The URL can be used to link to this page

29. Rezoning AppleCOMMUNfTY DEVELOPINENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERT[NO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERTiNO SUM]VIARY Agenda Item No. ~ Meeting Date: November 30, 2009 Application: Z-2009-01 Applicant{s): James Fowler on behalf of Ap:~le, Inc. Owner: Apple, Inc.. Property Location: 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider rez~ approximately 7.7$ acrf:s from Planned Development Residential - P(Res}, to Planned Development Industria:: and Residential - P{MP, Res}, Application Na. Z-2009-01 (EA-2009-01), Apple, 19310-1.9320 Pruneridge Avenue, APNs 31b-06-050 and 316-06-051 RECOMMENDATION: The Plaru~ing Commission recommendation. was split due to a 2-2 tie vote. Staff recommends that the Council: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Approve the Rezoning, Z-2009-01; in accordance with the Model Ordinance (See Model Ordinance) Project Data: General Plan Designation: Specific Plan Area: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross) for rezoning: Ind ustrial /Residential North Vallco Park Special Center P(R.es} P(I~TP, Res) 7.73 acres Existing Land Use: Total Existing Building SF: Office/Industrial 126,528 (two buildings) 2s-~ Apple, Inc. Z-2009-01 November 30, 2009 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes North Vallco Master Plan Yes Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Hearing On April 28, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and had a 2-2 tie vote (2-2, with Commissioner Brophy absent) (See Planning Commission minutes in Attachment A}. Per the Municipal Code, three of the four members present would have to vote to pass the motion far a recommendation. Therefore, no action vas taken. Commissioners who voted for the rezoning felt that this action would allow Apple to move forti~ard with their plaruZing for a new campus. Any subsequent development applications will provide the City opportunities to review the overall site plan and corresponding uses. Commissioners who voted against the rezoning felt that they wanted to review the application withuz the context of the North Vallco Plan and the Housing Element {in progress}. Public Comments Durhlg the public hearing, Apple representative, James Fowler, emphasized that Apple is only proposing to reinstate the previous industrial zoning designation while retaining the existing residential zoning on the property. Mr. Fowler reiterated that no development is being proposed at this time, and that there would be ample opportunity to discuss any issues at such time Apple brings forth a development application to the City. Comments expressed by other members of the public during the public hearing include: • It is important to preserve the technology space in the City and particularly in the North Vallco area. • Apple should be commended for trying to bring the industrial uses back to the North Vallco area. • Housing is not wanted in North Vallco. • The Chamber of Commerce emphasized that Apple is an important contributor to the City. • Apple's application allows for strategic flexibility for future development. DISCUSSION: Apple, T11c. is requesting a rezoning of the subject property from Planned Residential, P{Res), to Planned Industrial and Residential, P{MP, Res} {See Planning Commission staff report in Attachment B). The project site was previously zoned, PIMP) until the City Council approved the rezoning of this site on November 15, 2005 to P(Res) in conjunction with a developxrient application by Morley Brothers for a 130-unit 29 -~ Apple, Inc. Z-200!a-01 November 30, 2009 townhouse/condominium project. Apple purchased the property in 2006 prior to any subdivision or development of the property in conjunction with the Morley Brothers project. . Proposed P (MP, Res) zone The site currently consists of two existing o.rfice buildings, including athree-story office building facing Pruneridge Avenue and a two-story office building to the south, which Apple staff occupies. Apple has no development plans fox the site at this time. The proposed rezoning does not include the approximately one-acre portion of the former residential project that was zoned ?=or a public park. The future park site will remain zoned Public Park/Recreation {PR). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the propo;~ed application. Not only will this action strongly reinforce the City's Economic Development goals, but it is clearly supported by the General Plan and Housing Element as detailed below: The P{MP, Res) designation is consistent with the General Plan land use designation (industrial/Residential) for the site and the rest of the North Vallco area. • The project is consistent with the follow:tg General Plan Policies - / -Policy 2-20, Strategy 3. Major Cotnpanie~s - "Prioritize expansion of office space for existing major companies u1 Cupertino..." / Policy Z-40: New Businesses and Busi~zE~ss Retention - "...retain existing businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality and enhance fine City's physical environment." / Policy 2-42: Revenue A1uzlysis of Office Developments - "...encourage office uses and activities that generate sig~lificant revenues to the City..." 2s =~ Apple, Inc. Z-2009-O1 November 30, 2009 / Policy 2-44: Maintaining Cohesive Cominercial Centers and Office Parks - " Cohesive commercial centers and office parks are necessary to maintain a healthy sales tax base for the city and to retain opportunities for existing businesses to expand in response to changing business trends." • The residential rezoning allowed the City to receive credit for the Housing Element and the proposed rezoning will not affect the residential status. • The rezoning will allow Apple to bring forward a development application for their campus, at which time additional issues can be reviewed. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the project on April 19, 2009, and recommended that the City Council grant the Mitigated Negative Declaration far the project. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Submitted by: Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava David W. Knapp Director of Community Development City Manager Attachixtents: Model Ordinance C~~- ~ QS~ Attachment A: Planning Commission minutes of April 28, 2009 Attachment B: Planning Commission staff report of April 28, 2009 w/Neg Dec H: Groups/Plannnlg/PDREPORT/CC/2009/Z-2009-01 29 -`~ DRAFP ORDINANCE N0.09-2052 AN ORDINANCE OF THE Ci1PERTINO CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OI! 7.78 ACRES FROM P(Res), PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, TO PIMP, Res), PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, an application was received by the City {Application no. Z-2009-01) for the rezoning of a property to Planned Industrial and Residential, P(:VIP, Res); and WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission did not recommend to the City Council that the rezoning be granted due to a tied vote (2-2-1); and WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned PI;Res); and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A & B is hereby rezoned to Planned Industrial and Residential, PIMP, Res); and that Exhil;~it A attached hereto is made part of the Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 30`~ day of November, 2009 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of , 2009, by the following vote: Vote: ~ Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 29-5 ~I ~' ~,, z~j~~ ~, of '"~- ~ O ~ ~+~ ~ b, I s~~9•as'2oAE 49.oa ~j I+ N40'S3'40"E 27.17. = i . ' '~ oo-----'" ~1 yam. ~ ~ EX. ZONE . N49 06 20 36 ~ sr,, N40'S3'40"E 65 OQ~ ~~ Rw~ ~~~02 L=30.94 . ~-•.. ~ ~. 1rs ~ ~ 5'g2`~ 2Q ~~W 7 ~ 1~-59 ~9'3Z'°W T 92.00' i .~ ~ ~ ~' fl~ f ~O ~ v -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q iN ~~, ~~ Pk ~~ ~ 1~ ~o ~~ q~ ~~' ~°~ q ~ ~ ~ I g. Qw ~~ W~ ,~ ' ~~ i b ~,-. ~ ~.~ f', M. 329--M-49 ~ Q ~ PCL: 3, 4, 5 & 6 ~ o ~~ N ~ C~ o ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ r~ i ~ ~ ~` 01 S49`06'20'E 46:01 ~ P.M. 329--M-49 N ' Q PCL. 2 ~'~; , REZONE 7.78 AGRE5 ~, ~- ~ f ~ FRDM.~ P(RES~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ Tlx: P MP RES ~`~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~N ~ t}- ! ~- ...t ~ /ij i ~ ° :°o~O D=3235'44" ~ ~ ~ ° ~~S , R=300.01 N52'40'11 'W ~ ~ . ~' L=17Q 68 98.37 ~ W o h ~ ~ a .r rn pi ~~ ~~ ~o a ~~ ~ ~: to s0 x0 200 o z0 4a too GRAPHIC SCALE f` ~ t50' ExNiBiT A ~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .._ ERO S£RRA P.D.B. FR££1+~'AY (I 28p~ ~a~~~G ,p~AT MAP. DATE 1-22-09 SCALE.• 7" = 75D' ~~~r.~~ea %~~~u~~son .~~. PRUNERfQGE AVE. AT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DRAWN .3Y.• MH CDNSULTING CIUlL ENGINEERS RI D GEVI EW CT. CHECKE~O BY.- ,!~ 255 w. PH.LI (408 ~ SODg' ~~N JDSE, CA. ,J p..- Z3 CUPERTII'V~, CA /oB ND..: 1699 PL 1 ,~ ... Me• 1°* JUMP N t0 j^'y 1~ \~/~x' ,°"ca ~_ ~ ~.... S~~R~N£Ri cf A~ENUF ' ~ 303 p~-3~.:32~01; 0 D=6'59'54„ R-6aa.0a l= 76.29 ° ~ 1 82 _l~ _ .._.---~ to ~' ryr ~~u1 ~y ~ q1 ~, , I ~ ~ o~ f .~4s•a62oAE 49. oo ~, ~ ; N f ~•, N p f p~ ~.I N4a 5.40E 2717. a-, ,~~ ~.: w .~ - ~ Ex. zoNE PR ' 36.40 f ~~ ~ 4 O E 65:40 `r -~'~' `~' 0=43'14 25A i V .. ~ ~' R= 41.44 L=34.94 ~ a Nos ~ s° " ~ w q ,c ~ ~ ~ 1.2,5 2~,I W i ~ N59 59'3.~'~N 19Z DO' i Q v ~ -~ ~~ ~ ; ~ T.P.O.B. W ~ 1 `~ " aW ~~ ~ PR 1~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ g ~ o '~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ `° ~ ~.~ P• M. 329---M-49 ~ c N N49'46 24'~Y N44'S3'44" -~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ '° ' rn ~ `~ ~ a' S49.06 24 E 46.01 o P.M. 3~9-M-49 N ~ ~' d ~ PCL. 2 ~ ~ ~ REZONE 7.78 ACRES ~; ' ~ ~ FROM.- P{REST M w ~ TO: P{MP, RES~ o _ ~i N ~ z ' - ~ . ~ ~ ;~ -~ Q~ Y p ~ ~ O b . a4~, D=3235'44 ~ ~ '~ OS,, R=3aa.41 N52'44'11 'W ~ ~ L= 170:68 • c~„~,; .`~j 98.37 i ~f! h a ~~ ~~ ~~ a '~ '~ ~~ ~ ~: l0 .~0 50 2D0 D x0 40 100 GRAPHIC SCALE f 150' EXH/Bll A ZaIVIN~ PLAT MAP PRCJNERI QGE A VE: A T Rr~~~~rEw cT: CUPERTIPUC7, CA ~~~ ~ ~,. ~~~ '~. ~ 1 4 4 ~ SERRA P.D.B. FR,E~'Krq}. (~ 2Bp, DATE.• 1-22-09 SCALE.• 1 " ~ 750' DRAWN E~Y.• MHF CHECKED BY.- ~~. JOB ND.: 1699 PL 1' ~~ %~~i~u~%~ ~~. A CAL/FQRNIA CORPDRATlON CDIVSULTING C!V/L ENGINEERS 255 W. JULIAN S . ,204 SAN JOSE, CA. PH. (~08~ 2`95-~ 162 N (O m ~' ^... ia" ,~. JUN/P~ -- . - EXHIBIT B ZONI~V'G PLAT ]DESCRIPTION PRUNERIDEGE A.VEIITUE .AT RIDGEVIEW COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFGRIVIA Area'to be rezoned from P~Res) to PIMP -Res Begiruung at the most southerly earner of Parcel 6 as shown on that certain Parcel Map recorded in book 329 of Maps at Page 49, Santa Clara County 'Records, said point being on the northeasi:e'rly right-of-way line of the junipero Serra Freeway tf 280); thence along said n+~rtheasterly right of way Iine Norris. 52°40'11" West 98.37 feet to the beginning of anon-tangent curve; thence on a curve to the right, the radial point of which bears North 37°31'27" West through a central angel of 32°35'44" having~a racliu.s of 300.01 feet, an'axc distance of 170:68 feet; thence North 20°0.8'05" West 247.82 feet; thence North 40°53'40" East 203:00 feeiy thence South 49°06'20" East 46.01 feet; thence North 40°53`40" East .312.83 feet; thence North 49°06'20" West 151.25 feet; thence North 40°53'40" East 65.00 feet; thence North 40°06'20" West 36.00 feet; thence North 40°S3'40" East 251.00 feet to a point on the centerline of T'runeridge Avenue, 92 feet wide; thence along said centerline of Pruneridg~~ Avenue South 49°06'20" East 303.50 feet; thence South 40°53'40"~ West 235.83 fE~t; thence North 40°06'20" West 49.00 feet; thence South 40°53'40" West 27.17 feet to the bea r+ning of a tangent eurve; thence on a curve to the right through a cE:r-tral .angel of 43°14'25" having a radius of 41,00 feet, an arc distance of 30.94 feet; thence South 59°59'32" East 45.55 feet; (hence South 30°00'28" West 47.00 feet; thence south 59°59'32" East 192,00 feet; thence South 39°51`28" West 7't3.89 feet to the point. of begixusing. Containing an area of 7.781 acres, more or Iess, zs-~ ATTACHMENT A CITY OF CUPERT]NO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION ' AMENDED MINUTES ' 6:45 P.M'. April 28, 2009 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL ' The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2009, tivas called to order at 6;45 p.m. ii ' the Cupertino Community Hall, ]0350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Califon~.ia, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Conunissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner; Winnie Lee Commissioner: Marty Miller Commmissioner: David Kaneda Commissioners absent: Vice Chairperson: • Paut Brophy Staff present: Commmunity Development Du•ector: Aarti Slu•ivastava Senior Planner; Alci Honda Snelling Senior Planner; Vera Gil City Attorney: Carole Karode APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • Minrr-tes of the April I4, 2009 Pl~rr~zirtg Conzmissio~t nteeti~ig: Motion: Motion by Com. Millar, second by Com. Lee, #o approve the Apri[ 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Bt•ophy absen#) WRITTEN COl!'IlV.IUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/R.EMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARIlVG: 1. Z-2009-01 Rezoning of approximately 7.78 acres from a Plazmed Development James FoSVler Residential - P(Residential), #o Plaiu~ed Development Industrial and (Apple, INC) Residential - P(Mp, Residential}. Prunei-idge Ave. Tentati>>e City Corrrrcii date: May 19, 2009 @ Ridgevievv Ct. 29-8 Cupertino Planning Commission ~: Apri128, 2009 Aki Aonda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Apple Computers to rezone a 7.78 acre site located at 1.93 ] 0 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue from Plaruied Residential to Piam~ed Industrial and Residential as outlined in the staff report, The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application and recommended that the City Council grant the mitigated negative declaration, • On April 14'h the Planning Commission vote~~ to recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan to increase office allocations only for use by major corporate campuses and continued the discussion to this evening's meeting on the Housuig Element and the discussion on residential uitensity in the North Vallco arra. • Staff recommends that the Planning.Commission recommend that the City Council approve the mitigated negative declaration as recommended by the ERC and also the zoning application. Com. Miller used a slide presentatidn and r'e~~ie~ved the background material on the North Vallco area, given that two years ago they did a preliminary master plan for that area. • Illustrated the Apple site and said it was important that they worked together with Apple; they wanted both Apple and HP to be successful in the city and also want to make sure that both Apple achieves then objectives and the city achieves the city's objectives in terms of fitttire development, • He reviewed the goals: (1) New developmen must or should be robust enough not only to meet the current owners needs, but also the: needs of future development and any possible changes of ownership. Nothing is forever; change is to be expected, There is always the . possibility sometime in the future the current corporations that awn this property might have a need to sell off part or all of it. This is an aspect that the city has more of an interest in than the developer and that is why this goal comes out. (2) Malting sure that the area has some unifyuig elements to it, so that there are some ties between the sites in that area, not only the office sites but the housing and the retail as well. It is both in our interest and Apple to ensure that any development there is done in a way that becomes a highly desirable place for people to work in Cupertino at this particular site. If additionF~I office space is going to be generated, the state will require us to provide additional housing as well. There is a new requirement in the works _ now which is the mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. • He showed a sample of block and street desi,~ that would encourage walkability which is not present in the sites today; and said they would also discuss the importance of having a centrally located commercial district to serve the needs of the employees and residents fi•otn the Hamptons and others who may live there as well as potential fiiture owners, It 9s also equally important that we meet the. needs of our corporate residents in terms of security and also ui terms of development intensity that they need in order to achieve what they are trying to do. • The next important item is called unifying a vital cater as a key unifying element, This is essentially a commercial center that could include restaurants and other services that employees and residents might want and would be defined by the marketplace. • Said they looked at a number of sites where this cammerci~l center could go; and it could go u~ a number of different places on Pruneridge; lrut in the consultant's mind, the best site was one that was located between the two campuses s.nd reasonably close to the residential units in the Hamptons. Tt>, terms of worker needs, a convenient access to services is one that is very important.` It is also important to have some centrally Iocate~l recreational facilities and I think particularly u~ this day and age when it is hard to get people to work here because of the high cost of housing, it is appropriate to have housing close to the lvork center. , • Reviewed the consultant's conceptualization of some block diagrams of where some of these things might go. The ones are the two corporate headquarters and the conuuercial center is No, 2; No. 3 is where he thought might be a goa~j place to locate recreational facilities; and No, 4 29-9 Cupertino Planning Commission ~ 3 April 28, 2009 was an area where there could be additional pedestrian amenities. • State mandated requirements - if additional office space is developed in North Valico, the next housing element update will place additional housing construction burdens on the city; and given that, it is appropriate that we consider some of these areas for housing. Given the difficulty of getting people to California to tivork here, either Apple or HP, it might be worth considering that some of this could be corporate housing to use as an enticement to bring employees here. Because of the high cost of land and affordable housutg requires higher densities, I think that is on staff's agenda as well; 35 units to the acre or higher in order to ,make it work effectively. • The second mandate which we don't have full details on yet, but is coming is greenhouse gas emissions and one of the ways to address this issue, is through land use sh•ategies to reduce auto traffic. One of the ways we can address this type of issue is by putting housing within both wa}king distance of the job center and the shopping across the other side of Wolfe. • Relative to housing, the consultant felt that there was some key areas where housing might go; the best location on #lte 1-1P site adjacent to Wolfs Road; it is close to the slroppuig in the Ranch 99, walking distance to HP and Apple and is very convenient to Valico Fashion Park. It makes sense that if there was a site in this area that would be a beneficial housing site for higher density housing, that would be it. The other sites on the east side of Tantau also are potentially good sites; we do need to be careful ut terms of the density there, because they abut the residential areas in Santa Clara over here. There is also the possibility of some sites on the Apple campus as well as the one being considered tonight, former Morley Bros. site that has already been zoned for housing. • He summarized that it made sense to approve Apple's request to rezone the 7.78 acre site with the following additional changes: that we ftnd some other areas in North Valico drat we could also zone for both industrial and residential use; that we increase the densities of the North Valico residential units to 35 to 50 units per acre; and that areas irumediately adjacent to shigle family detached housing be zoned to more moderate densities. Jim Fowler, representing Apple: • Said they have acquired the site to rezone as part of a larger 56 acre parcel that was stated far a new corporate headquarters campus for Apple. As of this date, they are not certain what they are going to do with the site; there are no plans, no development pending. They have come to the Planning Commission with a straight forward request to prepare for planning this site by changing the residential zoning to allow plaruied industrial, to accommodate their campus. • He said although he understood Com. Miller's issues regarding th.e need for housing and recreation in the area, the concern with greenhouse gases, concern with developing a vital center for services to serve the residents and employees at this campus; but it was beyond what they were trying to accomplish tonight which was a simple rezoning to enable the plannuig process to proceed. Com. Miller: • Apple has asked far two things; they want more square feet there and they want to rezone this parcel fot• potential industrial use instead of housing. I want to make sure we all understood the city's needs in that regard in terms of having to balance off those additional office square feet with housing somewhere in the city and rezoning part of the Apple site; a larger part than what you are asking for can accomplish what we are trying to do. It doesn't commit you to building anything there at this time; just like you are not committed to doing anything with the rezoning you are asking for. Jim Fowler: • Responded that they deliberately decided not to request t•emoval of the Itousa~g rezoning 29-10 Cupertino Plartnuig Cotrunission 4 Apri123, 2004 because they recognized a need for flexibility. They wanted to add planned 'industrial to the zoning, that would enable the campus to go forvrard; Apple is interested in increasing the office allocations available in Cupertino aad pursuing the initiative is important to HP and other stakeholders in Cupertino. Chair Giefer opened the public bearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Reiterated how unportant the North Vallco area is to Cupertino and to the future of Cupertino; there is a great desire to have North Vallco remain tech park/industrial. She emphasized the importance of preserving tech space in Cupertino. • When the Morley Bros. project came ui 2005, thez•e was a great deal of dissent in the city over what should be done there and a lot of upheaval when the project was approved. The Hampfions was built several yeat•s ago to provide apartment housing. • Said slte was pleased to Bear that Apple heel purchased so much of the land in the No. Vallco area and iu some of the areas of Sa. Vallco. The overriding desire is to have it remain tech park and she commended Apple for bringuig back the industrial zoning onto this very important property. She said she hoped that Apple anal HP will remain in Cnpertnio and there needs to be space for them to practice what they do, trch/industrial, etc. + There are other places in the city to put housing; there is no need at t his point to increase the potential density of housing in No. Vallco; that is a path we went down before, and the general consensus was no one wants housing in No. Vallco. Apple is a growing company with their own desires of what to do with the ]and. Suzi Blackman, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: • Said that the Chamber's Legislative Action. Committee has not had a chance to review the specific item. It is clear that Apple is an important component of the community and their request is to allow strategic flexibility, not only for the corporation, but also for Cupertino. As the process moves forward and people tuiderstatnd mare of what may or can be done there, it provides that flexibility without necessarily committntg anybody to any particular course of action. She said she felt the Chamber would be more than supportive of their current request. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Chau• Giefer: • Said her recollection was that Council acted and approved on it with no housing as part of the plan, regardless of what the condition was. Com. Miller: • Recalled that the meetings were cut short because the council wanted to ettd and so the housing was never vetted properly. However, the consultan#'s report included it, but it was never discussed. He said he was not sure ii' there was an approval or not; they accepted the report and that was tlne end of it. Com. Kaneda: • I# was stated that if you add office space, then ultimately you need to add housing to try to keep ' the balance between housing and commercial. He asked staff to explain what the •options are for the Apple campus and HP. If we are talking about addung significantly large amounts of square footage of office space that we don't Etave an allocation for now; how do we go about, in the bigger picture, adding the housing inn ar~d how does it get built up. l~ _. I 29-11 Cupertuio Planning Commission 5 Apri128, 2009 • Said he did not understand what the implication is in the housing element side of it if you add all the space, then you need to add housing somew)~ere in the city, Chair Giefer: • Said the questions were relevant to the next agenda item. She clarified that the item is a zoning hearing, not the housing element. She suggested the questions be deferred to the specifc item, Com. Kaneda: - • Apple is interested in adding square footage of office space at some posit in the fixture, which will have an implication on the amount of housing that therefore needs to be zoned if not developed for the future. I understand it doesn't have to be on this site, but with the request for change in zatung, what are the unpiications of that and if we say it could be industrial or residential, at what point is it then up to Apple to decide if it wants to be residential or not; or does it eventually come up in front of the city. Aarti Shrivastava: , • If a development wines forward on the site that has been rezoned, it has flexible zoning, tS~pically we respond to the development that we get and it is up to the city and Council to speak to what other things they would like to see. Typically, we do respond to the development we get and we bring it forward; and if it is consistent with the zoning and General Plan and it generally addresses all of the issues, we do bring tltat fonvaz'd, The larger implicatioiZ of the housing element we can talk about during the housing element stage. By changing the zoning, the applicant cai~ bring forward an entirely indusU•ial project; die city always has a say. VJe look to see if it meets the General Plan and zoning requirements, Coin. Miller: " ~ • Said his dilemma was that the two applications are tied together. How I vote on one is a function of what type of vote we have on the other. It is hard for me to ga ahead and vote on ~ this one after I just felt it was important to tie these two together; if we should decide as a Comnussian that we don't want to increase the zoning for other housing ui the No, Vallco area, " then I would not vote u~ favor of this application, On the other hand, if we did decide that, " then I would vote in favor of this application. Chair Giefer: • This particular application was noticed as a zoning application; it was not noticed as all ASA or them asking for square footage or approval for housing vs, industrial; it is a zoning change. If we took action outside of that scope, wouldn't we need to delay this and rezone it to include those additional actions, many of wb.ich were in Com• Miller's presentation, such as the General Plan amendment recommendation to increase residential density in the area and a number of other items on his list. Aarti Shrivastava: • There are confines to this particular application; however, I have seen where a Commission will make a determination on the application in front of them and have some comments just to forward to the Council in die future about issues, It is not really making an action item to go out and rezone other sites drat are not part of the application, but they may make some comments. That is one vvay of addressing it. The other way is some of these questions are intertwined with the housing element so you could move forward with this item and then discuss the additional items in the housing element. 29-12 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 28, 2409 Com. Miller: • Clarified that the Chair has stressed that increasing the density is a General Plan amendment, most of what we are talking about is the (Jenera! Plan amendment. At the last hearing we voted on increasing the square footage for offrce space; and what Apple is asking for is a General Plan amendment. What Apple is requesting is several items that era going to lead to a General Plan amendment as is the housing element we are going to discuss in the next application. There are gouig to be many General Plan amendments that are going to be discussed now; it is part of the generai process, Alti Honda Snelling: • Clarified that Apple is requestng rezoning to add the planned industrial; the current, General Plain designation is industrial/residential; so it would be consistent. She said that the increase in of;Eice space voted for last time is not consistent with the General Plan at this tune. Chair Giefer: • Reiterated that this particular zoning application does not trigger a General Plan amendment. If Apple was coming to us saying we want to remove the housing element to this and have it only be planned industrial, then certainly I would see a nexus and an impact on the housing portion which is our next agenda item. I think they are supporting what you are suggesting; they are not eliminating potential for housing on an unbuilt property, and if for some reason Apple decides that they will not fully develop the site, then housing is back on tl~e table for this site. Buff they are not eliminating that potential; I see this applicatio^ as supporting what you are advocating, Motion: Motion by Com. Millar, second by Com. T~aneda, to continue discussion of Application Z-2009-O1 until after discussion of the housing element. (Vote: 3-0-1; Chair Giefer No; Coin. Brophy ab;~ent) The agenda was moved to Item 2, Old Business. A-2008-OY -2009-45} y Cupertino vwi ocation Vera Gil, Senior P report. General Plan Auzendment for 2007-2014 Ho g Element Update. Contin~~ed from the April 14, 2 Planning Commission nreeting. Telttat,we City Council Da. play S, 2009 stated that Paul Pemiiriger, Bay/~rea Econorni.cs would present the staff Paul Penninger BAE: • Explained that it was a follow t raft presentation of the housing element at the Apruil 14 Planning Carrunission meetin e reviewed that the housing element is one of seven required parts of the General P whit art deals with the residential land uses and needs to be consistent with all of the ments in the eral Plarr. • Focus this evenuig will mostly on the site:; in tory aspect of the housing element, in large part because you ask us to coma back and reevalu soiree of the sites presented and to add some sites, One o ie things we were asked to look at the impact of secondary dwelling units, aka gran flats or accessory dwelling; units. State la red through the Department of Housing a Conununity Development and rules they have ributed, allows a certain percenta of your housing need to be filled 'oy accessory dwelling un You can consider the numb of units produced ui previous planning periods, look at your tom pity need for this of housing, the resources and incentives available for developing secon its and other 29-13 Cupertino PIaimuig Commmission 31 April 28, 2009 ' Citv Attorney: • Said it was the same legal significance, if you wanted to flag the items as you said, u could . send the reconttnendation up that these particular matters, these Tier 2 sites be pla d on a list aad they be cross-checked every time an application comes in for development d there be a sentence placed in the staff repozt to identify this as a Tier 21ist. You could s d it up «~ith a particular reconnnendation on areas vs. properties; if you want those particu • sites identified. Since this is not part of any formal State process and not going to CD, it is a local isdictional issue, so you can decided how to deal with this particular ' in what fashion and dir t staff accorduigly. At this point what you are talking ab t is a position and a '{ recut endation to go to City Council as opposed to a final action. Aarti Shrives va: • The overall ent of the Conunissioners was to look at ove 1 areas, and not necessarily tiny slivers of sites; et•efore if a tiny sliver of a site came in ran office development, it was to look at large areas nd to plan more realistically rather t n just flagging individual sites. You could look at areas a say these are areas vde want to ok at or you could flag individual sites. (Vote: Motion failed Z/2) Motion: 112otion by Com. I eda, seconc y Com. Lee, to fot•n~ard on Tier 2 sites inventory to City Cou '1 •-vith t recommendation that they ]seep this as a list that they can t•efer to as of come up and they are trying to implement or evaluate against Program 9, and 15. Friendly Amendment by Com. Lee: ' Whatever discussed on Tier X tlr snot used the 734 units, all those sites ~viII be put on 'T'ier 2 and everything we appr ed, everything o ier 2 and everything that is not used on Tier 1 will be on a long list c ed Tier 2, and then of these sites oa Tier 2 whenever they are up for redevelopment, henever an application r brought for`~~ard to Commission or Council, then the Progra s 9, 13, and 1S should be lool 1 at carefully and reviewed to see that development so tlt ~~e can apply 9,13, and 15 to that elopznent. Chair Giefer: • Point of.clari anon, the first part of the motion was part of what passed and direction we gave staff a ady. Aarti Shri stave: • Yes, 1 the staff clarified that Tier 2 list only included those that needed sum ction in the for of rezoning or a General Plan. -Those that don't need action and already have e zoning uld not be on Tier 2. Kaneda accepted the amendment. (Vote: 3-0-1; Clrair Giefer No; Com. Bz•ophy absen The agenda was t•eturned to Item 1. Application No. Z-2009-01 {EA-2009-O1} Corn. A'liller: • Stated his opinion, that they should treat the rezoning identical to the Tier 2 one, that is when an application comes forward that involves this particular parcel, they cousidez• it in light of Program 9. There is no need to rezone it at this point. 29-14 Cupertino Plannuig Commission 32 Apri128, 2009 • Said he was recommending denial of the application for the same reasons they chose not to rezone other areas to compensate for this. " Jim Fowler, representing Apple: • Reiterated that they did not have a project before the Corntnission; when they do bring the project before the Commission they expect that there would be ample opportunity to discuss jobs/Dousing balance, Program 9 and any other terms or conditions in connection witD that project. Their desire is to rezone a portion of what they hope will be their new campus so they can proceed with plaruiing that campus. IF they are informed tonight that the Commission doesn't want to rezone it, but keep it residential, so they cannot use it as part of their campus, they would have to reconsider whether it is an appropriate site for their campus and whether or not they can proceed with their campus. Coln. Miller: • Said Apple proposed doing a second campus here and made the origuial purchase, Jim Fowler: • We never proposed any campus; we never said anything about a campus proposal; we do not have a development in front of us. Corn. Miller: • Steve Jobs came here and did do that. Jim Fowler: • He said we would like to develop a campus ou this property, VVe do not have a developu~ent proposal; we do not a plan; we don't know how big that campus might be; we don't know vrhat amenities or uses it will have; we have no idea and the are not asking you to approve any concept or any plan, Com. Miner: • We are not denying that you can build or not build an office in that particular area either; what we are saying is bring us your plan and show us what you are trying to do and then you will get approval at that time if it makes perfect sense. It is no different that what you are asking; even if we rezone it, it is still zoned t•esidential/industrial. It is afine distinction, Jinn Fowler • It is not a fine distinction to us; we could not use this site as a campus as it is presently zoned; we are asking for the flexibility to be able to integrate this parcel with the rest of our property that is already zoned for a potential campus use. If you deny that, what l would understand you are saying to us is you don't want us to develop this as a campus. Com, Millet: '" • He said they were not saying to Apple that they did not want them to develop the property as a campus Jim Fo~~=ler: • That is what I understand you saying; you 3on't want us to take a planning process that is necessary in order to develop a campus on this site. Cam. Miller: 29-15 Cupertino Planning Commission 33 April 28, 2009 • What we are asking you to do is come in and share your plans with us and work with us iu a mutually win(win solution. .Tim Fowler: • That is not what I understand you saying; what I understand you are saying is you do not want us to engage iu this planning process because you are not willing to give us the basic zoning we need vl order to engage in that process. Com. Miller; • Said they disagreed on that. Vera Gil: • Said that one of the reasons Apple is requesting the rezoning is because they are currently using part of the building. It was incorrectly stated in the staff report that the two office buildings were vacant. Adding the PIvIp back would make them a conforming use again. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. • Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she attended many meetuigs when the land was occupied by Tandem, and eventtiially HP. Someone came in and wanted to rezone it for housing which created an uproar that went on for months. There were marry different plans before Apple acquired it. Apple did not buy all the parcels at once, and it went on and on; they basically pu7•chased in an approved housuig complex to the wonderment of the neighborhoods. • She said she was not opposed to Apple wanting to rezone a previously high tech commercial property back to high tech commercial property. There is residential. there, but hope is that down the road, Apple is not in the housing business, and hopefully they will stay there for Cupertiuo's sake and do hardware, not housing. She said she felt it was appropriate to let them have this piece of property particularly if they have their high tech workers in tti~vo existing commercial buildings already. VJe need to make sure that goes back azid has the commercial property designation. It is not unusual for high tech companies to have vast land holdings and it is not unusual for Apple to sit on their property. It needs to be rezoned appropriately. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Com. Lee; • Said she supported giving flexibility but they have not seen anything yet; at that time it can be rezoned. Corn. Kaneda: • Said he supported housing/office balance, bttt will come down on the other side of the fence. From a designer's point of view, I would have thought the way a developer or owner would want to proceed is first you do the rezone, then you put the money down and start paying the designers to come up with something because the last thing you want to do is spend a lot of money coming up with a concept and then bringing it au. Tu my mind there is a procedure that needs to happen and that is a proper procedure. Having said that, when you do come in., I think we do need to have the discussion about office balance, but F don't want to hold this rezoning as a hostage to that discussion, It seems to me that now is not the appropriate time to do it. 29-16 Cupertino Piatuing Cornznission 34 Apri] 28, 2009 Cam. Milhez•: • Said that the statement that Apple is not in the housing business is true; nor is Sandhill, but they uicluded housing as part of their project, and they are looking fot• someone to build it. The parcel in question is not in the middle of Apple's property; it is on the edge adjacent to the Ilamptons housing project. There are other properties that Apple purchased in that area that are both on the east side aizd on the west side: of Tantau; there are at least two buildings on eacl•t side, maybe snore that Apple owns that could easily be housing and would substitute for this particular parcel if this was where they needed to have the main focus of their campus. There are other parcels in there. • Said he was looking at it fi•om the city's point of view in terms of what the city needs when Apple comes in; we want them to d.o it and we want them to be successful but we also need to address the additional burden of what the project is going to do to the additional demands on the city, We could go back and reconsider the last motion, and maybe say rezone a couple of file properties on the east side of Tantau as an offset to this, and I have no objection to going ahead with this. Apple wants the flexibility on their side; the city needs to have the same flexibility oil its side, to make sure that its additional demands as a result of Apple's development can be met. Aarti Shrivastava: • Regarding the future use of this site, it could be done now or later, but they are currently using this site and that complicates t3zings somewhat because now it would be anon-conforming use because the site is not zoned. Com, Kaneda: • I-Ie said he ~~,~as inclined to wait until they come forward with a plan and then to inform them that they will have to fulfill requirements reLtted to housing, Aaz-ti Slzrivastava: • Said it can be done, but the fact is that they are currently using it as an industrial site and it doesn't have the appropriate zoning. The Corrzmission can make uThatever recommendation they want. Chair Giefer: - • This is not the fast time someone has come to the Plannuag Commission and said they have purchased a parcel of land and need to chs.nge the zoning on it. They are not asking us to remove housing from the zoning; they are asking us to make it conforming with housnig and industrial, that is very consistent with everything we have been talking about tonight. As a developer, Com. Miller would not go out and buy a piece of property not knowing what he would be able to build on it; and we are essentially askuig Apple to go away and spend millions of dollars in developing a site plan and figuring out ~vhat they want and they don't know if they are developing for 57 acres or developing for 50 acres. We are asking them to make a major investment without knowing what the resulting outcome is. We have referred the housing element to Council that clearl;,+ states a policy that indicates that we have the ability and we are required to review the job;/housing balance when a project comes before us. We do not have a project before us tonight, we have a request for rezoning, so that they can move ahead with their planning process; and figuring out what their assessment and needs alialyshs i .This is standard operating procedures; this is not the first time anyone has come to us and asked for a zoning change in advance: of the plans. I see it as consistent with a(I of the dialog and discussion we have had tonight. She stated disbelief that they were continuing to vacillate about the application. 29-17 Cupertino Planning Commission 35 Apri128, 2009 Com. Millet • Apple did go ahead and purchase the property when it was zoned for residential and had au approval for an approved housing project on it without knowuig whether the Council would reverse that and allow them to go back to office space or not, so they already took that gamble and purchased the property. Again, I atn just looking at it from the city's point of view; eve are going to have to deal with the fact that they are going to build extra square footage and the next housing element update we are going to have to deal with the fallout of that and it is appropriate that we at this point in time #alce the additional flexibility step of allowing ourselves some more flexibility ui that area. • They made it perfectly clear tonight that Apple intends to build industrial on this site and not housing despite the fact that it has an industrial/residential zoning on it. Apple intends to convert it; there is no doubt about that from Mr. Fowler's comments. We still have to address the housing issue. There were other properties in that area that Apple purchased when they were about to go into housing and it is creating an additional problem for us. Whether it is housing in North Vallco or some parcels in South Vallco they purchased that were considered for housing, some place on the map where they have been ii~tinlately involved we need to have a meeting of the minds of how we are going to address the issues that are being created by their development. 7 am just forcing the issue tonight. Chair Giefer: • Said it has been debated and discussed over a lengthy period of time; the application before us tonight is to add, not take away the potential for housing zoning on the application; that is what we are being asked to vote on. We are not being asked to consider rezoning other Apple parcels to help alleviate a jobs/housing balance. Motion: Motion by Com. I~aneda, second by Chair Giefer, to approve Application Z-2009-01. {Vote: Motion failed 2/2} (Com. Brophy absent) City Attorney: • Explained that the rezonuig application is a recommendation of the Plamvng Conunission to the City Council; the item v,~ill be passed to the City Council with a notation of 2/2 vote, with minutes attached; and City Council will make the fuial determination. New Business; None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Giefer reported they approved the ,application regarding rezoning for Apple lands. Housing Commission: No report given. Mayor's Montlil~Meetina With Commissioners: Reported at previous Conunissiou meeting. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPD'IENT: • Aarti Shrivastava reported that the carwash item that the Planning Commission made a decision on has been appealed to tl~e City Council by the neighboring property, scheduled for the fast Council meeting in 7u~~e. 29-18 ATTACHMENT B COMMtJMTY DEVELOPIVEEfVT DEPARTMEfVT CfTY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERTpVO, CA 95014-3255 {408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 CUP'~R`i'I~® Agenda Item No. Application: Z-2009-O1 Applicant(s): James Fowler on behalf of Apple, Inc. Property Location: 19310 ~ 29320 Pi-~uleridge Avenue Agezida Date: April. 28, 2009 Application Sumznaxy: 1:EZONING of 7.7$ acres froze Planned RE~sidential, P(Res), to Plazu,ed Industrial azzd Residential, P(MP, Res). RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends that the Plazu-ung Conuili.ssion recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2. Approve the Rezoning, Z-2009-01, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Specific PIan Area: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zazling Designation: Acreage (Gross) for rezoni.atg: ExisHizg Land Use: Total Existing Buildizlg SF: Project Consistency with: General Plan: North Vallco Master Plan Environiziental Assessment: SUM]VIARl' Inci ustria l /Residential North Vallco Park Special. Center P(F:es) P(T/IP, Res) 7.73 acres Ofi~ice /Izldustrial 12(:,528 (t~%To 1_~uildings) Ye:~ Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The project site coz~sists of two properties that are currently developed with ttvo office buildings, includuzg a three-story office L,uilding facing Pruneridge Avenue and a ttvo- story office building to the south. Both buildings are vacant at this tilrte. The site is located on the south side of PrLUleridge Avenue, east of Wolfe Road, surrounded by the HI' campus to tl~e north across Pruneridge Avenue, the 4-story I-iaznptons Apartments coz~nplex to the vTest, office and industrial b a.ildings to the east, and lilterstate 280 to the south (See figure 1). 29-19 Z-2009-01 Apple Re~oni.no April 28, 2009 19310 & 19320 Prui~eridge Paoe 2 Figure 1 On Novennber 15, 2005, the City Council approvea a rezoning of the project site from Planned Industrial, P(IvII'), to Planned Residential, P(Res), and Public Park/Recreation, PR, u1 conjunction with the approval of a development application by Morley Bros. for a 130-unit townlnonne/condoinunium development. The rezoning ally«Ted fora 7.75 acre portion of the project site to be zoned P(Res) for the residential, aind tine re~nairw.ng approximately one acre area to be zoned PR for dedication and construction of a public park {see Figure 2). Dtie to the acquisition of the project site Uy Apple, Ianc. in 2006, the residential project was never subdivided or developed. DISCUSSION: .RL'7rD1It22g f~1~7~111CQt1012 The applicant, James Fowler on behalf of Apple, L-nc., is requesting approval to rezone the project site from Pia~uned Residential P(Res} to Plaiuled Inndustrial arnd Residential PIMP, .Res). Essentially, this would add the Plazuned Inndustrial P(IVIP) zone hack onto the 7.75 acre project site, while retaining the existing planned. residential zoning (see Figure 3). Tlne approximately. one acre portion of the properties on the northeast corner of tine site that wa.s zoned for public park is not a part of this appl.i.cation anal ~vill retain i.ts PR zone. App1.e has not indicated any development plans for this site at this tinne. Figure 2 Figure 3 is - 20 X2009-01 Apple Rezoning April 28, 2009 14310 & i4320Prunerid e Pace 3 Apple indicates that the rezoning would al:io~v either industrial office or residential uses as prescribed by the General Plan (See P~xhibit B). Additionally, it tvoti~d allow the current office develapnlent on site to be consistent with the General Plan a11d zoning. Confar~~la~zce with #Ize General Pla~z and No~•tlt Va.Ilco Master Pian The proposed rezo11u1g is consistent •wi~:l1 the General Plan Iand use designation (Isldustrial/Residential) and with the North Vallco Master Plan. I~.1 accordance with the General Plan for th.e North Vallco Special C:cnter area, the residential uses play develop up to 25 Lulits per gross acre. ErrvirotimentaI Rez~iezv Cat~~mif.fee On April 16, 2009, the Environmental Review Comn>;ttee (ERC) reviewed the project and recommended that the City Cotu~cil grant the Mitigated Negative Declaration (See Exhibit C). The Mftigated legative Declar~ition ilcludes mitigation measures related to air quality, storm `eater flows, conservation measures, noise, recycling aald energy tl.~at ~nTill be required of any future development projects on this site. .Housing Element/Office AtIocation Ai the April 14, 2004 Plaruli~g Commission meeting, t11e Commission discussed proposed General Plan anlendinents to update the City's Housing Element Auld to increase office allocations in the City. The Coi~lmission also discussed the potential of increasing the allot•vable residential intensity in the North Vallco area from 25 units per gross acre to 35 units per gross acre. At the conclusion of the nlectilg, the Conun~.ssion voted to recommend that the City Cou.nci.;. amend the General Plan to increase office allocations only for use by major corporate campuses. ~iowever, further discussion on the Housing Element and the discussion on residential intensity i1 the North Vallco area was continued to the rneetilg of April :?8, 200. ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Exhibit A: Zoning Plat Map Exhibit B: Rezoning Request by Apple Exhibit C: 1\titigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Alci Honda Snellu1g, Senior Plaiuler Approved by: Aarti S]lrivasta.va, ConlnltxtliEy Develop~lzent Director,` L'; \PlaraiirrglYDRL7'ORT y~cZa•eports~L_2U09_UI. doc 29-21 Exhibit ~ Apple is requesting a conforming rezoning of the site from P (Res) to PIMP, Res). `I`he property was rezoned from P[MP) to P(Res) in connection with the approval of a housing project that has since been abandoned. This conforming rezoning is consistent with the current Industrial/Residential General Plan Land Use Designation,-will permit either the industrial or residential uses envisioned by the General~Plan Larid Use Designation and ensures that the current industrial use of the site is not inappropriately classified as a legal non-conforming use. A zoning plat map is attached as Exhibit A and a legal description is attached as Exhibit B. Apple Inc. is.not at this. time requesting a rezoning of the property shown on Exhibit A.as PR. zs - 22 CITY OP CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE April 16, 2009 As provided by the Enviroz~unental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Rev:;ew Committee of the City of Cupertino on Apri116, 2009. _ ~_~_ ~ . _ T~~ DE~R~T~-C-}~$-L4C-ATS[~-1-~ Application No.: Z-2009-O1 (EA-2009-01 } Applicant: James Fowler (Apple, lnc.) Location: Pruneridge Avenue ~ Ridgeview Court DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Re-Zoning of approximately 7.78 acres from Planned Development Residential (P(Res)) to Plaruzed Development Industrial and Residential (P(MP,Res)) FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaxation finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. / ,.-' /~ rf .. ( ~ _ .~ A~arti Srivastava Director of Community Development g/erc,/REC EA-2009-01 29-23 ~a~~~~ ~ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUp~RT114t0 Staff Use Only ' EA File No.EA-2000-01 Case File No.Z-2009-01 Pt~oJECT l~~scR[PT[aN: Project Tffle: Rezoning of 7 78 acres from Planned Residential (PfRes)) to Planned Industrial and Residentlal fPtMP, Res}). ' Project LaCatian: 19370-19320 Pruneridge Avenue, on the south side of Pruneridge Avenue, east of Wolfe Road. Project pescript[on: Rezoning to add Planned lndusti•ial P(MP1 to the existing Planned Residential ['(Res) zoning designat[on an the properties. The remaining portions of the subject properties that are zoned PR Public ParklRecreatlon, will retain this zoning designation and are nat affected by the rezoning. appllcatlan. No development pro[ect is proposed at th[s time. Envfroizntental Sett[ng: Existing industrial park containing two off{ce building bounded by Pruneridpe Avenue, the HP Campus to the north interstate 280 to the south, a 342-unit apartittent complex (Hamptons) to the west and office/industrial buildings to the east, PROJECT DESCR[PTfpN: Site Area (ac.) - 7.78 Building Coverage - N/A Ex[st. Building -126.528 s.f. Proposed Bldg. - N/A s.f. Zone - P Res G,P. Designation -- industrial/Residentlal Assessor's Parcel Ho. - 31 B-OB-050 and 316-Ofi-051 It Residentlal, Units/Gross Acre - N/A Apn[icable Specla! Area Plans: (Check) X North Vailca Park Special Center Monte Vista Design Gu[delines ^ S. De Anza Conceptual ^ N. De Anza Gonceptual ^ ~ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual ^ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ^ Stevens Creek Slvd. SW & 1_andscape If Noa1-I~esldentlal, Building Area - N/A s.f. FAR - N/A Max. EmployeeslShift - N/A Parking Required N/A Parking Provided NlA Project Site is Wi'thiri Cupertino lJrban Service Area - YES ~ NO ^ 29 - 24 ~''Sf y77T y d- t ;' . g t 'S ~ ~ o~ra[t si ~~ F t„u .. ; tryya ~ ~.s. .- .,,.. - a r ~ t I-,~ iP ~k. ,,~, r ' '. ~ - , ` ~'~. ~'I~I~TjAL•~s~~;IrIRY~.Sd1JRGE~'~LJST .~ _... ._..,-t...i~t ~..}~.. a ..... ....... ..~._..f.......w..?2"r-.^.'.~.u.a"~.. ......_-~_~rt!'"•~....~~.. .~-. .... .~... ,w_.~: _. ...... _..._.a _....... ,'. ,.'.wr.: is A. CUPERTiNQ C~ENEFtAL.PLAN SOUriCES 1. Land Uso E{ement 2. Public Safety Element 3. F{ausing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. ~nv(ronmenial Resources G, Appendix A- I-lillslde Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Rfdgelino Policy '10, Constraint i~4aps B, CUPERT1Na SOURCE DOCUMENTS i 1. Tres Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, i97G) 14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 iG. Zaning Map 17. Zoning CodelSpocific i'lan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance 18b City of Cupertino Urban _Runoif Pollution Prevention Plan C, C(7Y AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. PubIla tNorics Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE ACENCEES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Envlronmantal Hearth D, OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Mldpenlnsula Regional Open Space District 27. Cor~nty Parks and Recreation Department 24. Cupertino Sanifary District 29. Fremont Unior} Higlt School District 30. Cupertino Union School Distric# 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara Gaunfy Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34, CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valiey 1Nater Disfrict 36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoif Pollution Prevention Program 36a San Jose Water Company E. aUTSIOE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excosses 38. FEMA Flood Maps15CWJD Flood Maps 38. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. Gouniy Hazardous INasfe Management Plan 41. County Heritago Resources inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Sito 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Subs#ances Site 43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (1VPDES) Municipal Stormu~~ater • Discharge Permit Issued to the City of Cupeitlna by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quapty Control Saard 43c Hydromodification Plan F. QTHER SOURCES 44, Project Plan SeUAppiicaiion h4ateriais 45. Field Reconnaissance 48. [acpeiience w/project of similar • scope/cliaracte ristics 47. ABAG Projection Series A: Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONt~Y W#iEN A SPEGIFiC ITEM IS NOT ,APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials ilsted therein to complete, the checklist information In Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, Job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of tl~e "YES" response to ;iny questions, you must attach a sliest explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining•any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example °N - 3 Historical") PEsase tty to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possibly on eaclz nape. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the follo~~~ing materials before su¢mitting the Initial Study to the City. /Projetct Plan Set of Legislative Document /Location map vviti3 site cleatiy tnar)<ed o e ; (when applicable) e o , ~ , .. a c ~ 25 EVAE_UAT€ON OF I~NVIRDNMENTAL IMPACTS: The project involves the rezoning of a 7.78 acre portion of the subject properties from P(Res}, Planned Residential, to PIMP, dies), Planned industrial and Residential Essentially, the app{!cation involves adding the P(MP) zoning designation back onto the properties, and retaining the existing P(Res}, Planned Residential, zoning designation. These properties were zoned PIMP) at the time of the 2005 General Plan update, prior to the rezoning of these properties to P(Res). The remaining portions of the properties that are zoned PR, Public Parl</Recreation, will retain this zoning designation and are not affected by the rezoning application. The rezoning to P(Mi , Nes) is consistent with the 2005 General Plan and its policies, slncs the General Pian land use designation for this portion of the properties is (ndustrlal/Residential, Therefore, both industrial and residential uses vdere studied as part of tl7e EiR for the 2005 General Plan updafe for this area. Tine project is also consistent with the General Plan policies fa' the North Vallco Park Special Genter and the North Valico Master Plan. Additionally, the rezoning application does not allow for land uses that would exceed the o#fice and residential allocations studied in the f;1R for the 2005 General Plan update. No development application is proposed at th(s time; however, a separate environmental assessment will be required at the tine a development application is submitted to the City for these properties, . ~ v ~ ~ fl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U fA Z]7 ~ N ~ ~ [and Stapisarting informatiot•r Sources] n ~ ~ v ~'. "= c°a r ~ ~ ~' a to -- u) c -a ~ i. AESTI-IETiCS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ^ ^ ~ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ^ ^ ~ ~ including, but not limited to, tt•ees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scen(c highway? [5,8,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ^ ^ ^ character or quality of the site and its sun~oundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or ^ ^ ~ ~ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in tine area? [1,16,44] Items a through d - No Imk~act There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources on the project site; therefore, the project will '~ have no adverse effects on scenic vistas or scenic resources. The project involves only a rezoning application; therefore, the project vrill not degrade tl~a existing visual charactek• or qualify of the site and its surroundings, or create a nev/ source of light or glare. No development is proposed at this tithe. 2s Any subsequent development project will require design review to reduce visual impacts on 2s fSSUES: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ c ~ o ~ ~ o a h' ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ !-- ~ cd i p sv [and S~.rppartirrg lnformatlQn Sources] ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ o `~ '~ E ~ E A. ilk -~ Cf~ ~ C ~ CfJ ll. AGR(CULrUR~ RES©URCES: In determining whetller• impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Cafifiornia Agricultural Land Cvaluation and Sits Assessment Model (997} lrepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: ` a) Convert Prime Farrrrland, Unique ^ ^ ^ 0 Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmiand), as shown on tho maps prepared pursuant to iho Farmiand Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zon(ng for ^ ^ ^ 0 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other ci7anges in the existing ^ ^ ^ Q anviranment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] items athrough c --_No lm~act The project site !s currently developed v/ith fin+o office buildings; therefore, the project will not impact agricultural land or resources. Additionally, the project involves only a rezoning application. fro development is proposed at this time. ift. AIR QUALITY --Where avaiiabl~, tho significance criteria established lay the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make tine foliowG~g determG~ations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct irnp(emantation of ^ ^ ^ Q the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b} Vlolata any air quality standard or ^ ^ ^ r] contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] 2s 27 ~~.~ c~~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~~~ ~u~ +~ ~ ISSUIrS: ~ •~ ~ cn •[ '~ ,rn ~ ~ ~ cn •~ o' ~ ~ [and Supporting tnfori Hatton Sources] o rn rn ~ ~ ~ ~ a. rn - cn ~ -~ to c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ~^ ~ ~ ~ increase of any criteria pollutant far which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard {including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d} Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ~ ~ ~ ~ pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ~ ~ ~ substantial number of people? [4,37,44) items a through e -- No Impact The rezoning to P{MP, Res) is consistent with the lndusirialiResidentiai land use designation of the sate per the 2005 General Plan EIR. 1 he.2005 General Plan EIR indicated that there are no significant sources of toxic air pollutants in the Cupertino area and that there would be no adverse air quality impacts from surrounding traffic or other sources. No deveioprnent is proposed at this time; therefore, the rezo~lfng application door not result in air quality standards iolate an l , y an, v conflict with any applicable air quality p cumulative increases in any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations'or creole objectionabie odors. a separate environmental assessment will be required at the limo a development However , application is submitted to the City #or these properties to review air quality Impacts. The ~ follawing mitigation treasure that will EIR prepared for the 2005 Genera! Plan includes the be required of any development aiiplicatlon for this site: Screen new uses locatincd near ollutants ir f . p a sensitive receptors to ensure that they are not potential sources o N'. Bfat_QCtCA~. RESgURCES -- Wozrtd the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ^ ~ ~ ~ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species In local or regional plarns, policies, or regulations, or by the California gepartment of i/ish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10, 27,44] -- 29 - 28 ' ~ ~~ aca ~c [anct Supparting lnforrnafiort Sources] ~' ~ t~ a ~- ~ ~,, ~ ~ ~ w `~ c ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .J ~ G ~ J fA b) Havo a substantial adverse effect on any ^ ^ ^ p riparian habitat ar other sensitive natural community Identified in local or regianai plans, polices, regulations or by.the California Department of Ffsh and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Havo a substantial adverse effect on ^ ^ ^ p federally protected vl+eflands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, eta.) through direct reirtaval, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ^ ~ ^ ^ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, ar impede the use of native udiidlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e} Confl€ct with any local policies or ^ ^ ^ C7 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] . f) Conflict with the provisions of atZ adopted Habitat Conservatiai Plan, Natural ^ ^ ^ ~ Community Conservation Plan, ar other approved local, regional, or state habitat canseivatian plan? [5,10,2G,27] items a through f - No Impact No development application is proposed at this time; therefore, the project as a rezoning application will not i~rave any adverse effects on threatened or endangered resources. Additionally, the project site is currently develoi>ed with two office buildings. However, a separate environmental assessment wil! he required at the tG~~e a development application is submitted to the City for review of biological resources. For any protected or heritage trees proposed to be removed in conjunction with a development application the , application shall comply with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. W. CUE_TiJRAt. RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ O the significance of a historical resource as 2s defined in §15084,5? [5,13,41] -2s v ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ b 4 ~ ~ ~ ISSUES: 'w '3 ~ c ~ [ - ' ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ c . ~ ~ ~ ~° E Cand Suppnrtir;g lnformatfon Sources] ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ~ the significance of an arehaeofogical resource pursuant to §150G4.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ^ ^ ^ paleontological resource or site or unique geologicfeaturo? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including ^ ^ ~ ~ tl~ose i~iten•ed outside of formal cemeteries? ' [1~5J items a through d - No Impact The project site is not within a sensitive arcliaeologlcal area of file city and lies no historical, archaeological, paleontological or geologic resources. Therefore, the rezon[ng application will not have any adverse effects on cultural resources. However, an environmental assessment will be required at the time a development application is submitted fa revievd the possibility of sensitive historical, archaeological, paleontological or geologic resources on the subject properties. Vf. GEaE~QGY AND SdELa -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantia{ adverse offects, including the risi< of lass, injury, or death involving:, i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ ^ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Prieto Earthquake fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for tl~o area or Lased on . other substantial evidence of a knovdn fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geo{ogy Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ~ ~ n [2,5,10,44] iiO Seismic-related ground failure, Including © ^ ^ liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] . ^ ^ ~ b) Result In substantial soil erosion or the ^ ^ ^ U loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] 29-30 fSSUES: ~c~c¢' :w c ~~ o~ ~; ~~~fl ~~ ~~ .~ .,... ~ and Su ~ ( p~ortfny Infarmatian SaurcesJ ~ ~ ~ E , ~' "" ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~' ~ ~ ~ p 12 ~ E p. cn ~ ~ cn ~ ~ .1 cn c) Be located on a geologic unit or sail that is ^ ^ ^ ~ unstable, or thafi would become unstable as ~ a result of th's project, and potentially result in on- or off-site lands{Ido, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2, 5,10, 39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ^ ^ ~ p in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Coda ><1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10) o} Nave soils incapable of adequately ^ ^ ^ p supporting the use of septic Tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the . disposal of waste water? [6,9,3G,39] Items athrough e - No impact No development is proposed at this time; therE3fore, the rezoning application will not expose people or structures #o rupture of a known earl:hquake fault, seismic ground shaking, or landslides. Additionally, according to the Geologic and Seismic Hazard Map of tl~e C.~rpertino General Plan, the project site fs loc~rted in a VF, Valley Hoar, zone. The Vi= zone , includes a!I relatively level valley floor terrain ~n~lth relatively !ow levels of geologic hazard risk. However, a separate environmental assessment vrill be required at the tuna a development application is submitted to rovlew the geolo~lcal and soil stability of the properties for development. The EIR prepared for the 2005 (general Plan includes the following mitigation measures that will be requirad of any development application for• this site: 1. Both the State and Local codes address tha Issue of selsrnic resistance design far new construction. The General Plan also includes policies that ~.~ould reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels. A Phase i environmental assessment at a minimum wip be required of the properties at the time a development application is submitted. The project shall also be conditioned #o comply with all structural requirements during construction of the developrtient project. V#f. NA~ARDS AND f-tAZARDOUS fVlATERtALS -- Would the project: ^ ^ ^ o a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine fransport, use, or disposal of I~azardous 2s materials? j32,40,42,43,44j 31 ,,-, _ Cif v U ~ .r.+ Q G rtl .G v ~ ~ ~ G .~.+ R4 .~ ~ (~.! U es1 S t 'i+ ~ l0 ~ ~' y ~. ~ O ~ ~ :C (- ~ ~ as ~ !~ ~ ~ aurc an [and Supporti~ig tnforrnat 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~ n. i`n - ~ c --~ ~ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ ^ ^ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidant'conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ~ ^ ^ ~ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-qua~•ter mile of an existing or prol7osed school? [2,29,3Q,4Q,44] d) Se located on a site which (s included on a ^ ^ ~ ~ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, vaould it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,4Q,43] e} For a project Located within an airport land ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within twa mNes of a public airport or public use airport, vaould the project result In a safety hazard for peaj~le residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) Far a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ ~ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in tl}e project area? [ ] g) Impair Implementation ofi or physically ^ ~ ~ infarfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h} Expose people or structures to a ^ ~ significarit risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including wl~ere wlldiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] 29 - 32 ~ ~~, ,~ m o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [and Supporting [nfiarmat[an SaurcesJ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ rt° ~ `~ ~ u cu rn _. .,. Items a through h -- No Imuact No development application is proposed at this time; therefore, the rezoning appi[cation will not generate hazardous waste, increase the rlsl< of accidental explosion, release hazardous substances, interfere v~ith emergency servlcE:s, Increase exposure of people to hazardous waste or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. However, a separate environmental assessment will be required at the time a development application is submitted to review possii3le I~azard risks. A Phase I environmental ' assessment at a minimum will bo required of the properties at tl~e time a development application is submitted. Tho project site is not within atwo-r•nife radi~~s of the nearest airport (Moffett Air•fieid/San Jose Airport) and !s not listed as a contamin~~ted site in the State of California Hazardou s Waste and Substances Site List. V[l!. [-iYD[~OLOGY ANt7 WATBR QUAL[fY ~- Wtiu[d the project; a) Violate any water quality standards or ^ ^ ^ waste discharge requirements? [20,3G,37J b) Substantially deplete groundwater ID ^ ^ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there v~+oufd be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level ~e.g., the production rate of pre-existing • . nearby wells would drop to a level r+vhich would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,3G,42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ iii ^ ^ would exceed tl~e capacity of existing or planned storrnwater'drainageeystems or provide substantla! additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,3G,42] f) Utlierwise substantially degrade water O d ^ a qualify? [20,3G,37J g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ^ ^ ^ p ~, hazard area as mapped an a federal 1=food Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (2, 38J - h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ^ ^ ^ Q 29 structures which would impede or redirect - 33 r .., ie~~ ~ ~, a .~~ o;~ ~ ~ +-~ ~~~ e 'f; i SS U SS: [at~d Supporting Information Sources] ~ ;~ cv Q ~ ~ E-- ;M ~ d ~ ~ - ' CA `~ a~ ~ ~ ~ -__ ~. I-- ,4 N a~ ~ ~ ° ~. ~ ~ ci.. v~ to c ~+ u7 i) Expose people or structures to a s[gnlficant ^ ~ ~ f] risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, • including flooding as a result of the failuro of a Levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by sr~iche, tsunami, or ^ ^ ^ mudfiow? [2,36,38] Items a through i - No Impact No development is proposed at this timo; thorefare, the rezoning application to include Planned Industrial to the existing zoning designation v~Jill not vloEate any water quality standards ar water discharge requirements, create runoff, substantially ~depiete ground water supplies, degrade water quality, place housing in a .100-year floor zone, or expose people or structures to risks involving flooding or tsunamis, However, a separate environmental assessment wiil be required at the tune a development application is submitted to the City for review of water-related risks. The EIR prepared for the 2005 General Plan includes the following mitigation measures that will be required of any development application for this site: 1, Encourage industrial •projects to have long-term conservation measures hiciuding Work with r manufacturing and pooling water suppiies in the plant. e t f i . o n pm recycling equ the Cupertino Sanitary District fa carry out this policy. 2. Minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts resulting from development. The project site is currently developed with two off(ce buildings and is located vdithin a 13 flood zone per the 1=bod Insurance Bate Map, Community Panel Number 060339-OQ04C, dated May 1, 1580. ' lX. LAND USA AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an estal~lished ^ O ~ ~ community? [7,12,22,41] ___. b} Conflict with any applicable fend use plan, ^ ^ C! ^ policy, or regulation of an agency .with jurisdirtion over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or' zoning ordinance) adapted for the purpose of avoiding or . mitigatG~g are environmental effect? [1,7, 8,16,17,18,44] .c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ^ ^ ~ ~ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] 29-34 ~ ~ ~ ESSUES: ~ :~ ~ ~ F- c,:, ~ ca o h ;;' ~ n ~ [and Suppatting fnfarr»atfan Saurces~ E a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ;~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , items aand c -- No Imt~afit The rezoning application will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communifiy conservation plan. The site is currently developed v<<ith tv~ro office buildings and is surrounded- by both residential (Hamptons Apartment complex} and officeiindustrial buildings. The rezoning application involves inclusion of the Planned Industrial zoning designation to the exlstlny Planned Residential zoning designation, item h-Less than Si nificant Im act The rezoning application conflicts with the existing land use plan by adding the Planned industrial zoning classlflcation to the existinc! Planned Residential zoning designation that would allow for a~P(MP, Res) zoning designa~:ion. The project involves the rezoning of a 7.7Es acre portion of the subject properties from F'(Res), Planned Residential, to P(MP, Res), Planned Industrial and Residential . Essentially, tl~e application involves adding the PIMP) zoning designation back onto the properties, and retaining the existing P(Re;~), Planned Residential, zoning designation, These properties were zoned P{MP) at the time of the 2005 General plan update, prior to the rezoning of these properties to P(Res). The remaining portions of the properties that are zoned PR, Public Parlc/Recreation, wilt retain this zoning designation and are not affected by the rezoning app!(catian. - • The rezoning application is considered less than significant since the' property previously had a PIMP) zoning designation that preceded the Planned Residential zoning designation , and had a PIMP) designation that was studied under the EIR for the 2005 General Plan update, Therefore, the rezoning is consistent wwith the General Pian that allows for industrial/Residential within the North Vailca ~pecia! Center area in which tiro project site is located, The project is also consistent with th;, North Vallee Master Plan. Additionally the , rezoning appl}cation does not allow far lard uses that vrould exceed the office and residential allocations studied in the EIR for th;~ 2005 Genera! Pian update. X. fl~ltNERAIL R~SQlJRCES ~- Would the project. a} Result in the loss ofi availability of a known ^ ^ ^ p mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [~~10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a O~ CJ ^ ^x locaily-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local genera! plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] Items a and b There are no knotam mineral resources on the project site. Additionally, no development 2s - ss application is proposed at this time; therefore, the rezoning application vrill not result in the loss of mineral resources. ISSUES: :~ ca C = ~ t-- ~, ~ o rn = rn ~- ~ ~ :E H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n cn ~ o- E [and Suppotr-tfncd (nforrnation Sources] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,rn ra,va ~ c -sue 5Cl. NOISE -- Would the project result fn: a} Exposure of persons to, or generation of, ^ ^ ^ ~ noise levels in excess of standards established in the focal ger}eral plan or noise ordinanco, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ^ ^ ^ 0 axcessive groundhorne vihration or groundbot'ne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent lt~crease in ^ ^ ^ ~ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing vrithout the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic ^ 0 d ~ increase in ambient noise levels In the projecf vicinity above levels existing without the project?.[8,18,44] e) Eor a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ Q use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two irtiles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [6,18,44] ' f} f=or a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ ~ afrstt'ip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [S,if3] 29 - 36 ' ISSUES; ~cv~ T3 U ~ c~ ~°~ oi~ (~ w ' ~ a c~a~u ~ V ~ ,ti ~ [and Supporting lnfarmatlarr Sources ~:, ~ ~~ E `~ ~ ~ ~ ~' N c ~ ~ ~' C f~ Items athrough f - No Imoa ct _ No development is proposed at this time; thf,refore, the rezonl~~g application will not expose people to noise in excess of noise standards or ambient noise levels, and excessive grpundborne vlnration ar noise levels, However, a separate environmental assessment will be required at the thne a development application is submitted to the City for review of possible noise lmpacfs. Gonditions of approval shall be required of any development applications for these properties to mitigate noise impacts related fa permanent noise sources and construction activities on the project site. The t;IR prepared for the 2005 General Plan includes the following mitigation measures that will be required of any develol:m~ent application for this site; 1. Be sure new carnmerclal or industrial developments plan their delivery areas awayfrom existing Names. 2. Require analysis and fmplemenfatlori of techniques fo control the effects of noise from Jndustria[ equipment and processes from l_~rajects near homes. ' Additionally, the protect situ is not located within an airport land use pion area or private airstrip. Xll. POPULATIQN ANd HQUS(NG ~-1Noutd the p ro ject: • a) Induce substantial population groti~~th in an ^ ^ p Q area, either directly (far example, by • proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial i7umbers of existing ^ ^ ^ p housing, necessitating the construction of • replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44j c) Displace subsfar~tiai numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] Items a through c _ No Impact The project site is currently developed with two office buildings. Therefore, the rezoning application wilt not displace existing housing and would not necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. XEII. PUBLIG SERVICES 29-37 ~~ ~~ c~ ~~ t~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ -~ (,j ~ d U ~ ~ ~° a=~ ~ fC ;~ ~ RS ~ Q janci Sul~partirtg tnforn~atiQn SQUrces] ©,cn ~ az; ~ ~ ~ ~-- o.. v7 -~ cn M- c ~ i~ a} Wauld the project result in substantial adverse physical h-npacts associated with fihe provision of new or physically altet'ed governmental facilities, need far now or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain • acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the ~pubiic services: Fire protection? [18,32,44] ~ ~ ~ ~ Police protection? [33,44] ~ ~ ~ ~ Schools? [29,30,44] ~ ~ ~ ~ Patic's? [5,17,19,21;25,27,44] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ~ ~ ~ ~ Items a - No Imuact The project site Is currently developed with two office buildings within an urbanized area that is served by municipal services, including fire, police and public facililles. Additionally, no development is proposed at this time. Tl7er•efor'e, the rezoning application will not create additional impacts onto existing publ[c services. Any future development project will undergo review to determine the exact natw•e of any impacts to public services and the project will be required to Incorporate specific mitigations to address them. A separate environmental assessment will be requited at the time a development application is submitted to the City for public service Impacts. The F_IR prepared for the 2005 General Plan includes the following mitigation measures that will be required of any development application for this site: 1. I<xpand existing commercial and industrial r•ecyc{ing pragrarns to meet and surpass AB939 waste stream reduction goals. 2. Encourage the recycling and reuse of building materials, including recycling materials generated by demolitions and remodeling of buildings. 3. Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources. 4•. Encourage the design and construction of energy and resource conserving/efficient buildings. XtV. REGREATEON -~ 29-38 ISSUES: '~ Ri v ~ •`-' ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u [a~~d Supporting lnfarrnatfon Sources ] ~°~' ~ E ~ N ~ ~ ~ '~' o` ~ ~ ¢• ~ ~ o o' ~ E - a .a in cu ~ -'rn ~ ~ ~ °~in a) Would the project increase the use of ^ ^ ^ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreationai facilities such that substantial physical deter(oration of the facility would occur or he accelerated? [5,17,19, 21, 26,27, 44] b) Does the project include recreational ^ ^ ^ ~ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities v/hicl~ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] (terns aand b - No impact The project involves a rezoning of the properties. No .development is proposed at this time . Therefore, the projc# would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks.. Approximately acne-acre portion of th~~ existing properties is zoned for a park area; th[s area wiil remain as a Public Park/ Recreation zone and is anticipated to be developed in accordance with the any future development of the project site. XV. TRANSPORTATI~N/TRAFFlC-- Would the project: • a) Cause an Increase in traffic which is ^ ^ ^ ~ substantiai in relation to the existing traffic load enri ranarlty of fho efrn rye mint.-. h,. /i ,. result in a substantiai increase in either the number of vehicie trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ^ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] ' c) Result in a change in ai-• traffic patterns, ^ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that resuits in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) SubstantiaNy increase hazards due to a ~ ^ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ [2,18, 32, 33, 44] ^ I Q f cI ~ I ^ I o ^ I ^ I D ^ I ^ I © ~ 29 - 39 '~ ` U ~ a ~ U ~ '~ ~ v ~ ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting information Sources] ++ • a~i ~ o ~, ~ O `~ ~ ~ ~'~' ~ of *? ~ ~ ~ °" ~ ~ ~. 2 a, f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ d ^ C] [17, 44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ^ ^ ^ C~7 programs supporting altematlve transport~tiai (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] Items a through q - No lmaact No development application Is proposed at this time; therefiore, the rezoning application ~~rill not create substantial increased traffic, result in a change in air traffic pattenis, substantially increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access and/or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted policies/plans on alternative transportation. The rezoning application involves reinstating and adding the Planned industrial (P(MP)) zoning designation to the existing Planned Resident{al (P(lies)) zoning designation to allow for a PIMP, Res) zoning designation. The PIMP) zoning preceded the P(lies) zoning on the properties, and is still consistent with the Industrial/lies€dential land use designation of the General Platt for the North Vallco Special Center area a~~d the North Vallco Master Plan. Therefore, traffic loads and capacity of the street system for industrial use in accordance with the North Vallco Special Center on these properties are consistent with the General Plan as studied In the EER prepared for the 2005 General Plan update. The 2005 General Plan EIR studied the rnaxlmum development potential that allows far the combined indusfi'lallresidential use of these properties In tha North Vallco Park 5peclal Center. XVt. UTtt_fTiES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Woutd the pt•oject: • a) Exceed wastewater treatment ~ ^ ^ Q requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Soard? (5,22,28,36,44] b) Require ar result in the constructian of ^ ^ ^ ~ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constructian of vdhich could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ^ ~ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] 2s - ao iSSUES: ~~~ :~ ~ ~ ro ocyc ~ cs .~ ».. a ~~.w ,~ .coo a Cand Supprrrtfng [nfarmatfon Sources] ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~. ;~ n~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ p i- ~ ca o cv N '~ ~ ~ ~ ; Q. U? ..J ~ ~ U G 41 ... -- -~ V7 e) Result !n a detemlfnatlon by the ^ ^ ^ CI wastewater treatment provider which servos or may set've the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] _ ~ 8e served fay a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ^ ~ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g} Comply t+vith federal, sfate, and focal ^ p ^ ~ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Items a throe h - No fm pact No development application fs proposed at this time; ttierefore,~ the rezoning application vdill not exceed waste wafer treatment requirements, require construction of need or expanded water/ ~a~aste water/stone water treatment facf!fties, or be served by a landfill. !n addition, any future development project wiN undergo review to determine the exact nature of any impacts to utilities and service systems and the project will be required to incorporate specific rnitigatlons to address them. A separate environmental assessment wilt be required at the time a deveiopment application is submitted to the City. The EIR prepared for the 2035 General plan includes the following mitlgatlon measures that will be required afi any developmen# application for tfllS Site: • 1. Policies incorporated into the.~General Plan regarding energy have keen designed to reduce energy consumption. In addition, the State has adopted measures that address energy cor•~sumption. Tide 22 and Title 24 include energy conservation requirements that must be applied to ai! now construction. 2. Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical pov,~er and natural gas resources. 3. Encourage the design and construction of energy and resource conserving/efficient buildings. The project site is currently developed with two o#flce buildings that are served by sanitary sewer service. ?9-41 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [SSU~S: ~ ~ ~ n c ~ ~' a ~ ~ ~ ~ £ j [and Supporting lnfflrrna#ion Sources] o ~ ~ m rn ~, -~cn ~ c ~ ~- ~a~ au> - ... , . .~ ' :3_ . ,. ~ ~•'r' `'~`~INGS~~I~fi.: s tx.~iFf~ANC~~ ' .. ~ -• ~ ~ed:f~~Gt#y.S~taff) ~ . '~` ;r. - . '~To i~g catZliZi~ ~ . , a) goes the I~roject have the potential to ~ ~ ~ ~ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish ar w}Idlife species, cause a fish or wildlife , population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate. a plant or an}mal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major per}ode of California history or pE'ehistoty? b) Does the project have impacts that are ~ Q ~ indiv(dua}Iy limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental efifects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of cobablo future ro acts ? c} Does the project have environmental effects ^ ~ © Q ~ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ' PREpARE~'S APF[©AViT I herei~y certify that the lnformatlon provided In this initial Study (s true and correct to BZe best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to al[ questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and~complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study i~nay cause delay or discontinuance of related project rev'to~N procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. ~ ~~ ~ ll Preparer's Signature -' " ' v f ~' Print Preparer's Hams .~t~ ~• ~~~~ a2 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE . r ~~ __ ~; ~~ Request to Rezone: ^ 7.78 acre site on south side of Pruneridge Avenue, east of Wolfe Road and west of Tantau Avenue ^ From P(Res) -Planned Residential ^ To PIMP, Res) -Planned Industrial & Residential 1 ^ Site consists of two office buildings currently occupied by Apple employees ^ Apple acquired the property in 2006 from the Morley Brothers who did not develop their 130-unit townhouse/condominium project ^ Apple is requesting to restore the former Planned Industrial PIMP) designation, but to also retain the existing P(Res) residential zoning on the site ^ The rezoning is consistent with the General Plan designation of Industrial/Residential, which is the principal land use designation for the site ^ April 28, 2009 -Planning Commission recommendation was split due to a 2-2 tie vote (Commissioner Brophy was absent) 2 ~=- . - p CU RT~Q ' Fxldblt 4 ;~.... . ~ _._ ~,`-~ m. ~ --~-. ~ sw'nt w ~ I 3 m.~~ w" n~ ~cx. mr m~ ; b .+m~nr `' P~Ra) p w ~ ~ £ 6 cm ~ g °wmcr ~ L&ar~ ~ }nn c z ~ ) tF& -~na Y ~ ~~ ^ ~ pp 'i P.M. J]9-M-I5 ~y ! 8 . I' o ' ~ ~T K.or ~. P.M J79-M-19 R~ ~ I (j MP ~\ M '+vr. ~.~y ~ .~ CXHIdIT A I ~ CUPERTiNO ^ April 16, 2009 - ERC reviewed the project & recommended that Council grant the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ^ Mitigation measures will be rE~quired in conjunction with any future development application for the site relating to air quality, storm water flows, conservation measures, noise, recycling and energy. 3 t~ cu _ nTfrio-~ StafF recommends that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration as recommended by the ERC and Adopt the Model Ordinance approving Z-2009-01 for the following reasons: ^ Consistent w/ General Plan designation (Industrial/Residential) ^ Consistent w/ General Plan policies on allocating development potential for ,,,,,, major companies, business retention, revenue generation of office developments, and maintaining cohesive commercial/office parks ^ Does not affect the Housing Element `' . , outcome by HCD ^ Will allow Apple to proceed w/planning their future development 4