mail. Thank you. Christopher "C.J." Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner City Hall Community Development Department 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3251 (Phone) christopherv@cupertino.org (E-mail) www.cupertino.org (Website) -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:03 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela; City of Cupertino Fine Arts Cc: Gary Chao; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting To: Housing Commission Chair Raman and Members Wilson, Barnett, Chu, and Maroko— I am very sorry to not be able to attend your meeting this Thurs. Aug. 28 at 9:00. I have a conflict on 2nd and also on 4th Thurs. mornings, unfortunately. Therefore, I'm emailing my input which I hope you will adopt in some form in your recommendations to the Planning Commission. Specifically, I look at the Housing Element section of the staff report for your meeting this Thurs. morning. I find no reference to older adult(senior)housing an the need for it. Perhaps I may have overlooked something in the long, well-written report. I did testify at several of the workshops where it seemed to me that my comments were welcomed and would be included. I ask that you include some reference to the need for older adult housing in Cupertino, as well as housing for all segments of the population, in your recommendations to the Planning Commission. And not just below-market-rate and subsidized housing but also for-profit units. There is ample documentation of this need which exists all over the country and is growing. I've made available to staff material relative to successful for-profit and subsized senior housing projects constructed in the Bay Area, across the LI.S. and world-wide. This need for senior housing, both government-assisted and also for profit, is growing in Cupertino, as elsewhere, as the senior demographic is burgeoning. I hope that in recognizing this need in Cupertino you will recommend for the City of Cupertino to increase the housing available in Cupertino for older adults. Thanks, again, for all you do to benefit our community and its residents--that you care enough to give of yottr time and expertise and make a difference for the better. I look forward to welcoming you to the Sept. 30 Forum Aging-in-Place. Thnx, again, Love, BR '� l�Y il�i� 1.��..lt�il J� 1 Since 1€�6� S�ptetnber�, 2Q l� Ms.Piu Ghosh,S��iar Pl�nr�er City of Gupertino 1�?300 Torre Avenue +C�pertina,CA 95014 [��ar Ms. Ghosh, The i�3tent c�f this tetter is to rei�3ft�rce tl�a�The Irvine Gotnpany(TtC)has a stcong desire to plan the future redev�lopinent oftlle Hamptor�s in full coopera#iori with�ppfe, inctuding but��ot Iimited to security,h�;ight, Ia��dscape buff�ri��, and amenities tl�at could serve ppssible future Ap�le emplayees that may choc�s�to resid��rithi�t close proxin�ity oftheir einplQymer�t. Fram tiie begi�ning 4f Qur dialogue wittt Apple,we were encouraged ihat providin�additional ha��sing nn�ar the App[e Carnpus 2 (ACZ)��rauld create an appartunity tc�re�uce au�a lrips fc�r ernpttryrees li��i��g within wa[king and bicycling distance to AG2. �n fact,th�AC2 EIR i�icludes a n�itigatiot�n�easur�, tivl�icll r�quires Apple to�xpand tlie Transportatian t?emand Managemei�t(TDM)Prc►�rarn tc�mduce ir��c impacts.T1�i�'T`DM Pragt�a� expansian requires itt�pleme��tation ofTQM �neasures that increa5e A�3�7I�'S IIQI]—Sl11�I�UCCLI�3�Il�VCl11CIC ittOt��t7��fu�� UII OCGU��IIC�C}��Il�SI��.The GPA°s prn�oseti increa�e of hausin�units fc�r the Hamptnns site�uilI provide a si�zif cant incr��e ii�housin�;witl�in a shart walking!bicyciin;�dist�nce to AC2, helpin�ApP1e achieve this�"C�1VI ret�uiren�ent. Recently,n�anagement at T1C were surpriseci tc�read the letter Apple s�nt ta the Git}�, sinGe�riQr ta that, tlie two ccarr�panie�had a�7 other��ise amicable and coc�perative relatiflnship over tl��y�ars, That coa�eration began w�itE� � significa�at amount nf coardination between TIC ar�d AppCe duri��g tl�e �eriod in��1[CJl tll�AC� DEIR 1�V�5�?�tLl��P��3c�C�C�, circulated for public ea��rnent, and eer[i�ed by the City o�Cupertirlo. Tl�is cc�ardinatit�n taok place be#v��een 24I 1 a��d 2t�13 and cul��inated wit1�tl�e executian ofhuo s�parafe agreernents b�tr�t�erx �pple and TIC(a i.and Swa�Agreem�rit a��d a Coristruction Irnpact Mitigatic�n Agr�ement�. I�uring the�vinter�f ZOi l, �►pple apprcrached TiC regarding the e:�pect�d ��eed to ini#igate the traff�c inipacts assaciai�d with+�eve[oprn�nt�f A�2.Tl�ey expc:cted tl�at �IR�ni�igatit��far#h�praje�t would inelude the widening of Narth Wolfe Road betwee�� Prunerictge Avenue a.nd 1-28Q,requirin�r��ht ofway i'ro�n tl�e Hamptc�ns. i» addErion,tl�eir Propased 1�C2 develapment inc[uded th�closure of Prun�ridge �veaatie bet��v�en the�-Iamptc�n's access a��d Nc�rth Tantnu A.t�enue.Apple cartimunicated to the Caitlpany tha# it was their desire, as�w�e[1�s tiie City�fCu�ertina's,that the Company ar�d Apple reach agre�ment on tllis Nc�rth�4'o[fe�c�ad widening and Pruneridge��jenue clo��re prior tc�th�Citv Cou��cil's�pprc�vai aFti�e AC2 ��jeciand cer�ifc�tian t�ftheirprcaject EIR, 69� N. McCar�thy B[vd., Suife 1�� Milp�tas, CA 9a035 Ot��er tlie cour-se of��earl}F t��vo years,App(e�nd TIC rescrt��ed a nunzher of issues to address the i�itpacts assaci�ted�vith the North t�'Vc�lfe Road r�ide��ia��nd th�vacatic�ry of Prunerid�e A��nue. Th�se included tl�e desi�i2 parameters of the Nt�rth VV�(fe rt�ad��ay�►��idenin�(i.e. number and z�idtti o�lai�es),tl3e design pararneters nfthat�ortion crf Pruneridge Avenu�tl�at r��c�uld remain bett��•een tl�e I�anzptans access at�d �+lorth�Naife ltoad, r�vievv of fut��re lan��caping plans�'or tE�e edge conditions�urraundiilg tlie �amptc�ns,irail and sidewalk requirernents,and rig��t of��Fa��carnpe��saCian.Tl�ese discussians co��cluded ��ith execution c�f a Lartd �wap�.greement beri�:een tl�e par�ie�in N�vemt�er 2013 ar�d eliminated any need for the City�f Guperti��Q tra use its po�+°ers c�f�miner�t dotnain tc�acquire the�3eeded r[�ht r�f wa�, alan�t�lorth Walfe Roac�. In the er�d,`TIC agreed to dedicate aGCess tc� Ap�te� Inc. in a L,and Swap for the price of�1 Q0, Our�ooperatian also��v�nt beyond ihe issu�nf required access. In Ma��2il I�,il�e I��IEt for AC�ti�as circulated to tbe public. Af��r T1C's review o#'t13e DEIIZ, we b�l�eved t�at a number of environm�ntal issues had not been adequate[y addressed.TTC ir3fr�rmed Apple c�four cr�ncerns fh�-ee weeks prior to the clos�af ttae QEIR review periad. Apple requested that TIC and Ap�le execuie a side a�reement tc,address our cancerns in lieu of sabrnitting a farana� DEIR comme�Yt Ietter to tl�e City of Gupertinc�.Qver tl�e nekt three weeks,r�e�ngaged in a s�ries ofcotnmuni�atio��s E�i�lt A�pte to di�cuss our issues.This� cc�ordinatian culminated in the executic�n afa Const�-uction Impact IV�iti�;ation A�einer�t between the pa�-ties in July�t313.T1�is Agree�nent dealt witla a nurnb�r t�f issues iricluding: • Ct�mmit�ent by TtG t�not wtrite a C��II�con��nent ietter • Spilfaver parking i��to Harnptc�ns * Maintaining emer��icy access to th�Hamptc��is sike at alI tiEne • Uses permitted in nearby I.ar�dscape Maintenai�ce Bu�lding an AC2 site • Noise liinits�'�onn Central P(a��t R Gimitatia��s o�� use of Frunerid�;e fc�r canstructian tra�c � Weekeild crrt�structian irtnpacts, �ust contrc�l • L)�sig��oftemporary naise��vai11 and Lightin�shields Despite TIC's,�eneral eancern at�aut ih�increased[raffic associ�ted with the A�2 pre�ject and the impacts assc�ciated with reduced accessibility to the E��mptnns site caus�d by the cCosure ofa sectivn of �'ru»eric3�e?TiC was willin�to work with A�ple to efiinin�te the need to raise con�er��s dur�n�the DEIR and llearin�proc�ss. Even tho�a�h our resi�ents are irlc�nvenienced oi� �d�i1y basis by the x�oise,truck ti•a�e,dust,and �en�ral incesnvenience c�f the cor�strucciorj,��te have l�anared a!! prie�r a�ree�nents. I�tow,as ��re explor� future r�develc�ptr�cnt aft�ur site,and �ric�r to filiri�plans for a sp�cifc proJect,Ap��le l�as e�pressed concern in ��vritin�to thc City, and a�sa festified against redeve[c��me�it of our siYe at a rec�nt Ht�usi�3g Cnrninission m�eting. We wis�tc�asse�re the City�hat TIG is�jillir�g to red«ee}aeights to 60 feet alon�the,�.pp{�b�undary and t�vr[1 de�igr� tl�e futc�re �rapc�sal w�ithin a 6t}to 75 foot range v��ith taller heights aloi�g t1�e freeway and stepping dotva�the height�a�� V�Falfe Road aa�d afon�Ap�le's t��undary. Witl� respect to Apple's privacy cor�ccrrts,TIC is comrnitted to ir�c�zporating a�a�rapriate seibacks, Iar�ciscape bufferin�;,�nd design features inta tl��desi�n ofthe �-�a�npto��s redevelopment, in order ta r�spect the privacy ofA�2. In fact,�ue l�ave a�ready en�ag�d AppEe's landscape architeet,t71ia�, ti��ith Apple's ��f'I11t5S1tJTt�ta assure App(e tt�at r�e��'C?I.CIf� �I�1[1�Z(��PC]U�t��['P,G'S `c3tli� �QII��f'.�Q".>GI'#..'�tl�t1C� bc�ff�r vie��s fr�m AC2 tra tixe i-Ia�nptc►ns site anci v��e vcrsa. Regardii��traffic, it is«�arth noting,a pc�siti�re conzmunity ben�fit nf redev�e�opn�tent�Fthe H��nptn�s, is related tc� Sectic�n�.l� af t[�e Apple De��eCopment Agre�nzent. This section requires t�ieir pa}�meni Qf $I,QOU,d40 tawards a tra►�spartation stud�.�of'1'1'olfe R.aad between I-Ic+�n�stead ac�d Steuens Creek includin�widening afthe�T�'olfe Road a�yercrassing at 1-28�.(Apple told �is that the}� had already paici khe �ity this study funding). I�c►u•ever,subject to the outcome c�fthe studys th�Cit}�a��d�pple are to determine funding o�t�c�ns tc� irnplement fhe recammended in�pro��emenl:s frc�m tllis transportation study. C}ne of those funding o�tions is reca�,»ized in Se�tia�� 3.1�to�e a M+e[10-Rc�os Community Facilities 13istrict(CFD}.�'urther, Section 3.1�,�ives the City sole�iscretion in makin�the findin�s wit1�the study and the funding mecl�a»isms. In li�ht ofthis req��irement,any develo}�nlent in t1�e ti'Votfe carrietor, includir��;rede�;elopment c�f the I�-�a�nptons a�ill ��ecessitate the preparatic��j of the Wca1�e intercha»�;e study �nd witl kick c�ffthe prc�cess for farmin�the patential fundin�tr�echanism for the i��prove��ents in t��is ar�a.This is a positive b�nefit for the co�-nmu��ity as the 'Wolfe interclaang� is i�� n+�ed a�'study.TI� reco�nizes#hat our pr�►ject,should it rnove fan�vard,�vould be subject ta an apprc�priai�cantrit�uiion to this fundin�district. Our g�oa(is tc►corltinue to�rork with Apple c�n a rnyriad of issues tl�at require cooperation t�ttiueen aur trvo a�ijace��t pr�perty c�wners,and to do so in a}�ro�`essional manner, V►re appreciate tt�e considerable efforts of the City tc�devetop the General Plan Amendment, Housing Ele�nent u�dat�, related zaning charzges,and �IR,as��fell as your cvnsid�ratic�n of thz t'acts presented in tliis letter. Please do nc�t hesitate tv ec�ntact me shoutd you r�quire additianal i�rfonnation. Sia�cer�ly, ��`'�`��_` ��°`�.��'�' ; �� Garlene Ntatcllniff Vi�ce Fresid�nt E��titlemex�t�&Pul�iic�4ffairs "I'he 1�•vine Gt�mpa�ay cc: Mayar atid City Council c�f�uperti�7o �avid �r�ndt, Cit�� Man�ger A�rti Shrivastav�,A�sist��tt City Mana�er& I3irector of Com�nunity I�eveloprnent � �� September 8,2014 Piu Ghosh 5enic�r Planner City of Cupertinc� 1034�Torre Avenue Cupertinc�,CA 95t�14 RE�Citywid�General P6an A�nendment Prop�sed ResQluti�n-Hamptons Site Dear Piuf We were pl�ased to read the letter from The Irvine Company ("TEC") confirming its intent to respect App1e's privacy and securrt}r needs in any future reclevelopment of�ct�e N�mptons site. The I�nguage q�oted below frQm T1C's (etter also conftrms that T!C d�es not want the 8� fc�c�t he�ght limit, vvith no �etbac�ks, as currently drafted in the General PCan Amendment C'IGRA"}: "We wish to cassure the City that T!C is willing ra reduce heights to 60 feet along the Apple boundary and wil!design the future proposa/with r�60 to 75 foot range wirh raJler heights afong �he freew��r and stepprng down �he heights on Wolfe Road and a/vng App/e's boundary. Wit�h respect to Apple`s privacy concerns, TfC is cvmmitted �o inforporating appropria�e setbacks, landscaped buffering, and design features intv �he then design af the Nampton�redev�laprnenr,in order ta respee�the privacy afAC2.'" The bc�ttom Iine is tt�at Apple and T(C are on the same page, but this isn't yet reflected in the current draft of the GPA, As current[y proposed,the GPA permits heights up to 85 feet v�rith na requirement for setbacks 4r other k�uffers. This seric�usly d�r�rages Apple� and dc�esn`t benefit T�C, since TI� does not require the additie�nal height to redeve[op the Hamptons site, We apprecrate that the City recognized Apple's rnulti-bil(ian dc�llar inuestment in Cupertinv and r�spected Qur sec�trjty and privacy requirem�nis during the approva) pracess for AC2, as reflect�d in the EIR at�d �arojeet approval fir�d�ngs. The City should continue tc� l�v� up tv that eommitment by r�vising the GPA and adapting t�e specific lang�tag�we previously propased, and shc�wr� belaw. ''�he height lirni� for �he s��uc�ures located wi�hi,� 50 feet af�he parce! line abr��ting adjr�cent er�rr�merri�rl prop�rties c�r Pruneridge shafl nat exceed b� fee�: The height �irnit� shalt r�o� exceed 6Q feet for the remair�der of �he H�rmptons site, unless �he City makes specia! �ndings that czn rncr�ased heigh�, up ta a rr�aximt�m of�5 feet, v�nufd not�infring� on the pr�vr�cy r�nd security needs of adjacen�neighb�rs,nor u»rec�snnably impa�t view corridors or scrnlfght, or create Fr'ghi ar gtare trespass. This mc�y require any �uture �developm�nt Qf the sire tv inrlude iransit�ions, landscaping, or ott�er mr`tigaFians,so tha�the Crty can make i�he speciai�ndings speci�ed above." �pple 1 tr:5�i��C�cr� l��S 21-��,G� ��rp��ir�o.CFI�°G1� T 4C3S 9�v-°�f3��J F 4��5•v27S �.'ti'��v��i�Gi3� Piu Ghosh Sepiember 8,2014 Page 2 of 2 _ _ _ 7t's_vitaT�'c�r tFie �ity.to adc�ress this issu� n4w. _Othennrise,_ihe City may F�ave un'intentionally I'rmiied its discretion to address pr�ject-level cc�r�c�rns after adapting higher density limits 'tn the GRA. �or example, Califc�rnia law prt�vides that the density of a propos�d praject �Qmplyi�g with the app�icable Genera) Plans z4ning and deve(opment policies cannat be reduced unless the City makes specific written findings that a reduction in density is r�eeded to avoid health c�r safety effects. Gov. Code sec. �5589.5�j}. There is al�o a �treamlined CEQA review for residential projects that are consistent with the General Plan, in v�hich only impacts that are "peculiar"to the prc�ject are analyzed. Pub. Res. Code sec. 21083.3. Therefore,the City should set forth in the GPA the key issues that need to be taken intQ ac�ount in con�idering potential redevelapment of the Hamptons site, since deferring this step may unduly bind the City in the �uture. We be(ieve the language we� praposed does that, and is consistent with TIC's statements regarding its plans for the Namptans site. �{ir�d regards, i�� Dan V+/hisenhunt Seni�r Dir�ctar Reai Estate&Development Apple cc. MayQr and City Cfluncil 4f Cupertino Planning Commission c�f C�pertino David Brandt,City Mana�er Aarti Shrivastava, Director crf Community Deve{opment z From: Ruby Elbogen<rgelbogen@aol.com> Date: September 12, 2014 at 8:06:04 AM PDT To: gwong212@aol.com Subject: Mr. Mayor- "Hell No, I Won't Go" Denr Mr. MQyor - As I watched the Plnnning Commission meeting last evening, and assumed the Irvine Company was pulling a prnnk on the Commissioners by telling them thnt the CompQny from The OC is plQnning to add 800-ish (give or take 3) apartments to what they already have here--I laughed and wQited for the punch line. Little did I know the joke is on us. So, when this is approved--are we expected to give up OUR water for them, as wel) as for Apple--so they can flush their thousands of new toilets? If not, where will the water come from? And, where will their kids go to school--even though it's not the City Council's problem, so to speak, you will still be blamed for letting it happen. You could tell the Irvine Company to go back to Disneyland. Thanks, Ruby Thanks & Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor/Publisher The C Mctgazine & Cupertino-News.com 408/355-0575 From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,September 16, 2014 8:54 AM To: George Schroeder Subject:The Fence Between Vallco &Our Neighborhood Hi, George- Rumor has it that Apple, the City and/or some other entity wants to take down the fence between Vallco and our neighborhood. Our home is on No. Portal. I can only assume that all the people involved, who are fairly new to Cupertino are unaware of Propositions D & E--and the fact that our neighborhood fought a huge war to keep that fence up. And, does the City and Apple, etc. realize how dumb the premise is that in order to promote Walkability those who want to turn our area of Cupertino into what it doesn't want to be--a friggin' Pass Through for Apple employees--who profess Walkability, but who can't or won't walk around our very nice quiet area? We want to nip this in the bud early, but we can gather a crowd to make it an issue. What is your advice? Cheers, Ruby Thanks& Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor/Publisher The C Magazine &CMagazine0nline.com 408/355-0575 COIVI M ENT CARD Ptease {ilt o�rt thrs card with any comments you have relared to the Draft 2Q40 General Plan an�! Housing Element. The City wilt include a11 comments in upcamrng Planning Commrss�on and Crty Councit staff reports. You car� a(so submit comments on)rne at uvww.cupertinogpa.org or via email to: ptanningt�?cupertino.org. Contac# tnformation Name: ` � :,s�'4��g",��. �� `� �� Phone # or Ernail: _��?t�� ,.�,w. Address: ��, � �c�k�`�.��. �`��5��'& -- �° � City: ��.� ��'��J�� State: -� � � Commen#s: � �``)�� ,#'��'�� `';�".��.s;�b�`' �;� � ��°°g `�� t�.�'� °' �;,s� rH�=`i�.w� �� f _�!_Y`��.c� 1.�,� ��`� ��Z��{a. �,„a�".,�� i�t�i-°;�� ' ��,.� � t.:.R.� C a�...�. t ,,�'��c��- " �!V r � �: � #'4?"��„lo a'�. �?�.�3L,�.'.:a°�'n'^�`�°4 l �`.:,.`.�, "? ;; �.;:r�� y�,,��;��,?`- a H :'�3 �:-R ='�a�� { a.��r'�'°r�� ';e.�`:`` ��C3 '� �t�`�i.,4`�,'..�_ �A;? L,..� � 4°.✓�g$�'t. 1'`nt � :.�' r �i>��,.,.7 �,�t�:i:, ? P b �� ..�,,..� ;.a P$�4,"�` '.., �K.�'�+ `€,�:...a�� ... _ .x a y � ��'4 3 ��. u��: ...�. �_� ..,. '� 3.�5s�.L�....�..,. � t � w � � �� E �€� ��` £,` , .. . z .. ��-��j t-„k.��=°. ��&y°l C� ;��'`°� �Y��.;f�� t.A�.a '��'i �`t�° ��ti�°?.,:.„as yY``I{.$ ��,,��3 .� �°#re•,,'�.' `� � �: � � -'��b ��'� � ��-4�`::�c= .`�c,��<.�� a��-�''-�i� �?,�� '�� .i�a �' .`�:.y��,�f, t � �.;''� t � t . {� �'c � , : �.., ° � , � ,4J;Y'•��.h�.{1� j � �.}a..wa � d�l�_.� �.'°�f«�n, _ �db� -,a� r i..� �,� ,,�, '°� a`� a °� � `� s . 3� f�: � a V V�.. .'��4�. ° ��E.4xrr? l...o.�-�� t �1 . �5� x"s�., . + �rv'1�.... s"� f;�..e�� {;'° f n-;_p•�,! ,a:°:,i. �.�..� s.:�R �� €� � ��o �� 'v.< „M�� 4 i y��*��'-�` ; . i�, �-�'�� . �� g,,, s ,,�: b}� � � ' � +"' s .:a ...�� -'� •-�=� �"�� . ux ' e ,._-- ,,, _.�__ � ' � � � t ... , e. ._ . , .5... `,�,1��k::°( � L.��.�`��.0 t, �..�"', „,,:C�?.��_� '��'_'�'�. +f,� ��Sl �_ �i�' 1; t �..�?;g S't�:�' ,.. g e:.� �� .... �4�� +....��...,.�i.��. ....� ��°..,.`�.€ �3�.��t.....�.+ �""'� �` �V "4,,.., §�' !�e.�,� k � g F- X s l,, ; �� ,,., 4 r � �:� �. _:)�,.��''�'�b � ��°��i i� g'*t �ati,�� ; � � i' �6�=� ��... §�t��`-�—��;'s< � .��wm_ �>��` �.- � �� , a ., ,. > e.,.. ,.. «w ., �.� E � `�"��t,»�� !��°��a?�� §�s :'�� q,`�,t`�3 � ''a,<�� 1 ��d��j�� `t a �.F c° �.�,� �� - For more information visit: www.cupertinog�a.r�rg C�?MMEI�T CARD Please fill out this card with any comments you have reJated to the Draft 2440 Genera� Plan ar�d Housing Element. 7he Gity wi�� inctude a(1 comments in upcoming Plannrng Commission and City Council staff reports. You can a�so submit comments online at www.cupertinogpa.org or vra emait to• planningCcupertino.org. Contact information Name: �r �/� �'d�'.�� Phone # or Email: �t��Y��r.J.�7C�, �� Address: 1�� `� Q l��r'' .�r�-' e��q'r7�`'�r'' City: L....,� =e�J��f�`'?' State; �-�.�.��... Comments: C,�� h�� ; �� -� ��►��G �..- �.��.,;� ��., �n:�� 'l�� " '. 1 1�='�-� �n�'. � ��r'� � u �-�?-�'�',�--� �' �.r� �''�c��'�� - � t �,�c _� �l��s',�1 �' J� /�`l ��,,,��" G� ,� ' �� ' � � ��-s' �� ;tr� t� ��'�' � ��,� r�� a ' � 1-�, -}--�,.�.. �d n t��,t�. _ � ,�� ,r��.� C�n��-�� - �� .r%f� ��! �c...a l!/�}t'Y1 ��,++�.. r G �'"1�Y�/��t�r t�.CiC�i" r ca,Ff} �..� 1 t�t''�t�� ' �� t' .. a� �� 1�Z v� -�'�" �.�- �n ��-�r��./� �� C..�'�.,rti� �.��r�.�.,�°.�. � � a�� .:��.��,1� _� ,,� � �-h ��, 1��.r l�:r F r1�► � �"'�- .�� __� / C.�-�--r '�,-- t„� t' 1 t3 7 Y� � �'� �� 1 �� ,�� 11�:�� -'�� s'�r� -�� E,� �. >�., ? �'•-�' �`1 �'— �i7" � ��t �1 ��"h. )1 1 p �f s2 �Ld.l� .� !"1'"1 M''3'Z Ls' '' Q I`!1 t'�fl �1�`t1-"t,F��,� ' a�f31a!> f, ! " �.�� '� 1`"!� l��..- -t` � �'�° t ✓ t.-f t:�' .-°7 !c� f�y7�- KJ�.�� - �� j� /� �'�~ . :✓ e''....� '�/�-� f..`,r� �`",% /1 .�r,� �,�,c..- .�" � �� "f l} :�Z.tL-. Gi+.`*.?i�Y1 P r �7�'t Y'}� �. , v �✓" U. Q,.-E�_" P'1 �U 11. ' 4 /"f S� ,t �� '�lJ (.�.s �/��df7� C.L �� . �L>�.�-...�.-�--�—� �� .'r L� GrC. �`l� '7�'.. , �_ 'j C.1�lS/t�1 � t�✓L � �:`�,.�t't/?'J t��-� r� •. j\,�-Y� ��..� �"r'vT't�.-. / �,,,-' ,/ _ �� . ,�f For more information visit: www.cuperfinogpa.org C�MME1\1T CARD Please {i11 out this card wrth any comments you have related to the Draft 2040 General �lan and Housing Element. The City will include atl comments in upcoming Planning Commissidn and City Council sta{{reports. You can atso subrnit comrner�ts online at www.cupertinogpa.org or via email to: ptanningQcupertino.org. Contact Information Name: ��'�� 1Ct Phone #or Email: S��'�"��3 �° ��,��,t��.�, j�,,,,,,. Address: �� tf�.f l��r� � �� City: ��`�`��' '� `� State: � Comme nts: J ��`ft -�� i e��t� --c �� -f�x; ,��,�/� .t�� ,Ir`c� 1„�-�.��r c�f ��°t r�"�r, � ��-i �.1��+�.=�le =� L�'�Uu� �7J c/!s�r . 1�.. �C,J = (jtJ��' �`d!"�('Ld,rn "��+.f .3��Cr�d � -�'r.�� P►"�c� r}/' "��C' ��. ,��t r�d u�� C/�?N',rey--c' ��r �F�^Z,�. �,�`a��' -- �"�U p� �!r.E�("�' `�� s-��.Y°'�F� L�1=�._ �tS�s - �} I + � �/ ��/ �t � .f tf�'�[1 f� r.�..r�t� � +�i�i '�✓��'S i � �' >�n y"��'v�� t'c Y"ai��'��r, r'"�T i�'J'. ��'�e�I Tb , . � ��-f- �,� c ��_ � ,t�`r�`�,e.�.. (rt�,,��+ il-,f �?��r`. �i� �`�..e i�S S-�,l f , s��°f�� '� �'�`s . .�. ��V^,� �<��j�:,e-�� ,{��'�S (�tf ��- f�'�t ��a�,�-�:.�� . 1�',�,��, r��n°��! 1�r� G�', �y r� ��. , , _ , r�' �-�.�'�e � �°�z�;� �v��. S y ,�. . ��-- �:�- �-`�-..�- �.. � `i s -�i� !l� G`�u � � r�- �� C",�.,� ,. � � , �v t=',.n �r1 yt c b� ��'� l�!'��_ ��'�` '�z*+�/z",f,-=� ,�/�'��^t t-"�-e�. ��fir�c� �•.., �j f�I�� • {�� --- I i'��'P �l�C.. �i�� °-� �' S�~i,� �'�?�Y�,�ti•(� �"ri��r`+�'r�;� G�r�d e��<} �,�`r hl��1 l�'��'p,r r� �'�t�s�`►n r `� �� I�,�� r,-�� ,°��7`+� �1 ��oy� �.�� .��-� �, i��,�, �.�r� c�b v:-� -�1.�_ �,�� `( ��;.�-- -�`t.,�.,`.� ± �� i �,=�.� � ► �` � c-,� � �j;,,�s'�� 1P��"i t�r `� �Ty c�� {��..1, -�.�,�_�z � r r �'�`'`1 C �`7�<,�c�ti:�-f'd `��l��t.� G��- ��"�tr►^ v��i 1�' �h G��. �''�i�t �c� f�r- For more information visit: wv�rw.cupertinogpa.ar� From: Dicksteinp@aol.com [mailto:Dicksteinp@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:17 AM To:Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks;Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro Cc:travigne-villas-hoa@googlegroups.com;faridakhan123@yahoo.com; pamcafee1942@yahoo.com; betspix@gmail.com; amarsl0@hotmail.com; rgelbogen@aol.com Subject:Council EIR session Tue Oct 7 4-6:30pm Gentlemen: Since I will probably be late for tomorrow's meeting, which is beginning rather early, I am submitting, or reiterating, some comments in advance. 1)The EIR is a bit of a whitewash. That is,the facts are there but the conclusions need to be taken with a large grain of salt. Impacts on traffic, air pollution and water supply that are reported as "less than significant" by the authors may not be so regarded by the ordinary residents of Cupertino. 2) The responses to the comments on the EIR are a series of justifications-- was there ever any acknowledgement that in a particular instance the commenter might be right and therefore something ought to be scaled back? 3) I have already spoken at length about the impact on traffic and air quality of further housing development on Blaney Avenue, but now, once again, I wish to address water supply. 4) Water is already being rationed north of here, while the latest issue of Cupertino Scene is urging residents to conserve water and suggesting several ways to do so. Yet what good does it do for us to take shorter showers if in the end water is not being conserved but simply transferred to thousands of new apartments and offices? Climate change is not going way and the figures provided in the EIR for a five-year drought situation belie their sanguine conclusions. 5) I am unclear as to what will happen on November 3. I hope that the final Plan will not be adopted the day before the elections! Many Silicon Valley residents work long hours and cannot attend an endless series of ineetings but they do vote. Any final decisions should wait. Sincerely, Phyllis Dickstein Travigne Villas From: <info@cupertinogpa.org> Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website To: info@cupertinogpa.org Comment Submitted by: Name: Kai Wetlesen Organization: None Given Email: kwetlesen@mac.com Possibly Regarding Page: /documents/view/195 Subj ect: Error in General Plan Amendment, page 4.13-25 Comment: regarding: The General Plan Hello, The headways cited in 4.13-15 are not correct according to VTA timetables within the Cupertino city limits. The following corrections should be made to the headways table: 23: 10 to 12 minutes 25: 20 to 30 minutes 26: 30 minutes 55: 30 minutes Regards, Kai Wetlesen �' � ' S A N T A October 9,2014 CLARA UNIFIED Piu Ghosh S C��Q L Community Development Department DISTRICT city of cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue 1889:.awrerce ltd. CLipe2'tiIIO,CA 95014 Santa C'_aza,CA 45051 (4G8) 423-200U RE: City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment,Housing Update CAl�'LEY ROSE IC,Ed.D. SUPER[NTE_YDE.\T Dear Mr. Ghosh, The Santa Clara Unified School District appreciates the opportunity to provide input for�he General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update Environmental Impact RepQrt(EIR). The Amendment and Housing Elements have several impacts to schools. Pedestrian friendly communities aze a catalyst for residential intera.ction, outdoor activities and walking or biking ta school. Student safety is paramount for the District and safe routes to schools help to protect the students and parents walking and/or bicycling to school. The District requcsts safe routes to tha schools to be identified prior to large residential c�evelopment projects. Students are extremely sensitive receptors to pollution and the air quality aroun.d the school can have a significant effect on students' health. T'he increased traffic congestion,construction equipment,and ongoing a.irborne contaminants due to the projects should be studied relative to the proximity of the schools. The increase in vehicle trips may also affect the tiransportation of stndents to and from the schools. Altemative C,The Proposed Project, evalua.tes adding 4,421 units to the City of Cupertino, some of which will be located within the Santa Clara Unified School District attendance boundaries, including Housing Element Site 14(The Hamptons).The Housing Element Site 10 currently has 342 units and plans to add an additional 820 residential units. The increase in residential units will create additional students for the Santa CIara Unified School District. Laurelwood Elementary and Wilcox High School,two of the three schools for this attendance boundary,are currently over capacity. The Santa.Clara Unified School District will not have capacity for�he additional students until a new elementary and a new high school is constructed. T'he Proposed Project also presents an inerease of 5,383,91Q square feet of office and commercial construction. Every 1,664 square feet of comrnercial or industrial development creates the need for ane additional housing unit in the Santa.Clara area for new employees of the businesses. The District's schools do not currently have the capacity to accommodate the students from these homes. Developers need to collaborate with the District in order to remedy these capacity slao�tfalls within the Santa Clara Unified School Disfrict due to the development growth. Educatioa Code 17620,paragraph(5), states a city"...shall nat issue a building permit for any construction absent certification by the appropriate school district that any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement levied by the goveming board of that school district has been complied with, or of the district's determination that the fee, charge,dedica.tian,ar other requirement does not OF EDtiCATFON aPPly to the construction." Santa Clara Unified School District requests the City of Cupertino to °°�°�-°- uphold the code section above and not issue building permits without the appropriate response INA K.BEYCIS Jlhi CAICOV,a ALBFRT GONZ.�LEZ :HRISTIICE'�OLTFR\:�s:v.r ��The mi�sion of S�IYI�'GZ GrLI?"R I,IYI?fied SchooI District is ta prepare s�u�� 1 .�1NORE1-lRATERhIA\�! Of c�Il ages and abiIities to succeed in an ever-charrging world.�� A.1ICiIE�.E RYAN 'HR[S'I'O°HER STA\iPGLIS from the District. When the City does not enforce this section of the code, Santa.Clara Unified is not able ta appropriately plan for student growth within the District. The Santa Clara Unified School District is requesting the City of Cupertino to encourage developers work with the District to mitigate these impacts as well as the fees related to additional classrooms and/or schools. Please cantact Michal Healy,mhealy@scusd.net with any questions. ,� S' cerely, Mark Allgire,CPA,Assist t uperintendent,Business Services MA:mh Page � 2 � � ivor E.Samson ivor.samson@dentons.com Saians FMC SFtR Dentan Part�er D +1 415 882 2491 dentons.com Dentons US LLP 525 Market Street 26th Floor San Francisco,CA 94105-2708 USA T +1 415 882 5000 F +1 415$82 0306 C}ctober 9, 2014 BY E-MAIL� FEDERAL EXPRES5 (pianning@cupertino.org} Mr. Paul Braphy Chair, City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenus Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: 5ears' Comments on Proposed General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Brophy: This letter is pravided on behalf of the Sears Nolding Corporation ("Sears"}, which owns and aperates the Sears store in the Vallco Mal! at the corner of North Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. We have reviewed the Cupertina General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft Environmenta! Impact Repor�(DE1R) (June 2014) and its subsequent Response to Comments Document(August 2014) to identify the effects of the Proposed Praject on the Sears property and store operations. This letter describes Sears' concerns associated with the proposed modificatians to zaning and increased densification in the vicinity of the Vallco Mall. Planning Context The Sears store is lacated at 101Q1 North Wolfe Road (APN under Sears owne�ship: 316-20-0�0, 316- 20-081, 31&-20-082). The parcels are located within the Heart of the City Special Area and the South Vallco ParEc Gateway West area. The Sears property is currently zoned as P (General Commercial), as indicated by the Heart of the City Specific Plan (revised 2012) The proposed Gene�al Plan Amendment also indicates that both the Sears property and the mall are currently zoned as P (Regionaf Shopping}. The Sears si#e is also included in the South Vallco Master Plan (adopted 2QQ8). The current and future land use as indicated in that Master Plan is Regional Shopping Mall. The Master Plan includes a number of objectives, including "improve connections for vehicular access", "minimize traffic impacts on local neighborhoods", and "promote compatibility with existing and new developmen#s". The General Plan Amendment includes the Sears site within the Heart of the City Special Area, South Vallco Park Gateway West, Study Area 6 and Housing Site#11. The General Plan Amendment Proposed Project would madify the zoning of the South Vallco Park Gateway West area, including the Sears site, to P (Regional Shopping, OP, Res). The height limit would be increased fram 60 feet to a maximum of 85 feet if certain conditions are met. Additionally, Housing Site#11, which includes the Vallca Shopping District, has been identified as having the potential for and reasonable yield of 800 residential units. � ll� I�I Mr. Paul Brophy Saians�MC SNR Dentan October 9, 2014 dentons.com Page 2 Land Use Compatibitity Effects of the General P{an Amendment Housing Site#11 is proposed to include 800 new residential units. Additionally, the land use assumptions used in the trafflc madel for the area in the vicinity of the Vallca Mall, aceording to the Response to Comments Document, include the addition of 2,000,000 square feet of office, 489 hotel rooms, and the reduction of 445,171 squara feet of commercial space. This loss of commercial space is in conflict with the policies included in the South Vallco Master Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan and potentially jeopardizes the Vallco Shopping District as a regional shopping center. The replacement of the regional shopping center with afternative uses, as assumed by the EIR analysis, would potentially adversely impact Sears' business by reducing the appeal of the store for regional shoppers. It will introduce adjacent uses that are not necessarify compatible with the current regional shopping use. While the assumptions of the traffic study are simply a forecast of future use, it should be clear that if the existing regional shopping space is retained, and some magnitude of office, residential and/or hotel use added to the area, then the traffic analysis greatly understates the resulting effects on the surrounding transportation network and traffic conditions wou(d be warse than described, General Plan Amendment's Effects on Circula�ion Traffic flow in the vicinity of the Sears site already operates at canstrained levels, and the Proposed Project will only make things worse. The General Pfan Amendment greatly increases the development potential in the vicinity of the Vaflco Mall. The increased development intensity and new fand use types will cause significant traffic congestion impacts in the vicinity of the Sears site. The increased traffic congestion will make access to the Sears store more difficult, impacting the competitiveness of the retail site as a regional shopping destination. Even without the addition of Proposed Projec#traffic, several intersections in the vicinity af Sears are forecast to deteriorate to a deficient fevel of service due to regional growth. The Generaf Plan Amendment Proposed Project further increases tntal traffic volumes an Wolfe Raad and Stevens Creek Boulevard by greater than 10 percent(in terms of average daily traffic), greatly exacerbating the farecast traffie problems. The Proposed Project wiil resul# in significant project impacts at the following intersections in close proximity to the Sears site: • Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp; • Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp; • Woife Rd/Mil(er Ave& Stevens Creek Blvd; • Tantau Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd; and • I-280 SB Ramp& Stevens Creek Slvd. Additionally, the Praposed Praject will result in significant freeway impacts on both directions af I-280. These significant impacts will result in deterioration of local circulatian and make it more difficult to access the Sears site. The Praposed ProjecYs traffic impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the DEIR, as mitigatians were not required in order to implement the Proposed Project. A traffic impact fee program is proposed in the DEIR, but na timeframe for adoption of a fee program is included and there is na guarantee that the potential mitigations listed will be included in the fee prngram or implemented in conjunction with new development. The fee program must go thraugh a lengthy analysis and review � • Mr. Paul Brophy Saians FMC SNR Benton October 9, 2014 dentons.com Page 3 process prior ta the start of fee collection. Fee accounts will only start accumulating upon adoption of the fee program ordinances, and there is no certainty thet deficiencies in the vicinity of the Sears site wiil be addressed as they arise. The DEIR notes that a Project Study Repart(PSR) is needed for the widening of North Walfe Road at the I-280 interchange, but no trigger for the PSR is identified, nor is a funding source identified. Traffic impacts in areas outside of Cupertino's jurisdiction are also left as"significant and unavoidable." Mitigation of these impacts are Isft up to the discretion of other agencies without a funding source indicated. We are concerned that the traffic congestion resulting from the Proposed Project will not be sufficiently addressed, resulting in difficulty accessing the Sears store and negatively impacting business. Comments on Traffic Findings The traffic analysis identifies a number of significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. However, we are cancerned that the magnitude of the impacts is not sufficiently stated and/ar insufficient information is provided to fully identify impacts. Some of the more serous concerns regarding the analysis' methodoiogy and how it may be understating the traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Sears site are as follows: • The traffic analysis does not study the Proposed Project's effects on the intersection of Perimeter Road and Stevens C�eek Boulevard. Perimeter Road represents a major access point for the Sears property and the Vallco Mall. Higher densities wi#hin the Vallco Shopping District wi11 undoubtedly increase use af Perimeter Road and traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and are shown in the DEIR ta significantly increase with the addifiion of the Praposed Project. Therefore, the operation of this intersection with the Proposed Project is of particular concern. • No analysis of peak Saturday conditions was performed. While a Saturday anaEysis may nat be necessary City-wide, given that the Vallco Mall is a regional shopping attractor(and planned by the City as such}, weekend peak tra�c activity should be studied. E�suring adequate circulation in both the weekday PM peak period and weekend afternoon peak periods are both critical to the success of the Sears store. • The Transportation and Traffic chapter in the EIR does not reference or acknowledge the Stevens Creek BRT project, currently in the planning stage. Th� ultimate effect of the BRT project on the raadway network is not currently known, but solutions under consideration, such as dedicated Eransit lanes or other transit priority treatments, may significantly affect vehicEe operations and the viability of the roadway network subject to the conditions of the Proposed Project. • The traffic analysis assumes completion of all Apple mitigation measures in the 2040 No Project scenario. However, the Apple Campus 2 Draft Traffic tmpact Ana(ysis (May 2Q13) indicates that impravements at the 1-280/Wolfe Road interchange and the I-280/Stevens Creek Road interchange would be significant and unavoidabfe impacts since they are in Caltrans'jurisdiction. Additionally, as noted in that same analysis, Apple is only contributing its pro-rata share for the improvement at Wolfe RoadNallco Parkway. The remainder af the funding and the timeframe of the improvements have not been determined. If these improvements were not canstructed, then the impacts of the Proposed Project on the Sears property would be even greater than identified. M � : Mr. Paul Brophy Salans FMC SNR Denton October 9, 2014 dentons.com Page 4 • While the DEIR did not contain information an the trip generation or detailed land use assumptions used in the traffic analysis, the Revision to the DEIR provide a marginal amount of additianal infarmation. However, it is unelear what trip rates rrvere assumed in those calculatians. Summary of Concerns In summary, we understand the City's desire to meet the demand for jobs in the area and to meet it's regional housing requirements. Hawever, we are concerned that the increase in land use densities fram the Proposed Project will be inconsistent with the South ValEco Master Plan and will negatively affect the Sears property and store operations. These cancerns are sumrnarized below: • The densification of nearby land use will significantly increase congestion and intraduce additional traffic impacts, making it more diificult to access the Sears sita. The increased travel time to the Sears site, and increased circulatian and pa�king time may make it more likely that customers will find alternate locations to meet their shopping needs. A tra�c impact fee program is proposed as the solution #o the identified traffic impacts. While this may ultimately help address Citywide circulation needs, we are concerned that the fee program will not sufficiently provide the congestion relief when and where the impacts are generated. • The traffic analysis appears fo undarstate the impacts of the Proposed Project by not evaluating Saturday condi#ions or conditions at Perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard; by assuming an extensive reduction in retail square footage at South Vaflco Park Gateway West; and by assuming the implementation of projects in the baseline scenario that may not be fully funded and programmed. • The modification af zoning within the S�uth Vallco Park Gateway West area rnay lead to a reduction in commercial square footage within the Val[co Shapping District, as assumed in the traffic analysis. This may reduce the regianal attractiveness of the shopping area, to the detriment of existing retail businesses. It also is cantrary to the poficies enacted as part of the Heart of the City Specific Plan and South Va11co Master Plan, both of which emphasize maintaining the character of the regional shopping center and compatibility of existing and future uses. The Alternatives chapter of the DEIR analyzed the impacts of two alternative land use scenarios. Both alternative land use scenarios result in fewer traffic impacts than the Proposed P�oject. ln particular, Land Use Alternative B results in much less congestion at intersections and on the freeway, and a lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita. Land Use Alternative B achieves the City's goals of increasing density and providing mixed-use deve(opment opportunities, but without the severity of traffic impacts associated with the Propased Project. Therefare, we encourage the City to consider adopting ane of the land use alternatives to the Proposed Project in arder to reduce the Project's detriment to existing businesses. Additional ways in which the City can help address these concerns include: � Implementing the fee program pramptly, and ensuring that it includes the full slate of improvement prajects necessary ta mitigate traffic impacts. Projects funded by the fee program should be implemented as soon as sufficient funding is available and prioritized based on the locatian of the dev�lopment. • Wnrking closely with Caltrans and surrounding jurisdictions to ensure that traffic impacts in Caltrans ar other jurisdictions are mitigated and improvements irnplemented in a timely manner. f • Mr. Paul Brophy sa��,s�mc sN�a��,fo,� October 9, 2014 dentons.cam Page 5 • As development projects are praposed, require that they be compatibie with existing land uses. This includes verifying that development activity does not diminish access ta existing land uses or the business viability of those uses. Thank you for this oppor#unity ta comment on the City's proposed General Plan Amendment. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or cortcerns. Very truly yours, Dentons US LLP �rr�/`►i■�.� �� Ivor E. Samson I ES/kzc cc: Aarti Shirvastava From: Sent: Friday,October 10,2014 2:47 PM To:George Schroeder Subject: Re:Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update- Planning Commission Thanks, George. I have a board meeting that night at one of the non-profits whose Web site I write/manage,and can't attend. My comments for the record: In my opinion, new, dense housing complexes will ruin property values for single-family homeowners and impact the historic safety of our Cupertino neighborhoods,overcrowd our struggling schools (Building up is not a viable solution) and increase traffic and parking problems to unbearable levels. Residents who pay property taxes here are already struggling with traffic congestion and parking problems at shopping areas due to downsized parking lots designed to increase acreage available for development. Many residents now shop and dine in other cities where parking and congestion is more manageable, as was mentioned more than once by residents during the hearings,yet apparently not recorded in the minutes by consultants working for developers and the City. In my opinion, our Cupertino City Council and the current Community Development manager seem to care about housing Apple employees who bike and walk to work and are not working for long term residents who own single family homes here and want to preserve their quality of life. Seniors, residents with small children and those who are disabled are not able bike or walk to shops or restaurants in overdeveloped areas of Cupertino.These physically-impacted groups seem to have no place in the City of Cupertino envisioned by the manager of the Cupertino Community Development team,who seems unwilling to hear any actual opinions and experiences from residents which differ from her own somewhat rigid futuristic vision and theories of how we should want to live here. Her goals for our City seem to be based on her cited and compiled,theoretical planning statistics, not what residents want. The Cupertino Community Development manager apparently was part of the team who created the current traffic and parking mess in downtown Mountain View, based on the same bike and public transit theories and statistics she seems to using now,to envision the Cupertino she feels would be best for residents. Despite the feedback that most residents disagree with her,these theories trump actual residents views,so some of us have stopped attending public hearings because she and the City Councit don't seem to be willing to hear that residents don't want any of the changes planned for Cupertino and its posse of consultants and developers. Residents are interrupted or cut off at hearings and some of our anti-growth views don't seem to be recorded by the consultants working for developers and City. The Cupertino Community Development manager was apparently one of the city planning team who created the "new Mountain View,"where travel and parking is now almost inaccessible, where Mountain View residents and business owners must now purchase$300 annual parking permits to visit shops and restaurants or park near their own downtown businesses. Downtown Mountain View restaurants and shops on Castro Street are now almost inaccessible to residents, based on severe traffic and parking problems every evening. City visitors now attempt to � park in front of resident's homes in those residential areas several blocks deep surrounding Castro Street,since the same, "everyone will bike and take public transit"thinking, apparently by this Cupertino planning manager during her tenure in Mountain View,was used to tell residents what they should want in their City based on statistical models which were unrealistic,so vastly inadequate and poorly planned parking, has become the new norm in Mountain View. Now, Mountain View residents are living in a civic nightmare of continual congestion,with residents and visitors circling blocks in every direction for over 30 minutes most evenings,just to find one parking spot.This is not safe for families, children,the elderly, or the disabled,who use cross walks and need parking in front of their own homes, and who absolutely need their cars and parking spots near Mountain View's Kaiser facility,City Hall, Library, pharmacies,grocery stores and other shops. Cupertino residents do not want to see our City condense itself to a limited bike/mass transit- centered future,where every foot of our City is not just developed, but over developed,and the elderly and disabled, or those with small children are disenfranchised. Long-time residents don't want their community to become a series of high-rise apartment complexes and condos over businesses, or of shopping areas, parks and libraries which no longer have adequate parking and green space for residents. High-density developments age and degrade over time and look shabby, and they are hard to remove once they are in place because they make money for the owners,who most often do not live in Cupertino themselves and don't have to live near them or deal with the traffic, health and safety problems they create. Protect Cupertino property for those home and business owners who actually live in our City and who care about its long term quality of life, its history, its safety, its schools, and our families, seniors, and disabled. Create a balanced City which is not overly focused on one business or one demographic, at the expense of everyone else in the City. Residents with single family homes who moved here expecting their neighborhoods to exist of other families in similar single family homes,who were told Cupertino had a "no-growth" policy when they moved here,do not to be overlooked by apartment and condo complexes, multistory garages, or Santana Row-like developments that, let's face it, no matter how fancy they are,are fake re- creations of historic buildings and look fake and tacky. Cupertino demolished (and should have preserved) its own historic buildings, and lost what could have been its own Los Gatos-like authentic Santa Cruz/University Avenue quaint downtown area with a planned civic center park at the corner of Stevens Creek and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (as it was called then). Instead, as it always has since the 1970's,Cupertino City Council members chased the development and industry dollar, believing the large industry du jour(remember Varian Associates/Valco Park, Hewlett Packard, Sunsweet,Gemco, and all of the other businesses which were the answer for Cupertino,yet have since fled)were the answer to Cupertino's future. Even now,Apple is moving to a complex bordering Santa Clara, and my guess is that the dated and run-down light industry buildings it uses near Bandley Avenue, Lazaneo Avenue, and Mariani Drive,will be abandoned in the next 5 years,with no industry filling those office space leasing gaps. Those industries mentioned above moved away after Cupertino had already destroyed plans for parks, Civic Centers and museums using historic buildings on those properties,which had been previously preserved in no-growth plans to benefit residents and our history. Sadly,we can't bring 2 our historic structures back. Even the historic Cali Brothers grain silo, left to the City and destined to become a historic park relic,since it was beloved by many here as the town's own Eiffel Tower-like monument when it was decorated with lights and a tree every holiday season,somehow was mysteriously destroyed when it was entrusted to the City of Cupertino,and Apple wanted to develop that corner lot. Let's face it, Cupertino has apparently been for sale to the latest developer for many years now, based on greed for revenue at City hall,with its posse of Chamber allies, consultants and developers. What Cupertino could have been, if creating a city which respected our history, environment (while refusing funding for civic life projects and programs from our greatest local polluter, Lehigh Cement), neighborhoods,green space and quality of life for residents and families,was lost long ago. The latest consultant and developer-based dance around producing an Amended City Plan, is just another step towards turning Cupertino into Mountain View, where there is little parking,cramped residential areas and schools, and where some historic structures have been destroyed to create fake, new buildings with an historic look,to jump on the current Santana Row-themed fad of fake historic Victorian or Mediterranean-like architecture,for those who want to feel like they are in historic Los Gatos or San Francsico,yet don't want to make the effort to drive there to experience real respect for history and authentic architectural preservation. Folks,you can't sell phony, high-density Victorian and Mediterranean architecture to high tech workers.These workers are highly educated and know the difference between fake Victorian and Mediterranean cheap residential reproductions,which is why many of them choose to live in Los Gatos,Saratoga, Los Altos and Palo Alto,where actual historical homes and structures were thoughtfully preserved by those cities and still exist as businesses and single family homes. High density housing in those cities is not crammed in among single family neighborhoods, but limited to light industrial areas,so home values and the quality of life in city centers, is not impacted by less desirable combined residential and business developments. Best, Catherine Alexander http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/ From: Catherine Alexander[mailto: Sent: Friday,October 10,2014 3:58 PM To:George Schroeder Subject: Re: PS-Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update- Planning Commission Hello George, Please also add this to the record: As a Cupertino resident, my single family home,which used to be inside and surrounded by orchards, was allowed,through re-zoning and City Plan amendments,to sit beside a huge apartment complex and its entry lane, once our neighbor sold his orchard land to developers. 3 In what once was a clean and quiet neighborhood of single family homes, my home and front yard now and for many years since the apartment development was built, has had chronic: * Car alarms at all hours. * Traffic at all hours. * Honking at all hours. * Dogs barking and cats howling at all hours. * Cats defecating in my back yard at night. (I don't have pets.) * Cats having kittens in my yard. * Rats regularly coming under my fence,since the trash bins in the complex parking area are directly across the entry lane from my back yard. * Conversations and car key electronic beeping noises at all hours on the entry lane nearthe bedroom windows of my home. * People trespassing and walking under my bedroom windows at all hours. (the City will not allow a fence to be built near the property line.) * Loitering running vehicles and parked vehicles in no-parking areas in front of my home,with people using phones,talking,visiting, eating and smoking in illegally parked cars,since the apartment complex is non-smoking. * People parked across the street from my driveway(in a no parking area) and taking photos of my home and garage,when I have my garage doors open. * Apartment managers (male)who watched me through their tall shrubs,when I mowed my lawn or trimmed my plants. * Cigarettes,cigarette butts,food, cups,wrappers, used and unused condoms, and used and unused sanitary napkins/tampons,and other food related and personal trash,which is regularly tossed in my yard and under my 50-year-old redwood trees,which I have to clean up. * Weeds and quince apples left behind apartment complex bushes at their property line,which are never removed by apartment yard maintenance workers (I have asked)so I am left to remove them myself to prevent the spread of seeds/weeds into my yard,or rodents and pests near, in or under my home. * People regularly smoking near my historic trees without any apparent common sense or respect for my property or fire safety,flicking their live ashes and butts in my yard on dry mulch under my dry trees,which I can't water during this drought. * People also smoking and flicking live ash and butts under dry trees, leaves and needles,on the state property across the street from my home, creating ongoing neighborhood fire danger, despite 4 years of requesting that the apartment complex create a smoking area on its own property,to improve chronic littering problems and fire safety in the neighborhood. * People sitting under the trees on my property, in my front yard,without respect to property boundaries. * Workers from the complex, parking in my driveway to make phone calls and eat lunch. * Repossession car haulers parking across my driveway as they quietly walk through apartment complex parking areas to repossess cars from delinquent car buyers, usually between midnight and 1:30 a.m. on work nights,with their pulleys and hydraulics running the entire time outside my bedroom windows. * Moving vans,tractors and construction crews parked across my driveway for several hours, as work takes place in the apartments during the year. * Tractors and trailers left parked in front of my home for days in no parking areas, as construction takes place in the apartments. * Devaluation of my home and property,due to all of the above from the existence of apartments next door to my home, as reported in my last property evaluation. 4 When the City says there will be no impact to existing single family homeowners from new high- density residential developments,that is not accurate nor honest, in my opinion and based on my real life experience. Best, Catherine Alexander http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/ From:Catherine Alexander[mailto: Sent: Friday,October 10, 2014 4:20 PM To:George Schroeder Subject: Re: PS again comments to add to the bulleted list-Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update- Planning Commission • Since apartments went in next door to my home, I can no longer sleep in my my master bedroom. I have to sleep in a small bedroom on the other side of my home, due to the constant car alarms,early morning honking, and car key electronic beeps in the parking area of the complex,which is directly across their entry lane from the windows of two of the bedrooms in my home,once of which happens to be my master bedroom. • I hear a steady stream of talking and slamming car doors, if I try to use my own master bedroom,since apartment residents also park along the lane along my bedroom windows, and sometimes have prolonged loud conversations near their cars. I have literally been jolted awake at 1 or 2 a.m., nearly every day of the week, until I gave up and slept in another room in my house. • Likewise, residents leave their apartment unit windows open at night and crank up their music and televisions,so it is impossible to use my master bedroom in summer months, since I hear all of their music, movies and programs. • I am also woken at 6 a.m. on weekdays from apartment noise (I worked some nights on my job with the County,so this was a real problem),which including slamming car doors, yelling, and people honking several times directly outside my bedroom windows,while picking others up at the complex or dropping them off late at night. Best, Catherine Alexander http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/ 5 From: George Schroeder [mailto:GeorgeS@cupertino.org] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:57 AM To: Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino; Terri McCracken; Dan Amsden Subject: Catherine Alexander Comments on GPA/HE - SUPERSEDES OTHERS Good Morning, I received these comments from Catherine Alexander over the weekend. and she said to let these supersede the 2 or 3 others she sent on Friday.Thank you, and see below: My comments for the GPA hearing record: In my opinion, new, dense housing complexes will ruin property values for single-family homeowners, impact the historic safety of our Cupertino neighborhoods, overcrowd our struggling schools (adding new stories to existing schools is not a viable solution, since city streets are already impassible for parents and residents who live near schools) and dense development of any type will increase traffic and parking problems to more unbearable levels. Residents who pay property taxes here are already struggling with traffic congestion and parking at shopping areas, due to downsized parking lots designed to increase acreage available for development. Many residents now shop and dine in other cities where parking and traffic congestion is more manageable, as was mentioned more than once by residents during the GPA hearings,yet was apparently not summarized in the report of overly-favorable resident feedback found in the proceeding materials as produced by developer-paid consultants funded by interested business owners and the City. In my opinion, our Cupertino City Council and the current Cupertino Community Development manager seem to care only about courting and housing local tech employees who bike and walk to work. Our City Council and Community Development manager no longer seem to be working for(nor really considering the interests of) long term and new Cupertino residents who pay their salaries through taxes, nor residents who own single family homes here who also want to preserve their quality of life, having made a significant financial investment in our community and its welfare. Seniors, residents with small children and those who are disabled are not able to bus, bike or walk to shops or restaurants in Cupertino.Those physically-impacted groups seem to have no place in the City of Cupertino envisioned by the manager of the Cupertino Community Development team, who seems unwilling to hear any actual opinions and experiences from residents which differ from her own somewhat rigid futuristic vision and academic theories of how we "should" want to live here. She repeatedly seems to not hear or acknowledge what residents have stated they want for Cupertino's future, if those comments and wishes do not . 1 agree with her projected models and research statistics, based on popular urban planning theory. The Cupertino Community Development manager apparently was part of the team which created the current traffic and parking mess in downtown Mountain View, all based on the same bike, pedestrian and public transit theories and statistics she seems to be using now, to envision the Cupertino she feels would be best for residents. Some residents have stopped attending public hearings because they don't want any of the changes planned for Cupertino by its posse of urban planners, consultants and developers. Residents expressing opposition have been interrupted or cut off at hearings, and some of our anti-growth views don't seem to be recorded by the consultants working for stakeholder developers, business owners and the City, or found in those glossy General Plan Amendment brochures the City posts online,which residents often can't access or print, due to heavy graphics usage which eats up home ink cartridges and takes huge chunks of Internet bandwidth to download. The Cupertino Community Development manager was apparently one of the city planning team who created the "new downtown Mountain View,"where car travel and parking has become almost impossible. Mountain View residents,workers and business owners must now purchase $300 annual parking permits to visit shops and restaurants,to park near jobs, or to park near their own downtown businesses. Visitors to downtown Mountain View now attempt to park in front of resident's homes in residential areas surrounding Castro Street, since the same, "everyone will bike,walk and take public transit"thinking, apparently from this Cupertino Community Development manager during her tenure in Mountain View, was used to tell residents what they should want in their City, based on the same unrealistic statistical models now being used in the City of Cupertino. Apparently, as a result, vastly inadequate surface road access and poorly planned City-wide parking levels, pedestrian safety and access for seniors and the disabled, or families with small children, have become the new norm in Mountain View, after their downtown was repurposed. Mountain View residents near Castro Street live in a civic nightmare of continual congestion, with residents and visitors circling blocks in every direction for nearly 30 minutes most evenings, just to find one parking spot.This is not safe for families, children, the elderly, or the disabled, who need safe cross walks and easy parking in front of their own homes, plus easily accessible parking near Mountain View's Kaiser facility, City Hall, Library, pharmacies,grocery stores and other shops. One wonders if their stories now appear in the statistical models recalculated or revised by the City of Mountain View, once the real-life effects of poor planning became apparent years later. 2 Cupertino residents do not want to continue to see our City condense itself into a limited bike/mass transit-centered future, where every foot of our City is not just developed, but overdeveloped, and the elderly and disabled, or those with small children, continue to beforgotten in favor or tech workers' habits and preferences. Residents do not want our City to become so densely occupied that normal living becomes even more impossible, due to the already extremely poor City Community Development management planning used in the location of civic buildings, parks and the parking lots adjacent to them, notably our Cupertino City Hall,the Library, the Cupertino Community Hall and Memorial Park, which residents are often unable to access or use, due to the ongoing lack of parking during events and programs. Ironically, Cupertino residents are unable to attend civic hearings on the proposed City General Plan Amendment, because there is such inadequate parking near the combined City Council Chamber/Community Hall, located between the library and City Hall.The fancy, online City Plan General Amendment consultant-produced documents and promotional booklets do not mention that each public General Plan Amendment-related hearing has had maybe 2-5 residents present in recent months, due to inability of residents to park nearby to attend these meetings, or the fact that some hearings were held during normal 9-5 business hours, when most Cupertino residents were either at work or busy with childcare. There seems to be a sad lack of transparency and honesty in the online General Plan Amendment documents, since they were produced to push residents towards approving new high density housing and multiuse developments, and to make it appear that residents were really behind the move towards new high-density, when in reality, the same flotilla of businesses and their developers, consultants and the Chamber of Commerce, seem to really be behind the move to continually sell out and increase the density of Cupertino's residential landscape, continuing to try to turn us into one large, ongoing strip mall like the now ubiquitous Santana Row model, in hopes that they may make $ millions off of new and existing tech workers. Long-time residents don't want their community to become a series of high-rise apartment complexes or condos over businesses, or of shopping areas, parks and libraries which continue to have completely inadequate parking with shrinking green spaces for residents. High-density developments age and degrade over time then look dated and shabby. High- density developments are also hard to remove once they are in place (visit the blocks of empty condos near Target in downtown Sunnyvale, which have remained unoccupied for many, many years now since they were built, after that City demolished the quaint Town and Country downtown area for Santana Row-like "improvements.") 3 The owners of these high-density multiuse monstrosities most often do not live in the complexes or the cities where they have been built, so they do not have to deal with the traffic, health, safety and blight problems they create.Just like in Cupertino, in downtown Sunnyvale, the Farmers' Markets and street fairs are no longer easily accessible to all residents because parking and walking distance to fairs and markets has increased, disenfranchising the elderly and disabled. Close parking that was available previously, was removed in favor or multi-story developments through rezoning. And, again, in Sunnyvale, the Target/condos high rise blocks are ugly and detract from the many well-maintained bungalows and 1930's-style historic homes and buildings, thankfully left untouched in nearby residential streets,which now suffer from constant commercial transient traffic through formerly quiet neighborhoods. Anyone want to guess what that has done to the property values of those historic homes now bordering a giant Target store and parking garage, or several huge nearly abandoned condo complexes? Protect Cupertino property for those home and business owners who actually live in our City and who care about its long term quality of life, its history, its safety, its schools, and our families, seniors, kids and the disabled. Create a balanced City which is not overly focused on one business, one industry, or one demographic, at the expense of everyone else living in the City and our quality of life. Residents with very expensive single family homes moved here expecting their neighborhood to co-exist among other family neighborhoods with similar single family homes.They were told that Cupertino has always had an historic"no-growth" policy, before they decided to move here.Those single family home dwellers do not want to be overlooked by apartment and condo complexes, by multistory garages, or by Santana Row-like developments. Let's face it, no matter how many pre-fab cupolas, vinyl bay windows and fake fiberboard cornices these Santana Row- like developments employ, nor how many extruded plastic artificial stucco trellises with newly planted roses and vines they are decorated with, they are still blatantly fake re-creations of historic Victorian and Mediterranean buildings, and look as fake and phony as lipstick on a pig, as they age over time. Cupertino demolished (and should have preserved) its own historic buildings, losing what could have been its own Los Gatos-like quaint downtown area, sacrificing a planned historic civic center and park at the corner of Stevens Creek and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (as it was called then), trading all of that for pseudo-Italianate high-rise condos and a hotel with no parking for guests, a quasi-modern yet bland Seagate building at odds with the architecture which surrounds it(who approved that?), street-side bistro-like mini strip malls (again with no apparent parking visible for customers along a tremendously busy road where no one would want to sit outside to relax or dine) and a southwest BBQ joint which most health-conscious residents don't use near the corner. The bifurcated Apple headquarters which deep-sixed the planned historic civic center, is now being moved to an area boarding Santa Clara.Where have we seen this, "if we built it they will 4 come" development dance before in Cupertino?That's right,when Hewlett Packard, Gemco, Vallco Park and Seagate developers first came to town. Once again, residents' quality of life, parks,green space, civic areas, shopping centers and neighborhoods,were on the chopping block, in trade for the next big financial carrot dangled in front of the City Council as the next main meal for our City economy, by developers,their PR staff and their consultants, all spinning their glittering, new bottle of snake oil with a promise to cure all of our civic ills (which were far fewer than they than are now, by the way). Since the 1970's,Cupertino's City Council members have chased the development and industry dollar, believing each large industry du jour was the fiduciary answer for Cupertino. Each new City Council panel forgets to review how many past major industries have fled Cupertino, failed or are building elsewhere, whose pre-development zoning and permitting, promised to be the answer to Cupertino's future. Even now, Apple is moving to a complex bordering Santa Clara, and the dated light industry buildings it uses near Bandley Avenue, Lazaneo Avenue, and Mariani Drive, I predict, will be abandoned in the next 5 years,with no industries filling those aging office spaces, which will impact our city tax levels and reduce tech employee use of city area businesses and restaurants. The lost industries mentioned above, moved away after Cupertino had already destroyed plans for parks, Civic Centers and museums using historic buildings on those properties, which had been previously preserved in no-growth plans to benefit residents and honor our history and founding residents with a large green space and gathering spaces for residents. Sadly, we can't bring our historic structures back. Even the historic Cali Brothers Grain Silo, willed to the City and destined to become a historic civic park monument, since it was beloved by many here as the town's own Eiffel Tower-like center when its peak was decorated with lights and a tree every holiday season, acting as the center of the City in some respects, somehow was mysteriously destroyed when it was entrusted to the City of Cupertino, after Apple wanted to develop the corner lot which was earmarked to be our historic civic center park in the future. Instead, we got Memorial Park, duck poop, drained lagoons, and no place for residents to park for civic events. Unfortunately,this "oops,we accidentally destroyed that historic ( Your name here )" artifact or structure, or"we accidentally lost it," or"we sold it to someone else," mantra, has been common in Cupertino over the years, unlike the surrounding cities of Santa Clara, Niles, San Jose, Saratoga, Los Gatos and Los Altos, which had community development leadership which understood that preserving history and historic buildings creates tangible civic value, not only in terms of pride of place with residents and visitors, but in terms of City property values as well. Cupertino leadership has always been too transient and too focused on the short-term financial bump of new industry to reatize two simple urban development maxims: 1) historic preservation adds destination city Gold to local businesses, and 2)apartments, condos and light industry may 5 co-exist only in designated areas far from historic landmarks, single family residences, and historic downtown tourism destinations. So, although we could have been awesome, we have lost any chance of being an historic destination City with a high tech heart, and as a result, have demeaned the quality of our City life and its essence. We could have been amazing. Instead, our Council wants to fabricate a phony destination pseudo-downtown here,there, anywhere,to replace that which in its infinite wisdom, it chose to tear down for"progress," years ago. Let's face it, Cupertino has apparently been for sale to the latest developer for many years now, based on a greed for revenue and the steady posse of Chamber allies, consultants and developers trying to manipulate City Councils and voters to sell out their own no-growth best interests to prop-up tacky high density projects. Residents are increasingly disgusted with Community Development management which forgets to value residential life in favor of pie-in-the-sky theories of utopian living/working/dining developments favoring pedestrians, bike lanes and mass transit, which almost no resident will use who isn't employed by Apple or attending De Anza College. Parents,granny's,teens, seniors, and most adults here, prefer to drive and park close to destinations, it's that simple folks, despite what urban planning academic thinkers (or developers PR staff) believe,we drive here, so a balance has to be found which does not solely court young tech workers. Want an example? Okay. Let's look at that Mary Avenue Pedestrian Bridge. How much did that cost? Holy smokes, are you kidding me, that much? Um, but I never see anyone actually using it. Ever. In theory,with the high school and De Anza at either ends, it should be hopping all day if people are truly walking and riding bikes at the levels predicted by our Community Deve►opment manager. In theory. Wow, wrong urban planning theories and inaccurate usage statistics can be really expensive, can't they? Like in $ millions of dollars expensive.The bridge looks kind of pretty at night, though, I mean, if you look at it like a sculpture or something. Me? No, I've never used it. You have to park on Homestead and walk behind the high school to get to it,then it ends up near a mini storage unit on the other side of the freeway--way too to far from anywhere I'd like to walk and absolutely nothing interesting near by. Whatever Cupertino could have been, if correctly developed by a City team which respected our history and environment(refusing civic funding for projects and programs from our greatest local polluter, Lehigh Cement)and honoring the needs of families, the disabled and seniors seeking low-density neighborhoods, shopping areas and parks, all adding to the quality of life for residents and families, was lost long ago. Folks, you can't sell phony, high-density Victorian and pseudo-Mediterranean architecture to high tech workers.These workers are highly educated and know the difference between fiberboard cookie-cutter condo residential reproductions coated with a stucco effect,which is why many of them choose to live in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos and Palo Alto, where actual historical homes, heritage trees and structures were thoughtfully preserved by those cities and 6 still exist as businesses and single family homes. High density housing in those cities is not crammed in among heritage single family neighborhoods, but limited to light industrial areas, so home values and the quality of life in city centers, are not impacted by less desirable combined high-rise residential and business developments. As a Cupertino resident, my single family home, formerly inside an orchard and surrounded by other orchards, farms and hothouses, was allowed,through re-zoning and City General Plan Amendments,to sit adjacent to a huge apartment complex and its entry lane, after our neighbor sold his orchard land to high density apartment complex developers.At that time, it was the only apartment complex within blocks of older residential single family homes. It has been downhill since near my home, due to that apartment complex and its residents. In what once was a clean and quiet neighborhood of single family homes, my home currently and over many years has experienced,from that apartment complex next door: • Car alarms at all hours. • Traffic at all hours. • Honking at all hours. • Dogs barking and cats howling and fighting at all hours. • Cats defecating in my back yard at night. (I don't have pets.) • Cats having kittens in my yard. • A dog whose owner, an apartment resident, allowed him to keep urinating on two of my older roses until they died and nothing would grow where they stood. When I asked him to please keep the dog out of my yard, he allowed his dog to walk and pee on my neighbor's landscaping, killing a large area of their groundcover plantings, which had been healthy, lush and green for many years before this apartment resident and his uncurbed dog, moved in. • Rats regularly coming under my fence, since the huge industrial-sized trash bins in the complex parking area are directly across from my back yard. • Conversations and car key electronic beeping noises at all hours from the cars parked along the entry lane and in the complex parking garage, which faces the bedroom windows of my home. • People trespassing and walking under the bedroom windows of my home. (the City will not allow more than a 3 foot fence to be built near the property line, however there is a power pole requiring utility access.) • Loitering, running vehicles and parked vehicles in no-parking areas in front of my home, with people using cell phones,talking, visiting, eating, smoking, pacing and apparently having sex in illegally parked cars, at all hours. • People parked across the street from my driveway(in a no parking area) and taking photos of my home and garage, when I have my garage doors open. • Apartment managers(male)who watched me through their tall shrubs, when I mowed my lawn or trimmed my plants. • Cigarettes, cigarette butts, food, cups, wrappers, used and unused condoms, used and unused sanitary napkins/tampons, and other food-related and personal trash, which is regularly tossed into my yard and under my 50-year-old trees, which � have to clean up. � • Weeds and quince apples left near apartment complex bushes inside their property line, which are never removed by apartment yard maintenance workers (I have asked), so I am left to remove them myself to prevent the spread of seeds/weeds into my yard, or rodents and pests near, in or under my home. • People regularly smoking near my historic trees without any apparent common sense or respect for my property or fire safety,flicking their live ashes and butts in my yard under my mulched large trees (which I am unable to water during the drought). • People also smoking and flicking live ash and butts under dry trees, leaves and needles, on the state property across the street from my home, creating ongoing neighborhood fire danger, despite 4 years of my requests asking that the apartment complex create a smoking area on its own property, to improve chronic littering problems and fire safety in the neighborhood. • People sitting or talking under the trees in my front yard, without respect to property boundaries or my privacy. • Workers hired by the complex parking in my driveway to make phone calls and eat lunch. • Repossession company huge multi-car, multi-trailer haulers parking directly across my driveway(and blocking access to or from my home) as they quietly walk through apartment complex parking areas to repossess cars from delinquent car buyers, usually between 11:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. on Sunday nights, with their pulleys and hydraulics running on noisy truck generators outside my bedroom windows. • Moving vans, tractors and construction equipment parked in front of my home for days or weeks, as work takes place in the apartments during the year. • Tractors and trailers left parked in front of my home for days in no parking areas, as construction takes place in the apartments. Sometimes the construction engines are hot and oily and parked under dry neighborhood trees. • Devaluation of my home and property due to all of the above, from the existence of apartments next door to my single family home. • Loss of use of my home. Since high-density apartments were built next door to my home, I can no longer sleep in my master bedroom. I have to sleep in a small bedroom on the other side of my home, due to the constant car alarms, early morning honking, late night conversations, and noise in the parking garage of the complex. • Loss of sleep. I hear a steady stream of talking and slamming car doors, if I try to use my own master bedroom, since apartment residents also park along the entry lane near my bedroom windows, and sometimes have prolonged loud conversations near their cars. I have literally been jolted awake at 1 or 2 a.m. by slamming car doors and trunks, nearly every day of the week, until I gave up and began sleeping in another room in my house. • Noise at all hours. Likewise, residents leave their apartment unit windows open at night and crank up their music and televisions during warmer weather, so it is impossible to use my master bedroom in summer months, since I hear apartment dwellers' music, movies and programs, and the steady boom, boom, boom of inega-bass speakers, until 1 or 1:30 a.m. almost every summer weekend night. If I call the Sheriff's office, they want me to go out there and find out which apartment is making the noise. As a senior woman, I am unwilling to do that. • Broken sleep. I am also jarred awake at 6:30 a.m. on weekdays from apartment noise (I regularly worked some consecutive late nights on my job with the County, so this was a real problem when I had a short turnaround). Noises include slamming car doors, yelling, and people honking several times directly outside my master bedroom windows 8 to pick up late apartment carpoolers. If apartment carpoolers did not come after one or two honks, the drivers just keep honking, not thinking that there might be night workers in the area. • After the two-story apartments were built, their residents'windows overlooked my master bedroom, and another bedroom, and my bathroom windows, as well as my front and back yard. My privacy was completely lost. Like many Cupertino single family homeowners who have been here for many years, as a retiree I can't just pack up and sell my home, since I have Prop. 13 property tax relief on my home, which makes my home affordable on my pension. I am stuck with the mess the City created with my custom-designed home when it allowed re-zoning for high-density apartment units next door, practically under my bedroom windows, and reduced not only my quality of life and ability to sleep in my master bedroom or enjoy my backyard, but the appreciation values on my home as a result. As I have said, everything has been downhill since the apartments were built next to me. When the City says there will be no impact to existing single family homeowners or area schools from new high-density multiuse or residential developments near current single family home neighborhoods, that statement seems neither realistic, accurate, nor honest, based on any of my real life experience, having had a high density development built next door to my formerly peaceful and private single family home. Catherine Alexander Cupertino, California Best, Catherine Alexander http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/ 9 � - �� Ivor E.Samson ivor.samson�dentons.com 5a[ans FMC SNR Denton Partnar D +1 415 882 2491 dentons.com Dentons US LLP 525 Market Street 26th Floor San Francisco,CA 9A105-2768 USA T +1 415 882 5000 F +1 415 882 6306 October 13, 2014 BY E-MAIL& FEDERAL EXPRESS (planning@cupertino.arg) Mr. Pauf Brophy Chair, City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Sears' Comments on Proposed General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Braphy: Sears Holding Corporation {"Sears") respectfuily withdraws the corrtments submitted in my letter of October 9, 2014 and will no longer be participating in tha proceedings related to the proposed General Plan Amendment. Thank you (and the Planning Commission staffl for your consideratian fhroughout this process. Very truly yours, Oentons US LLP �- Ivor E. Samson I ES/kzc cc: Aarti Shirvastava 83??9S851V-1 SAND H[�LL I'ROPERTY CQMPANY (3ctober 13, 2014 Via Qvernig�t Delivery and�Mail Chair Brophy and Members of the Plannin�Commissian Cuperiino City HaII 10300 TQrr�Avenue Cupertino,CA 95U14-3242 lte: General Plan Amendmez►t: C)f�ce Allacation fc�r Valico Shapping��trict Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company("Sand Hill"} regarding the treatn�ent of the Va11co Sbopping Distri.ct("Vallco") in the General Plan Amendment. Sand Hill is in the midst of acquiring the Vallco parcels for patential redevelapment, sa we are keenly interested in working with the City of Cupertino ("City")tQ develop a feasible plan that can benefit aIl stakehalders. I am writing ta request that the Planning Gor�mission recammends to the City Councii t.�at the Cren�ral Plan incIude an�ffice alloca.tion for Vail�o o�'2,4QO,Od4 square feet and the height limits set out in"Alter�ative C,"as analyzed in the draf�General Plan's envimnment.al review. �ithc�ut this spec�c office ailocation, as well as the necessary r�tail and housing companents, there will not be adequate critical mass to make it passible fa�Sand Hill, or any ather prospective developer, to successfully redevelop Vallca. Vallco presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched in the City of Gupertino. The site s�ts at a prime location in the City, yet far many reasons, it has long been neglected and numerous redevelopment efforts were either abandaned or have failcd. Sand Hill has the f nancial capacity and praven track record with such projects and is poised to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for: a dynamic downtawn where the community can live, work and play. Sand Hill plans to completely transform the current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, susta3nable mixed-use neighborhood. Our plan envisions a baIanced mix af 6dQ-700 residential units, approximately bOp,000 square£eet+�f retail,a fu11 service hotel,and�,400,OOQ square feet of office space. The overarching vision is tQ create a pedestrian oriented"to�n cente�'cansistent with the General Plan vision that will have synergies between the uses and nearby�rajects, such as Main Strect. sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241• MENLO PARK,CA 94Q25•(650)344-15p(l*FAX(65Q)344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission �ctober 13, 2014 Page Two The benefits to the City of such a project go well beyond creating a sense of place. With 600,004 squaze feet,the reta.il cornponent of the project would be the same size as Santana Row and would generate millions in sales tax revenues way in excess of what is being collected today. Propexty taxes would also increase significantly, perhaps by 800%,given the billion-dollar plus investment Sand Hiil is prepared to make in the City o�Cupertino. In addition,we recognize that in order to obtain increased height limits for�allco under Alternative C,projects must comply with the new General Plan's community benefits program. Although our specific project plans aze still developing,the community benefits we anticipate providing include ground floar retail camponents and [transit improvements and amenities, space for public entities, senior housing, constructian of a new, or expansion to, a community facility/community gathering place,creation or dedication of new or expanded pazk, cash in-lieu contribution for such community benefits]. We would also be amenable to exploring,with ather properiy developers,the potential of providing a community shuttle program in order to provide transportation between employment ar�d community centers. As required by the General Plan,#hese community benefits will be equivalent to at least 15 percent in value of the parcel attxibuted to the increase in height. The opportunity to transform the Vallco site is now. Sand Hill has a real plan, the capabilities to implement it, and the history of working closely with the City and the community. Prior attempts at Va11co redevelopment have all run into the same problem: full ownership of the site is needed for a successful project,and the current split and passive ownership structure has made parcel assemblage extremely difficult. After nearly three years of intensive negotiations with the various Vallco ownership entities, Sand Hill is now in the process of completing purchases for the entire mall. Sing3e ownership will remove the key barrier to redeveiopment that has hampered the site for decades. However, in order to close on the Vallco pazcels, Sand Hill needs assurance now that it can build a project that is fmancial�y viable. At present, the develapment allocation recommended in the Staff Report precludes such a project, and thus, a feasible redevelopment of the property. In partieular, the Staff Repvrt's recommendations to limit office to 1,000,000 square feet and heights to 75 feet(west of Wolfe Road)and 90 feet{east of Wolfe Road) does not work for our plan, or any plan for that matter. Redevelopment of Va11co is a substantial undertaking. It entails demolition of approximately 1.2 million square feet of existing buildings and construction of an entire new downtown over 50 acres. The General Plan's vision for a redeveloped Vallco is ambitious: a"town center"layout, a newly configured street grid, an expanded Wolfe Road bridge o�I-280 to accommadate a bikeable and walkable "boulevard,"a new town square and plazas interspersed throughout. The General Plan calls for high-qua.lity architecture and materials befitting a gateway site. Sand Hill shares this vision,but such elements are all very costly. While retail uses are critical for completing the overall vision, such uses do not support the typ�of amenities we and the City want to�rovide. In c,rder for cornplete redevel�pment to sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK,CA 94025•{650)344-1504•FAX(650) 344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission �ctc�ber 13,2014 Page'Three be financially teasible,the praject must include 2,�Q0,000 square feet of office already studied in the EIR. Further, in order to provide this office squaare faotage,while also respecting the neighborhoods ta the west, increased height must be allowed, xncluding up#o 160 feet on the east side of Wal£'e Road. For these reasans, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the General Plan alloeate to#he Va1ko Shopping Uistrict: • 2,U00,000 square feet of office space; • Include the site in the Housing Elernent, includ"mg at least S00 units�f housing; � 600,f?�DO sguare feet of retail; and • Heights analyzed in "Alternative C"be pezmitted(i.e.,up ta �5 feet west af Wolfe Road and up to 160 feet east of Wolfe Road, with cammunity bene�its). * * � * * * Sand Hill is proud of what it h�s done in the City of Cupertina. We have partnered with the C'rty and the cammunity on a number of success£'ul co�unercial,retail and residential projects since the 1990's. As with thase prior projects,we view Vallco as a tong-terrz�.investment. �Ue are a Ic�ca1 owner and take pride in our comrnitment tfl the community and the City. Main Stxeet is naw under ct��nstruction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2016. We Ia�ak forward to continued collabaratian with the Cit�f and cornmunity in the redevelapment of Vaileo. Sand Hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realize a lon�-term community vision for a revitalized Vallca. Th�devel+�pment team and funding is in place tn move forward now. However, we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City Gouncil that without the necessary office, residential and retail allocations nutlined above, we will not be in a pasition to redevelop Va11co and it will likely ct�ntinue to �anguish far decades to come. Thank you f yaur considerati�n. ec 1€ ubmitted, Pet r Pau Prin�ipal and Founder sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241 •MENLO PAR�,CA 94025•{650)344-150Q•FAX{65Q}344-Ob52 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13,2014 Page Four Sand Hill Property Company cc: Mayar Gilbert Wong Vice Mayor Rod Sinks Councilmernber Barry Chang Councilmember Qrrin Mahoney Councilmembez Mark Santoro David Brandt, City Manager Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Developrnent Director Reed Moulds, Sand Hill Property Company sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK, CA 94025•(65�)344-1500•FAX{650) 344-0652 : � � � � 70,000 60,000 �, 50,000 � N 40,000 �X a 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1�1-�,1 �I � � I��, x ,� � ' - 1� � �' Cupertino GPA Population I O �°�� _ �� I�cXC�..� A=3%/D 8.7% 5.s �. �5%/D, 14.3% i� � �6.5%/D, 18.2% i3�� 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 v�, -1-s ia�� =0ption A 33� � '��Z' Option B y�2i i� �� - ption C ,� �uu �`,; �f W Y I,ta � ,,--'— ,37, �,, allejov s�,�sun��c�� 2� �- _ �.�- � � �� ,� � � /f i; - ) �� Sutsun �7�r_� B ��i � �"ay Point pjt�SbUi'g %" � Martin � � � ;l /L=�4��,� , `:�, ;�;�;�� __ --_ _ �� r ,%' \\ Conc �d Antioch Br n wood ,� , �` �ichmond . , . , 4 _. � � _ x ,r . : : , ,- � _� =—�J� Wat ut��Creek � � . � � � - Al�nto • ' � ' : : D�scauery Bay Manteca � � _,_-----�. - �-��, or a >� `— 4� LathrOp �� , F:��;s�o ;,�-'' � tafayatte�'�� . ByP011 ��N �� aa�� Oakland �oraga��Danv�lle � � �� ' Mountain Nouse �� '�,�� BaRr ,, � �.. � San Ramon �� (�, �'�'}� � � �1 ��, ��, r� , �� . '+�li� `+IiO�' Z,, Alame �_ �.,� � � � , r n ' co �San andro � � � San�� a \, � ,�-��, ��, � � n .�► Tracy � � �� `�_�.,,� 5&? �l_— — � „ � �� - livermore �� %��` � �� Ha ward ?�~ �� .�' � y ,6�; � ,;� 80 � ii. . ��g-,; Pieasanton .�� P�EfEC �� \ union City � f � � � / Frem - � � �, ,� i`� �� r,, .� ;, ,�t,,� \ �� a�, \ , '1�` „°'6 E , "`� � Milpitas � \, Mountain � �=� � � A�tOS�VView Santa � �� . ` � �Angels ��, �� ra ` , �� Calaveras �amp- , �. ��", Lakevtew C Q u nty � � ��ny�ale ��` San ��Se � � Copperopolis onora I� ; . Stockton 4 4 � �, Cupert�no '�� :� � � �amp6ell � 99 12 Escalon 10 ,�; � t87 � Manteca 120 85h Ripon Oakdale it �� . �-> ��` , �` �101 �i4il - Los Gatos -�- .� � �� rgan Scotts Valiey H� � ,�� , ,,,{ �. Sacramento Area �� ` ��' � gg � G�roy ;152< los Banos � �� , r, ,�—. - Ro�k�,� 80 _r � � �., ,:� ��:_� • 65 ' �� .��otaa° � �,o�� s Watsonviile � ��tr �� a �s � �? �� Hollister �d �� _ -�-� � 5 ° � . -. � � i56) Central Valley ��5°`� -:�;- so 99 ' � ��. 13 Modesto 80 Sacr m nto 50 �� 580 16 , Patterson Turlock' 5 Atwater 99 N East Garrison Santa 33 " f Nella 140� ��`"� ' � ` Atwater �15 99 Elk Grove / // /� .� Merced M�erey .. �'a� ��ta� yr�ur ha�e� #v �ur Ate� Ha�ne Finrder �'��muni�`y 1Vlap �'uide please contact Sandy Lek at 925.847.2135 or slek@bayareanewsgroup.com •,, . „ .r� ., -- � ;�r r,ssr M s�*��`a�*,{ � -�.:Y»�,�,.��_"„._� '�`...; , �e,_.,. �»<.ra"`�'..",�.. fi':�r'�`.�.. . �. ��-.-d. .. . .� . . ... _. .. _ -. � . __. , � A � v . ._..,,,. _x..�,...� �,w � �. �