HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-14 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Monday, November 10, 2014
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
CITY COUNCIL
6:45 PM
Special Meeting
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any
matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State
law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed
on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on
simultaneously.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Subject: Certification of Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Draft Housing
Element, Rezoning, Specific Plan Amendment, Municipal Code
Amendments
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
1
November 10, 2014City Council AGENDA
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council take the following actions in accordance with the Draft Resolutions
(Attachments A - F) with the exceptions noted in Attachment G:
1.Adopt Resolution No. 14-210 for Certification of an Environmental Impact
Report, adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, (EA-2013-03), in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution
(Attachment A);
2.Adopt Resolution No. 14-211 approving GPA-2013-01 in substantially similar
form to the attached Resolution (Attachment B and as amended by Attachment G):
a.Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040); and
b.General Plan Map Amendments
3.Adopt Resolution No. 14-212 to authorize staff to, in substantially similar form to
the attached Resolution (Attachment C and as amended by Attachment G):
a.Forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD); and
b.Use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites (in case one or more
of the adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites)
4.Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2124, “An Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Cupertino Rezoning Certain Sites in the City for Conformance with the
General Plan and Housing Element Zoning Map Amendment,” Z-2013-03
(Attachment D and as amended by Attachment G);
5. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2125, “An Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Cupertino amending various Chapters in Title 18 and Title 19,
including the amendment of the Density Bonus Ordinance, the addition of a Chapter
in Title 19 to implement policies in the General Plan, the addition of a Chapter in
Title 13 to improve readability,” Municipal Code Amendment, MCA-2014-01
(Attachment E); and
6. Adopt Resolution No. 14-213 approving Specific Plan Amendment,
SPA-2014-01, in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution (Attachment
F)
The Balanced Plan is reflected in Attachments A - F. The Planning Commission’s
changes to the exhibits to Attachments A - D are reflected in Attachment G. These
changes are discussed in detail later in this report. CEQA Findings for adoption of
the Balanced Plan and Housing Element sites recommended by staff are in
Attachment H.
Description:
Application No(s): GPA-2013-01, Z-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, , SPA-2014-01,
MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013-03)
Applicant(s): City of Cupertino
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
2
November 10, 2014City Council AGENDA
Location: citywide
Certification of Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment,
Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning;
General Plan Amendment to establish citywide development allocations for
commercial, office, hotel and residential uses and development parameters for key
study areas (including the Vallco Shopping district);
General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022 Housing Element as required by State
Law;
Rezoning of certain parcels in conjunction with the citywide General Plan
Amendment;
Specific Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to maximum
residential yield calculations and an updated map to conform to the General Plan;
Municipal Code Amendment to comply with State Housing Law and the Housing
Element of the General Plan and other zoning code amendments for clean-up and
consistency
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
3
November 10, 2014City Council AGENDA
Staff Report.docx
A - Draft Resolution 14-210, Recommend certification of the EIR
B - Draft Resolution 14-211, Adoption of General Plan and Land Use Amendments
C - Draft Resolution 14-212, Housing Element updates
D - Draft Ordinance 14-2124, Zoning Map amendments
E - Draft Ordinance 14-2125, Municipal Code Amendments
F - Draft Resolution 14-213, Specific Plan Amendment
G - Planning Commission Resolutions 6760-6765
H - Alternate CEQA Findings
I - Planning Commission Staff Report 10-14-14
J - Housing Commission, Planning Commission, City Council prior staff report
L - Approved Planning Commission Minutes 10-14-14, 10-20-14
K - Concept Alternative Maps
M - General Plan and Housing Element errata since PC recommendation 10-20-14
N - Balanced Plan Map.pdf
O - Planning Commission Reccommendation Map.pdf
P - Market Study 2-13-14
Q - Retail Strategy Report 3-6-14
R - Housing Commission staff report 8-28-14
S - 2007-2014 Housing Element and Technical Appendix
T - Site Priority List with criteria
U - Summary of Land Use Map, Zoning Map and Muni Code Amendments
V - Zoning Text Amendments with Redlines
W - Specific Plan Amendments with Redlines
X - PC Study Session Staff report 9-9-14
Y - CC Study Session staff report 10-7-14
Z - Draft EIR 6-18-14
AA - Responses to Comments 8-28-14
BB - Supplemental Text Revisions Memo 11-3-14
CC - Updated Late Comments Memo 11-3-14
DD - ERC recommendation
EE - Public Comments related to the General Plan and Housing Element
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO
4
November 10, 2014City Council AGENDA
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is
announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must
file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the
City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in
the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to
address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located
in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called,
proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on
any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting
following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.
Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO
5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0175 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready
File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/10/2014
Title:Subject: Certification of Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Draft Housing Element, Rezoning,
Specific Plan Amendment, Municipal Code
Amendments
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report.pdf
A - Draft Resolution 14-210, Recommend certification of the EIR
B - Draft Resolution 14-211, Adoption of General Plan and Land Use Amendments
C - Draft Resolution 14-212, Housing Element updates
D - Draft Ordinance 14-2124, Zoning Map amendments
E - Draft Ordinance 14-2125, Municipal Code Amendments
F - Draft Resolution 14-213, Specific Plan Amendment
G - Planning Commission Resolutions 6760-6765
H - Alternate CEQA Findings
I - Planning Commission Staff Report 10-14-14
J - Housing Commission, Planning Commission, City Council prior staff report
L - Approved Planning Commission Minutes 10-14-14, 10-20-14
K - Concept Alternative Maps
M - General Plan and Housing Element errata since PC recommendation 10-20-14
N - Balanced Plan Map.pdf
O - Planning Commission Reccommendation Map.pdf
P - Market Study 2-13-14
Q - Retail Strategy Report 3-6-14
R - Housing Commission staff report 8-28-14
S - 2007-2014 Housing Element and Technical Appendix
T - Site Priority List with criteria
U - Summary of Land Use Map, Zoning Map and Muni Code Amendments
V - Zoning Text Amendments with Redlines
W - Specific Plan Amendments with Redlines
X - PC Study Session Staff report 9-9-14
Y - CC Study Session staff report 10-7-14
Z - Draft EIR 6-18-14
AA - Responses to Comments 8-28-14
BB - Supplemental Text Revisions Memo 11-3-14
CC - Updated Late Comments Memo 11-3-14
DD - ERC recommendation
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/4/2014Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™6
EE - Public Comments related to the General Plan and Housing Element
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/10/20141
Subject: Certification of Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Draft Housing Element,
Rezoning, Specific Plan Amendment, Municipal Code
Amendments
ThePlanningCommissionrecommendsthattheCityCounciltakethefollowingactionsin
accordancewiththeDraftResolutions(AttachmentsA-F)withtheexceptionsnotedin
Attachment G:
1.AdoptResolutionNo.14-210forCertificationofanEnvironmentalImpactReport,adoption
ofFindingsandaStatementofOverridingConsiderations,andadoptionofMitigation
MeasuresandaMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram,(EA-2013-03),in
substantially similar form to the attached Resolution (Attachment A);
2.AdoptResolutionNo.14-211approvingGPA-2013-01insubstantiallysimilarformtothe
attached Resolution (Attachment B and as amended by Attachment G):
a.Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040); and
b.General Plan Map Amendments
3.AdoptResolutionNo.14-212toauthorizestaffto,insubstantiallysimilarformtothe
attached Resolution (Attachment C and as amended by Attachment G):
a.ForwardtheDraft2014-2022HousingElementtotheStateDepartmentofHousingand
Community Development (HCD); and
b.UsetheprioritizedlistofAlternativeHousingElementsites(incaseoneormoreofthe
adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites)
4.ConductfirstreadingofOrdinance14-2124,“AnOrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCity
ofCupertinoRezoningCertainSitesintheCityforConformancewiththeGeneralPlanand
HousingElementZoningMapAmendment,”Z-2013-03(AttachmentDandasamendedby
Attachment G);
5.ConductfirstreadingofOrdinance14-2125,“AnOrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCity
ofCupertinoamendingvariousChaptersinTitle18andTitle19,includingtheamendment
oftheDensityBonusOrdinance,theadditionofaChapterinTitle19toimplementpolicies
intheGeneralPlan,theadditionofaChapterinTitle13toimprovereadability,”Municipal
Code Amendment, MCA-2014-01 (Attachment E); and
6.AdoptResolutionNo.14-213approvingSpecificPlanAmendment,SPA-2014-01,in
substantially similar form to the attached Resolution (Attachment F)
TheBalancedPlanisreflectedinAttachmentsA-F.ThePlanningCommission’schangesto
theexhibitstoAttachmentsA-DarereflectedinAttachmentG.Thesechangesarediscussed
indetaillaterinthisreport.CEQAFindingsforadoptionoftheBalancedPlanandHousing
Element sites recommended by staff are in Attachment H.
Description:
File #:14-0175,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/4/2014Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™7
File #:14-0175,Version:1
Application No(s): GPA-2013-01, Z-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, , SPA-2014-01, MCA-2014-01
(EA-2013-03)
Applicant(s): City of Cupertino
Location: citywide
Certification of Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment, Housing
Element Update and Associated Rezoning;
General Plan Amendment to establish citywide development allocations for commercial, office,
hotel and residential uses and development parameters for key study areas (including the Vallco
Shopping district);
General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022 Housing Element as required by State Law;
Rezoning of certain parcels in conjunction with the citywide General Plan Amendment;
Specific Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to maximum residential
yield calculations and an updated map to conform to the General Plan;
Municipal Code Amendment to comply with State Housing Law and the Housing Element of
the General Plan and other zoning code amendments for clean-up and consistency
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/4/2014Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™8
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 10, 2014
Subject
General Plan Amendment, 2014-2022 Housing Element, associated Rezoning, Zoning map and text
amendments and Specific Plan Amendment.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions in
accordance with the Draft Resolutions (Attachments A – F) with the exceptions noted in
Attachment G:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 14-210 for Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, adoption of
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of Mitigation Measures
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03), in substantially similar
form to the attached Resolution (Attachment A);
2. Adopt Resolution No. 14-211, GPA-2013-01 in substantially similar form to the attached
Resolution (Attachment B and as amended by Attachment G), for:
a. Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040); and
b. General Plan Map Amendments.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 14-212 to authorize staff to, in substantially similar form to the attached
Resolution (Attachment C and as amended by Attachment G):
a. Forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD); and
b. Use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites (in case one or more of the
adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites).
4. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2124, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino Rezoning Certain Sites in the City for Conformance with the General Plan and
Housing Element Zoning Map Amendment,” Z-2013-03 (Attachment D and as amended by
Attachment G);
5. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2125, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino amending various Chapters in Title 18 and Title 19, including the amendment of the
Density Bonus Ordinance, the addition of a Chapter in Title 19 to implement policies in the
General Plan, the addition of a Chapter in Title 13 to improve readability,” Municipal Code
Amendment, MCA-2014-01 (Attachment E); and
9
2
6. Adopt Resolution No. 14-213 approving Specific Plan Amendment, SPA-2014-01, in
substantially similar form to the attached Resolution (Attachment F).
The Balanced Plan is reflected in Attachments A – F. The Planning Commission’s changes to the
exhibits to Attachments A – D are reflected in Attachment G. These changes are discussed in detail
later in this report. CEQA Findings for adoption of the Balanced Plan and Housing Element sites
recommended by staff are in Attachment H.
Description
Application No.: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01, Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA-
2013-03)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City-wide
Background
On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to begin a General Plan amendment in order to:
Replenish office and hotel allocations (after the office allocation was reduced to under 18,000
square feet since the Main Street project received most of the remaining office allocation in the
city-wide allocation pool);
Inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan;
Consolidate individual requests from property owners; and
Update to address State law, and address clean-up.
In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated an update of the State-mandated Housing Element
of the General Plan. The 2012-2022 Housing Element, which is a required component of the General
Plan, identifies policies and appropriate locations for future housing in Cupertino. The Housing
Element Update was combined with the General Plan Amendment process so the City and
community could fully evaluate and discuss issues in one comprehensive outreach and planning
process.
This report provides a summary of key issues, recommendations by the Planning Commission and
staff comments where appropriate. A detailed discussion of issues is provided in the Planning
Commission staff report dated October 14, 2014 (Attachment I).
The General Plan Amendment process has involved over 18 months of extensive community
discussions and input provided during 24 public meetings, workshops, online comment surveys,
and study sessions and hearings with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City
Council. A detailed listing of the public input meetings is provided later in this report. The staff
reports for the following study sessions and public hearings: January 23, 2014 Housing
Commission, February 12, 2014 Housing Commission, February 19, 2014 Planning Commission,
10
3
March 4, 2014 City Council, and April 1, 2014 Joint Planning Commission/City Council are attached
for both the General Plan and Housing Element projects (Attachment J).
Alternatives
After extensive input from the community, property owners, the Housing Commission and the
Planning Commission, the City Council authorized studying the following alternatives in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the project. A brief discussion of
alternatives is provided below (see Attachment K for Concept Alternative maps). The EIR has a
detailed description of each alternative. A table showing specific allocations is provided later in the
Development Allocations discussion later in this report.
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of the following themes and reflects minimal changes as follows:
Maintains the policies of the 2005 General Plan
Increases office and hotel development allocations
Combines the South De Anza and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Special Areas
Streamlines General Plan area boundaries
Alternative B
Alternative B is derived from the following themes and reflects moderate increase in heights and
densities in key areas:
Focuses new growth along major mixed-use corridors
Revises height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major mixed-use corridors
Increases office, hotel and residential development allocations
Supports the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating allocation to other
areas
Streamlines General Plan area boundaries
This alternative also envisions the transformation of the Vallco Shopping Mall into a retail,
employment, housing and entertainment destination.
Alternative C
Alternative C is derived from the following themes and reflects the property owners requests and
reflects the most increase in heights and densities in key areas:
Supports the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating allocation to other
areas
Revise density and height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major
mixed-use corridors
Increases office, hotel and residential development allocations
Streamlines General Plan area boundaries
11
4
Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally and regionally
significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and account for a large
portion of the City’s RHNA.
Planning Commission Public Hearings
The Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan, Housing Element, associated
rezoning, zoning text amendments and specific plan amendments and the EIR on October 14, 2014
and October 20, 2014. While some members of the Planning Commission felt that some amount of
development (especially office) would help to achieve the City’s economic and fiscal goals, the
majority felt that additional office growth would exacerbate the regional imbalance of jobs and
housing and contribute to traffic. They did however agree that hotel rooms could be added since
they provided a source of revenue to the City, were beneficial to nearby restaurants and businesses,
and would be needed to serve existing and planned office in the City. The Commission
recommended removal of the residential allocation since densities in the General Plan and zoning
already regulate development on the sites.
A summary of the Planning Commission’s recommendation is provided in the discussion on each
key issue in the staff report. About eleven members of the public spoke at the meeting. They
included property owners of Housing Element sites and study areas in the General Plan as well as a
few residents. Attachment L is the minutes of the Planning Commission public hearings and
includes detailed comments from the speakers. The following is a brief summary of comments:
Prefer the No Project alternative or Alternative A
Plan Bay Area doesn’t fit Cupertino residents’ needs
Vallco should not be a Housing Element site but should stay as retail only
Additional heights and community benefits should not be approved
We should not be afraid of additional heights if buildings are attractively designed
A residential allocation of close to 4,500 is too high. The Housing Element should only include
1,002 units to meet the RHNA
Do not add more office. Applicants who want more office should apply for amendments to the
General Plan
Growth should not be focused only on Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard
Excited about the Balanced Plan
Cupertino should plan for its share of additional growth in the Bay Area
Applicants reiterated their requests for additional office, residential and heights based on
Alternative C. Additional discussion about specific requests is provided later in the report.
Minor, non-substantive edits have been made to the General Plan (Attachment B) and Housing
Element (Attachment C) documents that were presented to the Planning Commission to correct text
errors, grammatical and syntactical errors and to add updates to language. An errata sheet
identifying the changes made since the Planning Commission saw the documents is attached as
Attachment M.
12
5
Discussion
Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040)
The General Plan is a State-mandated document and provides the vision for Cupertino’s future It
sets the City's policy direction in a number of areas including land use, mobility, housing, open
space, infrastructure, health and sustainability through goals, policies, and strategies. The following
is a discussion of state and regional laws, best practices and community input that have shaped the
draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040).
Community Vision 2040 has been informed by changes in Federal, State and regional regulations,
best practices and community input, and achieving the community-building, sustainability and
economic and fiscal goals in the Guiding Principles. The following section is a discussion of items
that have been informed the Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040).
State and Regional regulations and best practices
1. Climate Change - The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) set a target to reduce
California greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020. In addition, the Governor
signed Executive Order S-3-05 to further require California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050 (EO, 2005). The policies in Community
Vision 2040 are consistent with these regulations.
2. Land Use and Transportation - The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008 (SB 375) calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a Sustainable
Communities Strategy to accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area, jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is
the region’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the requirements of SB 375 through
the year 2040. Community Vision 2040 is consistent with the principles of SB 375 by focusing
growth along major transportation corridors and the City’s Priority Development Area (PDA)
along Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevards defined in Plan Bay Area.
3. Complete Streets and Connectivity – The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the
planning, designing, and building of complete streets into the larger planning framework of the
General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to amend their Mobility Elements to plan for
multimodal transportation networks.
4. Performance Measures for Mobility - Senate Bill 743 (2013) creates a process to change the way
that transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related
air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and
providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Specifically, SB 743 requires an alternative to
automobile level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. The Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research is in the process of preparing new CEQA Guidelines to implement SB
743.
13
6
5. Sustainability – Various elements in Community Vision 2040 incorporate goals and policies
related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions targets set by AB 32, SB 375 and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Land Use and Community Design
element focuses future growth along major transportation corridors consistent with past
practice and SB 375. The focus on multi-modal transportation and complete streets in the
Mobility element is consistent with past practice and recent State and regional regulations and
guidance.
The Sustainability Element has been updated to comply with regional requirements and to
reflect the City’s current policies. In particular, three strategies have been identified to
implement Principles of Sustainability. Strategies include the adoption and maintenance of a
Climate Action Plan (CAP) to attain reduction targets consistent with state law and regional
requirements, periodic reporting on and review of the effectiveness measures in the CAP,
including assessment of lifecycle costs and preparation of a climate vulnerability assessment to
safeguard human health and safety and community assets. Preparation of the CAP
implementing these strategies is underway and will be presented to the City Council,
tentatively, on December 16th, 2014.
6. Housing Element – recent changes in Housing Element law have been incorporated in addition
to the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City. This section is
discussed in greater detail later in this report.
Community Ideas and Best Practices
1. Community Benefit – The idea was first discussed by a community member and the Council
was interested in exploring the possibility. The concept includes allowing additional specified
heights in certain location if community benefits are provided as part of a project. The concept
is discussed later in this report.
2. Walking and biking to schools, parks and shopping – This idea was discussed by several
community members in public workshops and is consistent with SB 375, AB 32 and Complete
Streets and best practices.
3. Design of mixed-use projects – A “mixed-use village” concept is recommended for mixed-use
projects that include residential development. The concept was developed from Council,
Planning Commission and public input and best practices regarding mixed-use projects. These
include provision of viable retail, gathering places, pedestrian-oriented architecture and
streetscape improvements, improving connectivity and neighborhood buffers. A similar but
limited discussion is provided for “neighborhood center” redevelopment.
4. Vallco Shopping District –Public input from workshops regarding the transformation of the
Vallco Shopping District into an active community gathering place and regional destination
have been included. A detailed discussion is provided later in this report.
5. Calculation of residential density – The City Council and a member of the public requested
changing calculation from density of the gross lot area (which includes portions of adjacent
streets) to density of the net lot area (which does not include adjacent streets, driveway and
14
7
drainage easements, etc.). This change has been made to the Zoning Ordinance. The density
and residential yield of Housing Element sites reflects this change.
Balanced Plan and Planning Commission Recommendations
Development Allocation
Community Vision 2040 is a 25-year plan for the City’s future that considers community goals for
active gathering places, health, sustainability, economic development and fiscal reliance, as well as
regional requirements and mandates, while balancing residents’ need for minimizing traffic, air
quality, and other environmental impacts.
As noted earlier, the Planning Commission had recommendations that were different from the
Balanced Plan. Maps to reflect the development allocations, heights and densities in the Balanced
Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation have been attached as Attachments N & O.
The Commission’s recommendations in each category are provided in the discussion below.
Economic and Fiscal – the City’s goal for the next 25 years is to ensure that companies and
businesses thrive and new businesses are attracted to the City and that property owners have
incentives to maintain and enhance property. The City Council recognized this when they
authorized the increase in development allocation as part of the General Plan process.
Maintaining an adequate allocation for development will help revenues grow so that the City
can continue to provide excellent community services. A Market Study was conducted to see the
realistic economic demand for various uses through 2035 (Attachment P). It notes that existing
commercial space in the City’s General Plan Allocation pool is adequate to meet the high end of
demand through 2035 and indicates market support for an additional 3.6 million net square feet
for office space, 985 net hotel rooms and 4,420 residential units for the same period (close to
Alternative C).
o Office – Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down about 525,000
square feet through Apple and Main Street and other office development in the City, and
currently only has a balance of 17,113 square feet remaining in city-wide office allocation. To
account for redevelopment at the Vallco Shopping District and new office development for
the next 25 years, an increase of 2,000,000 square feet is proposed (consistent with Alternative
B). In the Balanced Plan, office allocation is balanced with other land uses to reduce
environmental impacts while recognizing the City’s economic and fiscal goals.
Request from a potential applicant and consultant response – On October 13, 2014, the City received a
letter from a potential developer of the Vallco Shopping District generally stating that the costs of
assembling the site, providing a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail in a high quality mixed-use
“Town Center” envisioned for the area, community benefits and off-site infrastructure costs, would
require at least 2,000,000 square feet, or 1,000,000 square feet more than was recommended in the
Balanced Plan (see Attachment CC). The City’s retail consultant reviewed the request and noted that
given the high cost of site assembly and construction, an office allocation of up to 2,000,000 could
potentially be necessary to make the project economically viable. However, it could not be verified
without a proforma review.
15
8
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission felt that the regional growth in
jobs and lack of housing had exacerbated traffic conditions. In addition, by approving the Apple
Campus 2, the City had added to this growth. Therefore, the City should only add 500,000 square feet of
additional office growth above the 2005 General Plan for the next 25 year horizon. They also
recommended moving the office allocation in the “Major Company” category (about 523,000 square
feet) into the city-wide allocation pool.
o Hotel – Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down 303 hotel rooms
from the allocation leaving 339 rooms at time of project initiation. Hotels bring in considerable
revenue, which will help realize community goals of economic and fiscal stability. Consistent
with the Market Study, the recommendation is to add 1,000 more hotel rooms to the
allocation. This is also consistent with Alternative C.
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission felt that hotel rooms generated
revenue, and were beneficial to nearby businesses and necessary to serve existing and planned office in
the City. The Commission, therefore, recommended adding 1,000 hotel rooms consistent with the
Balanced Plan and Alternative C.
o Residential – The State-mandated RHNA requirement is 1,064 units with about 1,400
recommended by the Housing consultant after consulting with the HCD. Subtracting 1,400
units from the remaining allocation of 1,895 units leaves 495 units through 2040, which will
not be enough to meet RHNA targets for the two additional housing element cycles through
2040 per Plan Bay Area. Alternative A, which is consistent with the 2005 General Plan, and
Alternative B, which only meets 75% of the Plan Bay Area targets, do not achieve the regional
target. However Alternative C meets 100% of the targets set by Plan Bay Area. To ensure that
the City is consistent with these regional targets, the recommendation is to increase the
residential development allocation by 2,526 units (to 4,461 units which includes the 1,400
required for 2014-2022 cycle). The residential development allocation is a City legislative
policy aimed at promoting the public welfare which tracks growth by monitoring permits. It
cannot restrict growth in such a way as to conflict with State housing element requirements or
regional needs. However, the Balanced Plan recommends strategies for managing the amount
and form of housing growth as follows:
Selecting Housing Element sites for up to 1,400 units to meet the demand for the 2014-2022
RHNA period.
Revising the General Plan so that on sites with a mixed-use residential designation,
residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites. Conditional use permits will
be required on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units above the allocation in
the Housing Element, and on Non-Housing Element mixed-use sites. Related changes will
have to be made to the Municipal Code, Specific Plans and Conceptual Plans.
Form - The General Plan includes a “mixed-use village” strategy so that mixed-use
residential sites provide substantial and viable retail, and also create a livable environment
for residents, shoppers and workers on and around the site.
16
9
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Commission discussed the relevance of residential
allocations, when densities were already noted in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. There was
additional discussion about whether the number could be perceived as a growth control measure and
whether a number, if any, should be generally consistent with Plan Bay Area (the region’s Sustainable
Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan). Ultimately, the Commission decided that the
residential allocation number should be removed and that the Housing Element, lot densities and policies
were sufficient to guide residential development in the City.
Comments - While the City is not required by State Law to have a residential allocation in the General
Plan, the City’s environmental consultants recommend retaining the allocation system for environmental
review purposes. Removing the allocation would require additional CEQA analysis on the maximum
capacity of residential development in the City, which would require additional time and budget. An
allocation of 4,421 units is recommended to be consistent with Plan Bay Area estimates for the 25-year
horizon through 2040 and to prevent an impression of growth restriction.
Table 1 below is a comparison of the Planning Commission recommendation, the Balanced Plan
and alternatives studied in the EIR. The numbers in the General Plan differ from the numbers
reflected in Table 1 because there have been minor changes to the allocation balances since project
initiation. These changes include allocation granted to projects approved and allocation returned to
the pool due to projects expiring.
Table 1 - Development Allocation Per Alternative (through 2040)
Use Built/
Approved
No Project/
2005 General
Plan
Alt. A PC Recc. Alt. B Balanced
Plan Alt. C
Office (sf)
Net Increase
8,929,775 540,231 1,040,231 1,040,231 2,540,231 2,540,231 4,040,231
0 500,000 1 500,000 2 2,000,000 1 2,000,000 1 3,500,0001
Commercial (sf)
Net increase
3,729,569 701,413 701,413 701,413 3 701, 413 3 701,413 3 701,413 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
Hotel (rooms)
Net Increase
1,090 339 600 1,339 839 1,339 1,339
0 261 1,000 500 1,000 1,000
Residential (units)
Net Increase
21,339 1,895 1,895 Eliminate 3,316 4 4,421 4 4,421 4
0 0 N/A 1,421 2,526 2,526
Notes: 1. Office – includes Major Company allocation of 523,118 sf.
2. Office sf. in Planning Commission recommendation does not retain a Major Company allocation pool.
3. Commercial - assumes that the existing Vallco Mall square footage (1,267,601 sf) will be demolished and
600,000 sf min. will be built at site, with the remaining (625,335 sf) moved to the City-wide pool.
The EIR conservatively analyzed 1,343,679 sf of commercial square footage due to the demolition and
reconstruction of the Vallco Mall square footage.
4. Residential - includes the 1,400 units recommended for the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
17
10
Key Question 1: Development Allocation
1. What should the City plan for in terms of Development Allocation for office, commercial, hotel
and residential units through 2040?
Community Benefits Program
As the City’s resident and worker population increases, additional amenities will be necessary to
maintain and the livability of the community. The Community Benefit Program is one of the key
tools to help finance and achieve those amenities that maintain and increase the community’s
quality of life. The Program enables the community to get amenities in return for allowing
additional specified heights within specified areas in the City. It also provides certainty as to what
those additional heights might be and where they can be placed. It requires a Development
Agreement, which means that the applicant may propose benefits and amenities to which the City
may agree with. Key elements of the program include:
1. The proposed level of benefit is equivalent to at least 15% of the project valuation attributed to
the increase in height (decided through preparation of a project proforma).
2. Projects must provide a ground floor retail component; and one or more of the following
benefits:
a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements (bike, pedestrian facilities, participation in a
community shuttle program, etc.)
b. Public Facilities (land or space).
c. Senior Housing- 15% of housing that is not already targeted towards seniors.
d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities (new or expansion to museum, teen center, etc.)
e. Parks and Open Space (land/improvements within project or off-site)
In lieu of the benefits outlined in Item 2, a “Cash-in-Lieu Contribution” may be made to the City for
purchase of land, capital improvements or operations related to items a, b, d, e, and towards the
construction of affordable housing.
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Commission was split on the issue of community benefits.
Some felt that the typical negotiation process used in most communities could potentially result in difficult
situations at the project level, while others felt that the process could be improved if there was public
involvement in the process. Some felt that community benefits could provide public amenities that would not
otherwise have been obtained through a regular permit process. One commissioner felt that the developer
should not have the option of paying the “in-lieu” cash payment and should be obligated to provide
community benefits. Ultimately, the Commission decided not to recommend the Community Benefits
Program and recommended eliminating all policies and strategies associated with Community Benefits from
Community Vision 2040.
Key Question 2: Community Benefits
1. Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program?
18
11
2. If yes, does the should there be any revisions to:
a. Value of the community benefits?
b. Specific program items – retail requirement or other items?
Heights
Community Vision 2040 envisions keeping heights and development standards in most of the City
consistent with those in the 2005 General Plan. However, recognizing that the City needs to achieve
regional housing goals, economic reliance and fiscal goals, while ensuring that adequate sites are
reserved for future housing element cycles, the Balanced Plan recommends targeted growth in
certain gateways and nodes. Additionally, in order to achieve sustainability and connectivity
principles, the plan recommends focusing growth in major transportation corridors.
A visual preference survey was conducted at Community-wide Workshop #2, which was attended
by 59 participants. The purpose of the visual preference survey was to collect information from the
community on urban design concepts related to streetscapes, mobility enhancements, parks and
plazas, buildings (including heights), and land uses (including residential densities). The visual
preference survey was also provided in an online format and received 78 individual responses (137
participants total). The results of the visual preference survey indicated a wide range of opinions
ranging from no/controlled growth to some tolerance for growth along the major corridors targeted
in the study. The majority of workshop and online participants (65 percent or more) preferred
either mid-rise office or mixed use buildings (2-6 stories) or low rise commercial buildings (1-2
stories), and a mid-rise commercial district on the Vallco site (2-6 stories). Through the outreach
process, community feedback indicated that a certain level of comfort existed with taller heights in
certain areas in the City.
Heights in the Balanced Plan are generally lower than those studied in Alternative B. Additionally,
consistent with the practice in the 2005 General Plan for the Vallco area, heights above the base
height in key gateways and nodes require retail on the ground floor. Additional heights above that
are specified in three nodes – N. De Anza Gateway (Cupertino Inn), N. Vallco Gateway West
(Kimco and hotel area near Hwy 280), and the Vallco area (Vallco Shopping District to the east of
Wolfe Road and South Vallco - north of Vallco Parkway) with the provision of community benefits.
In addition, the recommendation is to keep the Building Planes along all arterials at 1:1. Currently,
the only area not consistent with this is in the South and North Vallco areas along Homestead Road
and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The recommendation will keep a consistent building streetscape
along the street. No changes are recommended to the 35-foot setback in the Heart of the City
Special Area.
Table 2 below provides a comparison of heights in Special Areas only where they are recommended
to be changed.
19
12
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C
Heart of the City Special Area
Oaks Gateway − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 30 ft. for
Glenbrook
No change No change Same as
Alternative B
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE
site
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE
site
Glenbrooks site − 30 ft.
− 20 du/ac
No change − 45 ft.
− See HE
topic for
density
No change No change No change
North Crossroads
Node
− 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change Same as
Balanced Plan
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE site
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail
− 40 du/ac
City Center − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change No change Same as
Alternative B
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 90
ft. with
community
benefits on
specific sites
− 25 du/ac
− 75 ft.; or 90 ft.
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits on
specific sites
− 25 du/ac
South Vallco Park − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with retail
− 35 du/ac
No change No change No change − 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 75 ft. or 90 ft.
with retail; or
160 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
East of Wolfe Road − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with retail
− 35 du/ac
No change − 60 ft.; or 75
ft. with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft. with
retail; or 90 ft.
with community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 75 ft.; or 90 ft.
with retail; or
160 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
West of Wolfe Road − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with retail
− 35 du/ac
No change No change − 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail; or 75 ft.
with community
benefits for a 200 ft.
depth along the
Wolfe Rd prop.
line and set back
200 ft. from
Stevens Creek Blvd
prop. line
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail; or 75
ft. with
community
benefits along
Stevens Creek
and Wolfe
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
85 ft. with
community
benefits along
Stevens Creek
and Wolfe
− 35 du/ac
20
13
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C
N. De Anza Blvd
Special Area
− 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change Same as
Alternative B
Same as
Alternative B
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 75 ft.
− 25 du/ac
Homestead Special Area
North De Anza
Gateway
(Cupertino Inn)
− 45 ft.
− 35 du/ac
No change − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with
retail; or 90
ft. for a
hotel and
500-person
convention
center
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft. with
retail; or 90 ft. for
hotel and major
convention center
with community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 95
ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
145 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
Stelling Gateway
(east of Stelling)
− 45 ft.
− 35 du/ac
No change No change Same as
Alternative B
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
North Vallco Park Special Area
N. Vallco Gateway
(west of Wolfe Rd.)
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change No change − 60 ft.; or 90 ft. for a
200 ft. depth along
Wolfe Rd prop
line for hotel &
major convention
center with
community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 95
ft. with
community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
145 ft. with
community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
N. Vallco Gateway
(east of Wolfe Rd. –
Hamptons site)
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change Same as
Balanced
Plan
− 99 du/ac if
HE site
− 75 ft.; 60 ft. for
buildings within
50 ft. of prop.
lines abutting
Wolfe Rd,
Pruneridge Ave
& Apple Campus
2 site.
− 25 du/ac
− 65 du/ac if HE site
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 95
ft. with
community
benefits
− 65 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
145 ft. with
community
benefits
− 110 du/ac
South De Anza
Boulevard
Special Area
Two parts: S.
De Anza Blvd
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
S. Sunnyvale-
Saratoga
− 30 ft.
− 15 du/ac.
Merge into
one area for
South De
Anza
Boulevard
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
Same as
Balanced
Plan
(see HE for
density for
HE site)
Same as
Alternative A
Same as
Alternative A
Same as
Alternative A
21
14
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C
Summerwinds HE
Site
− 30 ft.
− 5-15 du/ac
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 45 ft.
(see HE for
density)
No change Same as
Alternative A
Same as
Alternative A
Building planes
along arterials
1:1 along all
arterials
1:1.5 (S. Vallco
along Stevens
Creek Blvd &
N. Vallco
along
Homestead
Rd.)
No change Same as
Balanced
Plan
Same as
Alternative B
1:1 along all
arterials
(No change to
Heart of the City
landscape
easement setback
of 35 ft.)
Same as
Alternative B
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission recommended changes in the North
Crossroads Node, North De Anza Special Area, Vallco Shopping District (E. of Wolfe Road), North De Anza
Gateway (Cupertino Inn), and at the Hamptons, Glenbrooks Apartments and Summerwinds/Granite Rock
sites. Details are provided in the table above.
Densities are discussed in the Housing Element sites discussion.
Key Question 5: Building Heights
1. What should building heights be in the Special Areas?
Vallco Shopping District
The Vallco Shopping Center has always been envisioned as a regional shopping destination and a
key revenue generator for Cupertino. The mall, which was originally constructed between 1974 and
1979 functioned as a regional shopping destination and a source of revenue for the City. As
discussed in the Retail Strategy Report (Attachment Q), the emptying of the mall continued from
the 1990’s into the mid 2000’s. Due to reasons including the fractured property ownership,
operating restrictions easement agreements, and the competitive nature of regional mall operation,
leasing, and management, Vallco Mall was unable to compete with the larger and more
sophisticated operators of Stanford and Valley Fair. Incomplete development, defaults from prior
ownerships, prolonged and unrealized redevelopment plans, management changes, and other
setbacks have exacerbated the situation.
To solicit community input and ideas about the future of the Vallco Shopping Mall site, the City
developed an interactive mapping exercise that allowed participants to create future designs for the
area. A total of 24 groups developed a plan for the future of the Vallco Shopping District during
four workshops and meetings (Community-wide Workshop #2, a Neighborhood meeting,
a Chamber of Commerce meeting, and a Neighborhood Block Leaders meeting). In addition, an
online survey included the Vallco mapping exercise, which was completed by 78
22
15
people. Throughout the outreach process, there was a consistent message from the community - to
make Vallco a shopping, entertainment and dining destination and gathering place. Ideas for the
area ranged from a re-tenanting and façade improvement program to re-imagining the site as a
mixed-use pedestrian-oriented "town center-style" project.
The "re-tenanting with minimal change" option was preferred by neighborhood groups near the
shopping center due to concerns related to height and traffic impacts. However, a majority
of groups (15 of the 24) at the workshops felt that it would be acceptable to add a mix of uses,
including residential, hotel and office in the shopping district. In addition, a majority of the
individual responses (50% or higher) from the online survey indicated a desire to add a mixed of
residential, hotel and office uses in the shopping district so long as they were away from existing
residential neighborhoods (e.g., on areas of the Vallco site closer to Interstate 280). Overall, the
majority of participants (workshops and online) wanted parks, plazas, art exhibits in attractive
outdoor areas, and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, traffic and safety improvements to the area given the
potential increase in traffic to the area.
The Retail Strategy outlined options for the Vallco Shopping Center including re-imagining the site
as a “downtown” or “town center” with a mix of retail, hotel, office and residential uses. The other
option included reducing and relocating the retail portion to the west side and opening the east
side up to redevelopment with office, hotel and residential uses. The City has two basic options for
the Vallco Shopping District with a variety of options in between.
1. Keep Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning – The 2005 General Plan encourages
redevelopment as a mixed-use site with residential and retail uses. However, the zoning, which
is a combination of General Commercial (CG) and Planned Regional Shopping does not
currently allow residential or office uses. As discussed in the Retail Strategy Report, retail rents
alone will not attract the kind of investment needed to adapt the center to the changing needs of
today’s retail environment. Therefore, without the introduction of other more profitable uses,
such as office or residential, the center will most likely continue to deteriorate. The City’s goals
of economic and fiscal stability and providing a cohesive and vibrant, shopping, dining and
entertainment destination are not likely to be met.
2. Revising the General Plan Land Use to add office use and Zoning to add office and residential use – the
inclusion of office and residential uses along with a substantial retail/entertainment component
would help to create a vibrant, high-quality, community gathering place, and entertainment
and lifestyle shopping destination. However, partial redevelopment has not been successful in
the past. Therefore, a successful development strategy for the site will have to include:
complete redevelopment of the site, a Master Developer, and adoption of a Specific Plan with
phasing and infrastructure improvements, and a “Town Center” format. Based on the Retail
Strategy Report, a successful mix of uses would include 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail
with a mix of residential, hotel and up to 2,000,000 square feet of office use.
The Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040) recommends a minimum of 600,000 square feet of
retail (30% of which can be entertainment use), 600 units, 375 hotel rooms and about 1,000,000
square feet of office space for the Vallco Shopping District (as noted earlier, the Retail consultant
23
16
acknowledges that up to 2,000,000 square feet of office could be necessary to acquire and develop
the site). Consistent with community feedback in the workshops, it recommends retaining current
height limits on the portion of the site west of Wolfe Road, mid-range building heights closer to the
freeway and away from neighborhoods, retention of trees along the perimeter, and neighborhood
buffers in the form of setbacks and landscaping. Additionally, in order to address neighborhood
concerns, the proposed Community Vision 2040 requires a Specific Plan for the area which will
allow a robust community participation process prior to approval of a development project. This
would allow the City to achieve community goals for a shopping and dining destination, economic
and fiscal goals, and a portion of the City’s Housing Element requirement, while addressing
neighborhood concerns related to development.
Planning Commission recommendation – The Planning Commission agreed that Vallco Shopping District
could be developed as a regional shopping destination with a mix of retail, entertainment, residential, office
and hotel uses. However, they felt that a Specific Plan process with public input should be required before the
final development allocations and uses on the site were approved. They liked the “Town Center” concept.
They recommended the following changes to the policies in the proposed General Plan related to the Vallco
Shopping District:
Remove minimum and maximum allocations; and
Include a mix of major retail with entertainment, residential, office, and a five-star hotel with a major
convention center.
Key Question 4: Vallco Shopping District
Should the Vallco Shopping District continue to be envisioned as “town-center” with a mix of
retail/entertainment, residential and office use in the General Plan?
Other Revisions to the Land Use Designations
The following changes are being recommended related to Land Use designations
PG&E site (Homestead Road east of Blaney Avenue) – The General Plan Land Use designation
is recommended to be amended from Quasi-public/Institutional to Commercial/Quasi-
Public/Institutional. While PG&E does not currently anticipate any changes to their current
operations, they are not opposed to the change as long as it allows them to continue the use at
the current site. The revised designation would allow PG&E to continue the use at the site,
while allowing a future commercial opportunity, if PG&E chooses to sell it in the future.
Mirapath (Blaney Avenue) – As requested by the applicant and property owners, the General
Plan Land Use designation on this site has been revised from Industrial to
Commercial/Industrial. The amendment is being requested since the site is small and can’t
incorporate industrial uses successfully. The amendment will allow the site to be used for
commercial office and continue to allow light manufacturing uses.
Other Minor changes: Revisions to sites to ensure that the General Plan Land Use designations
and zoning are consistent.
Planning Commission Recommendation – Planning Commission recommended approval of these changes.
24
17
Housing Element
Context
In accordance with State law, General Plans in California cities must contain a Housing Element.
For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a
120-day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends
from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing
Element again in 2019 (every four years).
Housing Element Content Requirements
The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population. Per State
Housing Element law, the Housing Element must be periodically updated to:
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations (Needs
Assessment)
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production (Constraints Analysis)
Describe goals, policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing objectives
(Housing Plan)
Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional
growth projections per the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify adequate
sites for the production of housing serving various income levels (Housing Resources)
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements (Consistency
with General Plan)
Evaluate accomplishments in implementing programs in the previously adopted 2007-2014
Housing Element, and evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of continuing these
programs in the 2014-2022 Housing Element (Review of Previous Housing Element)
A detailed discussion of these topics is provided in Attachment R – Housing Commission staff
report dated August 28, 2014
Housing Resources & Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
One of the primary requirements of State Housing Element law pertains to the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Cupertino’s RHNA allocation is 1,064 new housing units
between 2014 and 2022. The City can take credit for a total of 62 units (30 units approved and 32
second units anticipated). As a result, the City has to identify sites for the construction of the
balance or 1,002 units. HCD typically requires jurisdictions to provide a moderate surplus of units
in case sites are not developed, or are developed at densities lower than those expected in the
Housing Element. This is more so the case, when a good portion of a jurisdiction’s sites are in
mixed-use zones that could be developed without residential uses or on developed sites. In the
past, three of the 2007-2014 Housing Element sites were developed with non-residential uses
(portion of Apple Campus 2, Kiddie Academy, and Saich Way Station). Based on past discussions
with HCD and experience with Housing Elements for other jurisdictions, and since the majority of
25
18
the City’s sites are in mixed-use zones (approximately 68%), the City’s consultant recommends an
additional 25-40 percent above the City’s remaining housing need or a total of 1,250-1,400 units.
Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element
The Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element (see Attachment C) draws strongly from the 2007-2014
Housing Element (see Attachment S). The input received after several community meetings
(including stakeholder interviews in 2013, three community workshops/open houses, and four
study sessions—outlined in more detail below under Public Noticing and Outreach), very closely
reflects the input received during preparation of the previous Housing Element. As a result, the
draft 2014-2022 Housing Plan reflects minimal changes from the 2007-2014 Housing Plan. A
number of changes are recommended (most are for compliance with State and regional
requirements). A detailed discussion of these is provided in the Housing Commission and Planning
Commission staff reports (Attachments I and R). Items that may be of particular interest include:
Programs have been revised to ensure that the 2014-2022 Housing Element complies with State
law. Specifically, programs were added to reflect amendments to the zoning ordinance related
to density bonuses, emergency shelters, and farmworker and employee housing to comply with
State law and to amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan to revise the method in which
residential density is calculated in mixed-use developments;
Housing Mitigation Program: The City’s affordable housing program—the Housing Mitigation
Program—has been amended to comply with recent litigation. A 2009 court-case (Palmer vs. the
City of Los Angeles) has resulted in cities suspending or amending the portion of their Housing
Mitigation program requiring affordable units to be included in market-rate rental
developments.
Housing Preservation Program: The existing Rental Preservation Program has been amended to
provide mitigation for impacts on displaced tenants in developments with four or more units.
Housing Sites
The Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have conducted multiple study
sessions and community workshops to review potential housing sites to meet the RHNA. On April
1, 2014, the City Council authorized staff to prepare environmental review for three alternatives (A,
B and C) for a maximum of nineteen (19) sites based on the criteria outlined below. On August 28,
2014, the Housing Commission recommended adoption of the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element
and the Low-High priority listing for the sites.
HCD Criteria for Site Selection
HCD reviews each Housing Element’s sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been
identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a “site suitability analysis” is an important step in
addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must demonstrate that identified sites can
accommodate the housing needs—by income level—within the current planning period of the
element (2014-2022). The criteria are listed below and discussed in detail in Attachment R –
Housing Commission staff report dated August 28, 2014. Criteria include:
26
19
Existing Use on the Site
Realistic Potential for Recycling
Site Size and Ownership Patterns
Development Density (to meet the minimum affordability criteria of 20 units/ac at 85% of
maximum density)
Other Criteria for Site Selection
In addition to the State-wide criteria, Plan Bay Area – the region’s Sustainable Communities
Strategy (discussed earlier) contributes additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable
housing site in the ABAG region. The City’s General Plan policies are generally consistent with the
strategies in the Plan. In addition, criteria, consistent with the City’s 2005 General Plan, have also
been identified in order to ensure functional and attractive development occurs on the sites
selected. Key themes include:
Locate development along major transportation routes with access to transit or within ½ mile of
a VTA Priority Development Area (PDA).
Locate higher density housing in closer proximity to employment and activity centers
Corner lot(s) with large frontage preferred – such parcels provide the most flexibility to
accommodate mixed-use developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivity between
mid-block parcels
Incentive for redevelopment –Sites with older, under-performing retail shopping centers have
also been evaluated as to whether housing or office would be necessary to provide an incentive
to improve higher-quality retail.
Housing Element Sites
While all 19 sites have been studied for potential impacts in the EIR, 18 sites were available for
selection for the Planning Commission. This is because the largest property owner, Valley Church,
associated with Site 17 (IntraHealth/ Office/Tennis Courts) sent the City a letter expressing their
desire to not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory shortly after the City authorized study of
the 19 sites. The remaining sites were prioritized by how well they meet the criteria outlined above.
After the Planning Commission meetings in October 2014, the City received letters, from the
property owner for two parcels, which comprise the bulk, of Site 19 (Cypress Building/Hall
property), the property trustee for China Dance, which constitutes a small portion of EIR Site 1
(Shan Restaurant, Q-Mart and China Dance) and the property owner of Arya Restaurant,
representing approximately 40% of EIR Site 2, requesting removal of their parcels from
consideration for the Housing Element. Staff recommends removal of Site 19 from the Housing
Element Priority List due to the reduced size of the resulting parcels; recommends reducing the size
of Site 1 by eliminating the China Dance parcel since the size of the resulting site is not greatly
reduced. EIR Site 2 was already recommended for Removal in the Balanced Plan (see Priority No.
15 below) and is also not part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation (see Table 4.)
27
20
Table 3 below shows the Recommended (High priority) and alternate Housing Element (Moderate
and Low-Moderate priority) sites listed in the Balance Plan. Sites that score low in meeting the
criteria are recommended to be removed from the Alternate Housing Sites list. A detailed table of
all sites is provided in Attachment T. It should be noted that the density of the sites in Alternative
A, even if all of them were included, does not meet the upper end of the 25-40% surplus (1,250-
1,400 units) recommended to meet the remaining RHNA. The densities recommended in the
Balanced Plan are based on the following goals:
Provide densities for existing sites that allow enough of an incentive to assume that the sites
would be developed in the 2014-2022 period (HCD criterion).
Meet affordability HCD criterion (minimum 20 du/ac at 85% of maximum density; ~ 25 du/ac).
Ensure that there are enough sites for future housing elements.
TABLE 3
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density & Capacity at 85% & 100% & Proposed Zoning
Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C
Recommended Housing Element Sites
1. The Oaks
P(CG) High
25 du/ac
0 du
No change
35 du/ac
235 du @ 85%
276 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
235 du @ 85%
276 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
35 du/ac
235 du @ 85%
276 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
2.
Vallco Shopping
District (west)
P(CG),
P(Regional
Shopping)
High
35 du/ac
0 du
P(Regional
Shopping)
35 du/ac
600 du
1,179 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
600 du
1,179 du @ 100%
P(Regional
Shopping, MP, Res)
35 du/ac
800 du
1,179 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
3.
Hamptons
342 du existing
P(Res – 70)
High
25 du/ac
0 du
Same as Alt B
65 du/ac
344 du add @ 85%
404 du add @ 100%
Same as Alt B
65 du/ac
344 du add @ 85%
404 du add @ 100%
P(Res)
110 du/ac
820 du add @ 85%
1,026 add @ 100%
Same as Alt B
4.
United Furniture
+ other
P(CG, Res)
High
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
5. Barry Swenson
P(CG, Res) High
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
6.
Glenbrooks Apts
517 du existing
R3(10-20)
High
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
Recommended Sites Total at 85% 207 du 1,386 du 1,386 du 2,062 du
28
21
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density & Capacity at 85% & 100% & Proposed Zoning
Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C
Alternate Housing Element Sites
7. Marina Plaza
P(CG, Res) Mod.
25 du/ac
145 du @ 85%
171 du @ 85%
No change
35 du/ac
204 du @ 85%
240 du @ 100%
No change
35 du/ac
204 du @ 85%
240 du @ 100%
No change
40 du/ac
232 du @ 85%
274 du @ 100%
No change
8.
Stevens Creek
Office
P(CG, Res)
Mod.
25 du/ac
134 du @ 85%
157 du @ 100%
No change
35 du/ac
187 du @ 85%
220 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
187 du @ 85%
220 du @ 100%
P(CG, OP, Res)
40 du/ac
214 du @ 85%
252 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
9.
Cypress @ Finch
Ave.
P(CG, Res)
Mod.
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
10. Loree Center
P(CG, Res)
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
11.
Homestead
Lanes+ Adj.
P(CG)/P(Rec,
Ent)
Low-
Mod.
35 du/ac
0
No change
35 du/ac
151 du @ 85%
178 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
151 du @ 85%
178 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
35 du/ac
151 du @ 85%
178 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
12.
Summerwinds/
Granite Rock/
Jack in the Box
P(CG, Res 5-15)
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
Same as Alt A
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
Same as Alt A
40 du/ac
154 du @ 85%
182 du @ 100%
Same as Alt A
13.
Shan and Q
Mart**
P(CG, Res)
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
Alternate Sites Total at 85% 435 du 698 du 698 du 811 du
Sites Recommended for Removal
14.
Villages
468 du existing
R3
Low
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
15.
Arya/
Scandinavian
P(CG, Res)
Low
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
16.
Foothill Market
@ McClellan
P(CG)
Low
15 du/ac***
0
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
Same as Alt C
15 du/ac*
0 du
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
29
22
Note: * Separate parcels on a Housing Element site shall be combined, master planned and developed under a Master Developer.
** Data has been updated to eliminate China Dance Studio. This site was formerly ranked #10
*** Indicates that site will not meet affordability criteria at Realistic capacity (85% of max.)
Totals for all sites exclude sites that have requested removal
Planning Commission recommendation - see Table 4 below
TABLE 4 Planning Commission Recommended Housing Element Sites & Alternates
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning Priority Density & Capacity at 85% &
100% & Proposed Zoning a
Comments
Recommended Housing Element Sites
1. The Oaks
P(CG) High
150 du maximum
recommended – results in
approximately 19 units/ac
19 units/ac does not meet HCD’s
affordability criteria. The density may
not be adequate to revitalize the site
with a large retail component.
However, a density of 25 du/ac may
allow provision of a retail component.
167 du @ 85%
197 du @ 100%
2.
Hamptons
(342 units existing)
P(Res)-70
High
748 du add. @ 85%
889 du add. @ 100%
99 du/ac - P(Res)
3. United Furniture + other
P(CG, Res) High
Same as Balanced Plan
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
4. Barry Swenson
P(CG, Res) High
Same as Balanced Plan
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density & Capacity at 85% & 100% & Proposed Zoning
Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C
17. Bateh Bros.
P(CG) Low
15 du/ac*
0 du
No change
25 du/ac
14 du @ 85%
16 du @ 100%
Same as Alt C
15 du/ac*
0 du
No change
35 du/ac
19 du @ 85%
23 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
18. Carl Berg
P(CG, ML, Res) Low
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
Removed Sites Total at 85% 231 du 272 du (Remove) 231 du 277 du
Total Units on All Sites 873 du
2,356 du
(2,084 du not incl.
Low priority)
2,315 du 3,150 du
30
23
TABLE 4 Planning Commission Recommended Housing Element Sites & Alternates
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning Priority Density & Capacity at 85% &
100% & Proposed Zoning a
Comments
5.
Glenbrooks
(517 units existing)
R3(10-20)
High
28 du/ac (300 additional
recommended)
306 du @ 85%
360 du @ 100%
Increase building heights
from 30 feet to 45 feet
Building an additional 300 units will
require tearing down existing units.
The increase in density from 20 du/ac
to 28 du/ac will likely not be sufficient
incentive to do so.
The current R3 zoning district allows
a maximum density of 20 units/acre
for the site. A density of 28 units/acre
will require a new zoning district,
with increased density and height,
and potentially reduced setbacks.
See additional staff comment on EIR.
6.
Summerwinds/Granite
Rock/Jack in the Box
P(CG, Res 5-15)
Low-
Mod
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
Increase building heights
from 30 feet to 45 feet
P(CG, Res)
Recommended Sites Total @ 85% 1,408 du
Alternate Housing Element Sites
7.
Villages
(468 units existing)
R3
Mod
Same as Balanced Plan
20 du/ac
62 du add. @ 85%
72 du add. @ 100%
8. Marina Plaza
P(CG, Res) Mod
Same as Balanced Plan
35 du/ac
204 du @ 85%
240 du @ 100%
9. Carl Berg
P(CG, Res)
Low-
Mod.
Same as Balanced Plan
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
Alternate Sites Total @ 85% 435 du
Notes: a. Projects up to 100% of the maximum density may be proposed. Any units above 85% of the maximum density would
have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.
Staff Comments – The Planning Commission recommended 300 units be assigned to the Glenbrook
Apartments site and 150 units to the Oaks site. However, upon consultation with the EIR consultant, it has
been determined that a maximum of 50 units over and above the maximum units studied in the EIR can be
added to the Oaks and Glenbrooks area without triggering additional traffic analysis and environmental
review. Based on the Planning Commission recommendation of providing 150 units to the Oaks site, the most
that could be added to the Glenbrooks area could be an additional 228 units (max studied in the EIR +50 =
31
24
378-150 for Oaks). In addition, the site would need a General Plan designation and zoning change to ensure
that the units proposed for the site can be accommodated. The current General Plan designation of Medium
Residential (10-20 du/ac) would have to be changed to Medium/High (20-35 du/ac) and a new R3-type
zoning district would have to be created to accommodate a higher density and taller heights. This would
require additional time and analysis. Therefore, the findings for the Planning Commission recommendation
can only support a maximum of 228 units without additional environmental review. This number falls short
of the desired Housing Elements sites count by 72 units.
The final list of recommended Housing Element sites will be incorporated in the Draft Housing
Element prior to forwarding to the HCD. In addition, the alternative Housing Element sites list will
be maintained, in case, one or more of the sites are not approved by HCD after discussions with
them. If sites have to be replaced in the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element with sites from the
Alternate Housing Element Sites list, any necessary amendments to the General Plan Land Use
designations and zoning will be presented with the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element in Spring
2015.
General Plan and Zoning Approach for Housing Element sites
General Plan Land Use Designation – The General Plan Land Use Map will identify the base land use
standards recommended in the Balanced Plan. Housing Element sites will have an overlay with the
higher densities and height standards on the General Plan Land Use map. The development
standards will be effective per the zoning schedule described below. Recommended Housing
Element sites that require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation include: the
Hamptons, and the Oaks (increased densities). Housing Element sites recommended by the
Planning Commission that would require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation
include: Glenbrooks, Summerwinds etc. and Hamptons (increased densities and heights, as
previously discussed).
Zoning Map Amendment – The Zoning Map amendments are scheduled to go into effect on the date
the Final Housing Element gets adopted. If changes are needed to the Housing Element sites list
based on HCD review, the revisions to the Zoning Map will be presented concurrent with the
adoption of the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element in Spring 2015. Recommended Housing Element
sites in the Balanced Plan that would require a zoning change to add residential use include: the
Oaks, and Vallco Shopping District. The Hamptons will require a rezoning from P(Res)-70 (unclear
how this differs from Planned Residential) to P(Res) or Planned Residential. Housing Element sites
recommended by the Planning Commission that would require zoning changes include: the Oaks
to add residential use, and Glenbrooks, Summerwinds and Hamptons (increased densities).
Key Question 5: Housing Element Sites
1. Approve a list of Housing Element sites and densities to meet the RHNA and HCD
requirements.
2. Approve a prioritized Alternative Sites List.
32
25
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
A summary of General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations and Municipal Code text
amendments is provided in Attachment U. The attached resolutions (Attachments B – E) provide
additional details on the changes to General Plan Land Use, Zoning designation, the Municipal text
and Specific Plan Amendments. Attachment V is a redlined version of the zoning text amendments
and contains minor edits in Chapter 19.12, Administration, to conform to the California
Government Code, which were not reflected in the Planning Commission resolution. Attachment
W is a redlined version of the Specific Plan Amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments
consider the physical changes that result as a consequence of projects over which they have
discretionary authority. The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a project
but to provide information to be used in the planning and decision‐making process. CEQA requires
decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against the significant environmental
effects, along with other factors. The attached Planning Commission Study Session staff report
(Attachment X) and City Council Study Session staff report (Attachment Y) provides a detailed
discussion of the EIR. A brief discussion of the issues is provided below.
Proposed Project
Alternative C was identified as the CEQA “project” because it was the alternative with the greatest
development potential and therefore, the possibility of the greatest environmental effects. CEQA
requires that alternatives to the Proposed Project should avoid or substantially lessen one or more
significant impacts of the project. A discussion of Alternative C has already been provided earlier in
this report.
EIR Alternatives
CEQA requires the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project that would
feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. As noted earlier, the following alternatives were studied.
No Project Alternative - The CEQA-required No Project alternative assumes that the Draft
General Plan would not be adopted or implemented and assumes the full implementation (by
2040) of development envisioned under the 2005 General Plan.
Alternative A – Discussion provided earlier in this report.
Alternative B – Discussion provided earlier in this report.
Impacts
The following environmental topics are addressed in the EIR. The EIR and the Planning
Commission and City Council staff reports on the EIR study sessions discuss the impacts related to
the CEQA Project (Alternative C) and the other alternatives in detail. Table 4 below outlines the
impact in each environmental topic for the Proposed Project and alternatives.
33
26
TABLE 4
Topic Proposed Project
(Alternative C)
No
Project
Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Aesthetics LTS LTS LTS LTS
Air Quality SU SU SU SU1
Biological Resources LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Cultural Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS
Geology, Soils & Mineral Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS
GHG Emissions LTS LTS LTS LTS
Hazards & Hazardous Materials LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Hydrology & Water Quality LTS LTS LTS LTS
Land Use & Planning LTS LTS LTS LTS
Noise SU SU SU SU
Population & Housing LTS LTS LTS LTS
Public Services & Recreation LTS LTS LTS LTS
Transportation & Traffic SU SU SU SU
Utilities & Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Notes: LTS - Less-than-significant impact; LTS/M - Less-than-significant with mitigation; SU - Significant
and unavoidable.
1. In Alternative B, one impact (AQ-1) is LTS.
As noted above, the level of impacts in the Proposed Project as well as all three alternatives
analyzed show the same level of impacts within each resource category as a whole, but in varying
degrees. This is partly due to the fact that the EIR studied impacts of the buildout of the Proposed
Project and alternatives over a 25-year period as well as the cumulative regional build-out plans.
The results indicate that the difference between the impacts of the various alternatives is not very
significant, in the context of the cumulative impacts of regional plans over a 25-year period.
In general, the EIR finds significant and unavoidable impacts to Noise, Air Quality and
Transportation and Traffic related to the Proposed Project and alternatives. In some cases, the
significant impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable because the mitigation
measures require approval from a governmental agency other than the City of Cupertino (e.g.
Caltrans), are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City, and need approval from the
other agencies for implementation. In other cases, a significant impact is unavoidable because the
significant impact would not be fully mitigated even though mitigation measures have been
identified and would be implemented.
Draft EIR and Final EIR
The Draft EIR was released on June 18, 2014 and was circulated for 45 days until August 1, 2014. A
meeting was held on June 24, 2014 to solicit written comments from the public related to the EIR.
Responses to comments received during the 45-day public review period were included in the
34
27
Responses to comments (RTC) document published as part of the Final EIR on August 28, 2014. The
Final EIR comprises of the Draft EIR (Attachment Z), the Response to Comments (RTC) Document
(Attachment AA), and the Supplemental Text Revisions Memo dated November 3, 2014
(Attachment BB). The Response to Comments must be made available to all agencies that
commented during the public review period of the Draft EIR for at least 10 days before final action
is taken per CEQA requirements. The City will meet this obligation since final action on the project
will not take place until November 2014.
Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period on August 1, 2014.
While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of the
public review period, staff has been and will continue to provide responses to these comments. As
of October 31, 2014, 34 late comment letters (and attachments) were received. Responses to these
have been compiled in a late comment memo (Attachment BB.) The comment letters received
during and after the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially more severe
significant impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the findings of the Draft
EIR.
The Planning Commission and City Council held EIR study sessions on September 9, 2014 and
October 7, 2014, respectively. The study sessions were a forum for questions related to the EIR and
no decisions were made. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the EIR at its meeting on
October 2, 2014, determined that it was adequate, and recommended that the City Council certify
the Final EIR (Attachment CC).
Balanced Plan
The Development Allocation recommendations in the Balanced Plan are generally between
Alternatives B and C. However the recommended heights are similar to or lower than those
studied in Alternative B. The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the
Proposed Project or any of the other alternatives due to the fact that the (office/commercial to
residential) balance is better than that in Alternative B, which had the lowest VMT of all of the
alternatives studied in the EIR. However, it will continue to have significant avoidable impacts for
traffic, air quality and noise even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission recommended Certification of an
Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, per Planning
Commission Resolution (Attachment A).
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the lead agency to make certain specified findings when it approves a project for
which an EIR has been certified that identified one or more significant effects on the environment.
Public Resources Code § 21081. CEQA Findings that address approval of the Planning Commission
Recommendation, as modified to address feasibility, are Attachment A. Alternate CEQA findings
that address approval of the Balanced Plan Project are reflected in Attachment H.
35
28
As part of the CEQA findings, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when
determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects
may be considered acceptable and the agency may determine that the significant unavoidable
impacts are outweighed by the proposed project's benefits. CEQA requires the agency to support,
in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not
avoided or substantially lessened.
The Balanced Plan (Community Vision 2040) would result in significant unavoidable impacts
related to transportation, air quality and noise, even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures. However, it would achieve community goals related to a balance of land uses, providing
active and vibrant shopping and entertainment destinations, and economic and fiscal stability. In
addition, the Plan would help ensure that regional targets for greenhouse gas emissions and
housing are met, encourages sustainable planning and practices, and would concentrate growth in
major transportation corridors and in employment centers and key Nodes and Gateways, while
maintaining community goals of neighborhood preservation and connectivity. These significant
unavoidable impacts and project benefits are discussed in the CEQA Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment H).
The Planning Commission recommendation would result in reduced VMT beyond that in
Alternative A but slightly lower than the Balanced Plan. However, it would continue to have
significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality, traffic and noise, generally between that in
Alternative A and the Balanced Plan. It would also not help to achieve the City’s economic and
fiscal goals since allocations (housing and office) would not be sufficient allow redevelopment of
the Vallco Shopping District. These significant and unavoidable impacts and project benefits related
to the Planning Commission recommendation are discussed in the CEQA Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A).
PUBLIC NOTICING AND WORKSHOPS
Noticing for the General Plan and Housing Element project has been extensive, including the
following:
Three postcards sent to every postal address in the City
o One for General Plan Amendment
o One combined for General Plan Amendment and Housing Element
o One announcing availability of the Draft EIR
Newspaper notices
Notices sent to prospective housing element site property owners
Creation of a project website - notice of website updates and Workshop/meeting reminders e-
mailed to about 300 website subscribers
E-mail list with close to 400 email addresses for interested parties maintained by City staff
The following is a list of public meetings.
General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #1 – July 18, 2013
36
29
General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #2 – October 23, 2013
General Plan Amendment Neighborhood Meeting – December 5, 2013
Chamber of Commerce and Block Leader meetings – January 29, 2014
Meetings with Study Area property owners/representatives
Meetings with interested Housing Element site property owners/representatives
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee –December 6, 2013 & February 7, 2014
Commission Meetings, Open Houses, Meetings and Study Sessions
o City Council Meeting for the initiation of the General Plan amendment project & contract –
February 19, 2012 and March 5, 2012
o City Council Meeting for initiation of the Housing Element project, consultant selection and
contract – November 4, 2013
o Presentation at Teen Commission Meeting – October 2, 2013
o Presentation at Bike and Ped. Commission Meeting – January 15, 2014
o Joint Housing Commission and Planning Commission Study Session and Community
Workshop for Housing Element sites #1 – January 23, 2014
o Housing Commission Study Session and Community Workshop for Housing Element sites
#2 – February 12, 2014
o Open Houses #1 and #2 – February 19, 2014 and September 16, 2014
o Planning Commission Study Session on Housing Sites for environmental review – February
19, 2014
o City Council Study Session on Housing Sites and land use alternatives for environmental
review – March 3, 2014
o Housing Commission meeting on housing policy – March 19, 2014
o Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on housing and draft General Plan policy
direction – April 1, 2014
o Public meeting for EIR – June 24, 2014
o Housing Commission Meeting – August 28, 2014
o Planning Commission Study Session on the EIR – September 9, 2014
o City Council Study Session on the EIR – October 7, 2014
o Planning Commission public hearings - October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014
Public Comments
Comments related to the Draft EIR have been discussed earlier in this report. In addition to
comments received regarding the adequacy of the EIR, several comments were received on the
project. The comments are briefly discussed in Attachment EE.
NEXT STEPS
Based on the City Council’s decision on November 10, 2014, necessary changes will be made to the
findings for certification of the EIR, adoption of the General Plan (Community Vision 2040), and the
zoning ordinances. In addition, conforming changes will also be made to the Draft Housing
Element and alternative sites list prior consultation and review with HCD. A second reading for the
zoning ordinances related to the General Plan and Housing Element is scheduled for November 18,
2014. The Community Vision 2040 General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment
37
30
will go into effect upon adoption, however, the zoning ordinance text and map amendments will go
into effect 30 days after the November 18, 2014 second reading.
The final General Plan document text, maps and graphics will then be formatted and prepared for
posting by staff and the consultants.
The Draft Housing Element will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for their review, which is expected to take about 60 days. Staff will discuss
outstanding items with HCD and discuss any necessary changes related to the Housing Element
sites based on the prioritized and alternate sites list. Upon conclusion of HCD review, staff will
present the Final 2014-20122 Housing Element for adoption to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
The density bonus law has recently been amended to provide, for applications received after
January 1, 2015, that before a site can be considered for a density bonus, the project must include
the replacement of all affordable rental housing and housing occupied by lower income households
at any time in the five-year period preceding the density bonus application. In addition, the
amendments require 55-year, rather than 30-year, affordability for rental housing receiving a
density bonus and allow use of equity-sharing for lower income for-sale housing. These revisions
will be included in the Housing Element and zoning ordinance prior to adoption of the Final 2014-
2022 Housing Element.
Any related General Plan amendments or zoning map or code amendments related to the revised
Housing Element sites list will be brought at the same time. State law requires agencies to adopt
their 2014-2022 Housing Elements by May 31, 2015.
____________________________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
A. Draft Resolution 14-210, Recommending Certification of an Environmental Impact Report,
adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of
Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03)
B. Draft Resolution 14-211 adopting General Plan and Land Use Map Amendments (GPA-2013-
01)
C. Draft Resolution 14-212 to authorize staff to forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and use the prioritized
list of Alternative Housing Element sites (GPA-2013-02)
D. Draft Ordinance 14-2124 to approve Zoning Map Amendments (Z-2013-03)
E. Draft Ordinance 14-2125 to approve Municipal Code Amendments (MCA-2014-01)
F. Draft Resolution 14-213 to approve Specific Plan Amendment (SPA-2014-01)
38
31
G. Planning Commission resolutions 6760 – 6765 (The exhibits attached to the Planning
Commission resolutions have not been attached to Attachment G. These are available online at
www.cupertino.org/records under Planning Commission Agenda Packet for October 14, 2014.)
H. Alternate CEQA Findings for Balanced Plan Recommendation
I. Planning Commission staff report dated October 14, 2014
J. General Plan Amendment and Housing Element staff reports for: January 23, 2014 Housing
Commission, February 12, 2014 Housing Commission, February 19, 2014 Planning
Commission, March 4, 2014 City Council, April 1, 2014 Joint Planning Commission/City
Council
K. Concept Alternative Maps
L. Planning Commission public hearing minutes October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014
M. General Plan and Housing Element errata since Planning Commission recommendation on
October 20, 2014
N. Balanced Plan Allocation, Heights and Density Map
O. Planning Commission Recommended Allocation, Heights and Density Map
P. Market Study dated February 13, 2014 prepared by BAE Urban Economics
Q. Retail Strategy Report dated March 6, 2014 prepared by Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate
LLC
R. Housing Commission staff report dated August 28, 2014
S. 2007-2014 Housing Element and Technical Appendix
T. Site Priority List with criteria
U. Summary Of Land Use Map, Zoning Map And Zoning Text Amendments
V. Zoning text amendments – Redlined version
W. Specific Plan amendments – Redlined version
X. Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated September 9, 2014
Y. City Council Study Session Staff Report dated October 7, 2014
Z. Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 18, 2014
AA. Response to Comments Document dated August 28, 2014
BB. Supplemental Text Revisions Memo dated November 3, 2014
CC. Updated Late Comments memo dated November 3, 2014
DD. Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee
EE. Public Comments Related to the General Plan and Housing Element
39
RESOLUTION NO. 14-210
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT;
AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: EA-2013-03
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to replenish, reallocate and
increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development
activity while keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives, and to consolidate
development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, both
under a comprehensive community vision, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Housing Law, the City Council has directed staff to update the
Housing Element of the General Plan and make associated zoning amendments to comply with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations) (“CEQA
Guidelines”), the City of Cupertino as lead agency caused the General Plan Amendment,
Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#20140322007) (“EIR”) to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2014, the City issued Notice of Preparation for the EIR for the Project.
A scoping session was held on March 11, 2014 to provide the public the opportunity to
comment on the topics to be studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”).
Public comments were collected through the scoping period’s conclusion on April 7, 2014; and
WHEREAS, from April 8, 2014 to June 17, 2014, the City prepared a Draft EIR pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review/comment period beginning
on June 18, 2014 and ending August 1, 2014; and
40
WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on June 18, 2014 under State Clearinghouse No.
2014032007, and the Notice of Availability was filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk-
Recorder on the same day and was also: (1) sent to other potentially affected agencies as
required by CEQA; (2) sent to adjacent property owners as required by CEQA; and (3) posted at
the Project site and at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the City held a duly noticed public meeting during the public
comment period on the Draft EIR to allow the public an additional opportunity to provide
input on the DEIR and received public testimony; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR,
responses to written comments concerning the adequacy of the DEIR received during the public
review and comment period have been prepared and compiled in the Response to Comments
Document, which includes revisions to the DEIR (“RTC Document”); and
WHEREAS, the RTC Document was issued on August 28, 2014 and notice of availability was
sent to the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder’s Office, posted at City Hall and the Project site,
and sent to 10 local libraries and interested persons registered through the project website; and
WHEREAS, copies of the RTC Document were sent to all public agencies that commented on
the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City received comments on the Draft EIR following the close of the public
review and comment period (“Late Comments”) and, although pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21091(d)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) written responses are not
required, responses to Late Comments have been provided with staff reports; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.86.100, the Housing Commission
is authorized to assist the Planning Commission and the City Council in developing housing
policies and strategies for implementation of general plan housing element goals; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Housing Element and
proposed amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code pertaining to housing and affordable
housing, were presented to the Housing Commission at a public hearing on August 28, 2014;
and
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2014, the Housing Commission recommended that the City Council
authorize staff to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and use the High-Low prioritization of Potential Housing
Element Sites;
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Draft EIR, the RTC
41
Document, and all documents incorporated therein were presented to the Planning
Commission on September 9, 2014 at a Planning Commission Study Session; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2014, City Staff presented the Draft EIR and the RTC Document, and
all documents incorporated therein, to the Environmental Review Committee (“ERC”) for
review and recommendation. After considering the documents, and Staff’s presentation, the
ERC recommended that the City of Cupertino City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update and Associated Rezoning, which is part of the Final EIR, identifies revisions which are
typographical corrections, insignificant modifications, amplifications and clarifications of the
Draft EIR and the RTC Document; and
WHEREAS, the “Final EIR” consisting of the Draft EIR (published in June 2013), the RTC
Document (published in September 2013), and Supplemental Text Revisions (published October
8, 2014) and all documents incorporated therein was presented to the City Council on October 7,
2014 at a City Council Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014 to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on October 20, 2014 the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City,
adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the
mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City
that are identified in Findings, in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented
(Resolution 6760); and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0-1 (Takahashi
absent) vote that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01), in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6761); authorize staff to
forward the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development for review and certification (GPA-2013-02); approve the prioritized list of
potential Housing Element sites in the event amendments are needed to the proposed Housing
Element sites upon HCD review, in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented
(Resolution no. 6762); approve the Zoning Map Amendments, Z-2013-03, in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6763); approve the Municipal Code
Amendments to make changes to conform to the General Plan and Housing Element and other
clean up text edits (MCA-2014-01) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented
(Resolution no. 6764); approve the Specific Plan Amendments (SPA-2014-01) in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6765); and
42
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
EIR (EA-2013-03); as well as the following concurrent Project applications: General Plan
Amendment (GPA-2013-01), Housing Element update (GPA-2013-02), Zoning Map Amendment
(Z-2013-01), Municipal Code Amendments (MCA-2014-01), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA-
2014-01).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony, staff reports, public
comments, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council does:
1. Certify that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and
reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
2. Adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, attached
hereto as “Exhibit EA-1,” and incorporated herein by reference.
3. Adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project that
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the Findings.
4. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto
as “Exhibit EA-2,” and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 10th day
of November 2014, by the following roll call vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECUSE:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_ ____ _______ __________
Grace Schmidt Gilber Wong
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
43
I-1
EXHIBIT EA-1
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE,
AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (City), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update,
And Associated Rezoning (the “Project”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007) (the “Final
EIR” or “EIR”). The Final EIR is a program-level EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.1 The Final EIR consists of Volumes I and II of the June 2014 Public
Review Draft Project Environmental Impact Report (the “Draft EIR”); the August 2013
Response to Comments Document; and the November 3, 2014 Supplemental Text Revisions
memorandum,2 which contains typographical corrections, insignificant modifications,
amplifications and clarifications of the EIR.
In determining to approve the Project, which is described in more detail in Section II, below,
the City makes and adopts the following findings of fact and statement of overriding
considerations, and adopts and makes conditions of project approval the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of
this proceeding (administrative record). Pursuant to Section 15090(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the City Council reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the findings in
Sections II through XIII, below, and the City Council determined that the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment of the City. The conclusions presented in these findings are
based on the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (the ”Planning Commission Recommendation”)
As fully described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, the Project involves all of the following: (1)
a focused General Plan Amendment consisting of revised city-wide development allocations
for office commercial, and hotel uses, as well as buildings heights and densities for Major
Mixed-Use Special Areas; (2) updating the General Plan Housing Element to accommodate
1 The State CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section
15000 et seq.
2 PlaceWorks, Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update
and Associated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (November 3, 2014)
(“Supplemental Text Revisions Memo”).
44
I-2
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 planning period to meet
the City’s fair-share housing obligation of 1,064 units; (3) amending certain Zoning and
Density Bonus portions of the City’s Municipal Code to be consistent with the Housing
Element and to be consistent with requirements pertaining to emergency shelters; and (4)
conforming changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map
for consistency and for revisions required by State law, and reorganization for purposes of
increasing clarity and ease of use.
The increased development allocations would be allowed in specific locations throughout
the City, which are categorized as follows and are described and depicted on figures in the
EIR:
• Special Areas (including City Gateways and Nodes along major
transportation corridors);
• Study Areas;
• Other Special Areas (including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-
Use Special Areas); and
• Housing Element Sites
The buildout of the potential future development in these identified locations is based on a
horizon year of 2040; therefore, the EIR analyzes growth occurring between 2014 and 2040.
The 2040 horizon year is generally consistent with other key planning documents, including
Plan Bay Area, which is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable
Community Strategy to Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act.
The EIR analyzed the proposed Project (which is titled “Land Use Alternative C” in the
EIR)3 and three additional alternatives (No Project Alternative, Land Use Alternative A, and
Land Use Alternative B), all at the same level of detail. The Planning Commission
Recommendation is for the most part a combination of Alternatives A and B. The Planning
Commission Recommendation consists of development allocations that are the same or
reduced from the development allocations that were analyzed in the EIR, and revisions to
the prioritization of the Housing Element sites that were analyzed in the EIR along with
reassignment of housing units among the Housing Element sites. On several
sites/gateways, the maximum height limits are reduced or remained the same as the heights
analyzed in the EIR, except at two locations where the maximum height limits are increased
from 35 to 45 feet (the Glenbrooks Housing Element site and the Summerwinds/Granite
Rock/Jack-in-the-Box Housing Element site). Residential densities also are reduced or
remained the same as the densities analyzed in the EIR, except that the residential density at
3 Draft EIR, p. 2-5 (Table 2-1, footnote a).
45
I-3
the Glenbrooks Housing Element site are increased from 20 to 23 dwelling units per acre.
The increase in the number of additional units on the Glenbrooks site is limited to a
maximum of 228 (100% of the remaining capacity at the site if the density is increased to 23
dwelling units per acre) to avoid increased traffic impacts. The purpose of the revisions to
Alternative C in the Planning Commission Recommendation is to reduce the amount of
additional office development in the City in order to reduce the regional impacts of creating
jobs in Cupertino without commensurate, increased development of housing (see Section
II.A, below).
A. General Plan Amendment
Every city and county in California is required to prepare and to adopt a comprehensive,
long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and, in some
cases, land outside the city or county boundaries. Government Code § 65300. The City’s
current, 2000-2020 General Plan controls the area and density of commercial, office, hotel,
and residential uses built in the city through development allocations in terms of square feet
(commercial and office), rooms (hotel), and units (residential). The allocations are
geographically assigned in certain neighborhoods, commercial, and employment centers so
that private development fulfills both City goals and priorities and reduces adverse impacts
to the environment. The City allocates development potential on a project-by-project basis
to applicants for net new office and commercial square footage, hotel rooms, and/or
residential units. As a result of several recent approvals of projects, a large amount of the
current office, commercial and hotel development allocation has been granted, leaving an
inadequate pool to allocate to additional development in the city.
While the Project is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan. The
current General Plan contains many goals, policies, standards, and programs that the City
and community would like to continue into the future. The Project instead focuses on
identifying and analyzing potential changes along the major transportation corridors in
Cupertino that have the greatest ability to evolve in the near future because the rest of the
city consists primarily of single-family residential neighborhoods.
The development allocations in the Planning Commission Recommendation are as follows:
• Office allocation : 1,040,231 square feet (net increase of 500,000 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)4
• Commercial allocation (same as Alternative C): 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of
0 square feet from the 2000-2020 General Plan)5
4 The Alternative C proposed office allocation is 4,040,231 square feet (net increase of 3,500,000
square feet from 2000-2020 General Plan).
46
I-4
• Hotel allocation (same as Alternative C): 1,339 rooms (net increase of 1,000 rooms
from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Residential allocation eliminated; residential land uses permitted according to
applicable General Plan land use designations and policies, Housing Element site
inventory and policies, and zoning 6
As shown above, development allocations are the same as or are reduced from Alternative
C, and the residential allocation pool has been eliminated altogether. Residential
development is allowed at the locations, densities and intensities as provided for in the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As described above, the recommended heights are
lower than those analyzed in the EIR, except in two locations (Glenbrooks Apartments in
the Heart of the City and Summerwinds/Granite Rock/Jack in the Box Housing Element
sites) at which the height limits would be increased from Alternative C (from 30 to 45 feet),
and the residential density at one site are increased at one location (Glenbrook Apartments
in the Heart of the City Special Area) from 20 dwelling units per acre analyzed in the EIR to
23 dwelling units per acre up to a limit of 228 units. The maximum height limits would be
the same as or lower than Alternative B. See Land Use and Community Design Element,
Table LU-2. The Planning Commission Recommendation provides for a reduced amount of
new development and has less emphasis on office development than Alternative C. These
changes in the General Plan Amendment and accompanying approvals do not create new or
substantially more severe significant effects on the environment for the reasons explained
below.
The 15-foot height increases at Glenbrook Apartments Housing Element site, located in the
Heart of the City Special Area, and the Summerwinds/Granite Rock/Jack in the Box Housing
Element site, located in the South De Anza Mixed-Use Special Area, would not block views
of areas that provide or contribute to scenic vistas and/or scenic corridors or from specific
publically accessible vantage points or the alteration of the overall scenic vista/corridor itself
or adversely impact the visual character of these sites or the surrounding areas. These two
sites are already developed and/or underutilized, and in close proximity to existing
5 The EIR provided an analysis for the commercial development allocation of 1,343,679 square
feet for Alternative C, which is an increase in commercial development allocation of 642,266 square
feet over the remaining allocation of 701,413 square feet in the 2020 General Plan; however, the
additional 642,266 square footage does not constitute a net increase in commercial development in
Cupertino during the planning period of the General Plan Amendment (through 2040). That is
because the entire 642,266 square feet of the increased allocation would come from demolition of
Vallco Shopping Center and rebuilding and/or relocating that existing commercial square footage to
other sites. Due to the high vacancy rate at the Vallco Shopping Mall under existing conditions,
however, the EIR conservatively analyzed the total commercial development allocation of 1,343,679
square feet (642,266 existing square feet + 701,413 new square feet).
6 The Alternative C proposed residential allocation analyzed in the EIR is 4,421 units (net
increase of 2,526 units from the 2000-2020 General Plan).
47
I-5
residential and residential-serving development, where future development would have a
lesser impact on scenic vistas. Neither of these locations is within the viewshed of I-280, an
eligible State Scenic Highway. The topography at these locations is essentially flat and the
views from street-level public viewing to the scenic resources are currently inhibited by
existing conditions such as buildings, structures, and mature trees or vegetation. Similar
views would continue to be visible between projects and over lower density areas.
Considering this and the fact that Housing Element Sites 5 and 16 are not considered a
destination public viewing points nor are they visible from scenic vistas, overall impacts to
scenic vistas would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the 15-foot height increases would be subject to the City’s Architectural and
Site Review process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance, or would
be required to comply with Design Standards outlined in the General Plan and other
regulatory documents. In addition, the General Plan policies aimed at protecting scenic
resources would ensure future development of these sites would conceivably reduce
potential aesthetic impacts of future development under the proposed Project.
The increase in residential density at the Glenbrooks Apartments site, from 20 to 23
dwelling units per acre up to a maximum of 228 additional units, are minor, and would not
cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects, because the
number of additional units that could be developed in each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ),
above what was analyzed in the EIR, would be 50 or fewer additional units. In addition, the
site is located in either the VTA Priority Development area or adjacent to a major
employment district and would provide residential development close to a large
employment area, thereby potentially reducing traffic impacts.
However, like Alternative C, the Planning Commission Recommendation will continue to
have significant avoidable traffic, air quality and noise impacts even after incorporation of
all feasible mitigation measures.
The majority of the Planning Commission Recommendation is located in the City’s Special
Areas as identified in the current General Plan. The development allocations can generally
be used in Special Areas, Study Areas, Housing Element Sites and Other Special Areas;
however, hotel development allocations may not be used in Other Special Areas. The
boundaries and proposed changes within each Special Area, Study Area and Other Special
Area are described in detail in Section 3.7 (Project Components) of Chapter 3 (Project
Description) of the Draft EIR.
B. Housing Element Update
The Planning Commission Recommendation includes a comprehensive update to the City’s
Housing Element (the “2014-2022 Housing Element”) in compliance with State law. The
Housing Element’s policies and programs are intended to guide the City’s housing efforts
through the 2014 to 2022 Housing Element period. The 2014-2022 Housing Element keeps
48
I-6
many of the existing policies and strategies in the 2007-2014 Housing Element and revises
them to conform to changes in State law or based on a critical evaluation of the programs
and policies. The Housing Element assesses housing needs for all income groups and
establishes a program to meet these needs. The policies and strategies have also been
reorganized to provide for better readability and to eliminate redundancies.
State law requires each jurisdiction to address how it will satisfy the quantified objectives
for new residential units as represented by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). The RHNA identifies Cupertino’s housing needs by income levels. The City’s
housing needs allocation for the period 2014 to 2022 is 1,064 new housing units. The
income levels are separated into four cate gories: very low, low, moderate and above
moderate, shown in Draft EIR Table 3-20. Draft EIR, p. 3-66. State law allows jurisdictions
to take credit for residential projects that have been approved, building permits issued
during the plan period in which the review is taking place, and second dwelling units (also
known as accessory dwelling units) that are anticipated to be constructed during the plan
period.
The City has issued entitlements and/or building permits for 30 units since January 1, 2014.
Additionally, it is anticipated that 32 second units (on single-family lots) were constructed
in the 2007-2014 plan period, 32 second units will be constructed in the current plan period
as well. Therefore, the City can take credit for a total of 62 units (30 units approved and 32
second units anticipated). As a result, the City is required to identify sites for the
construction of 1,064 minus 62 units, or 1,002 units.
To accommodate the current planning period’s RHNA, the Available Land Inventory in the
Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element identified 19 potential housing sites, which are analyzed
in the EIR. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that
the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. Of the original 19 sites
identified in the Draft EIR, nine remain for consideration.7 If all nine potential housing sites
were developed, this would result in a net increase in housing in Cupertino of 1,843 new
residential units between 2014 and 2040. Draft EIR, Table 3-12, pp. 3-68 to 3-70. The
maximum number of new residential units pursuant to the Planning Commission
Recommendation is 1,843 units.
7 Of the 19 studied in the EIR, nine sites are available for selection. That is because the largest
property owner (Valley Church) associated with the IntraHealth/Tennis Courts etc. site on Stelling
Road, and the owners of the Cypress Building/Hall Property have notified the City that their sites
should not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory, and the Planning Commission
Recommendation deleted 8 sites and moved the Summerwinds/Granite Rock/Jack in the Box site
from the alternate to the recommended list.
49
I-7
These changes described above in the recommended Housing Element sites do not have
the potential to create any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the
environment for the following reasons. The increase of up to 228 units on the Glenbrook
Apartments site would result in an increase of 135 units above the 93-unit increase that was
analyzed in the Draft EIR (228 units – 93 units = 135 units). An increases of 50 or fewer
units of housing is generally considered to be a negligible increase, and this increase is
below that screening threshold because the Glenbrooks site is adjacent to The Oaks
Shopping Center Housing Element site at which where the residential units are reduced
from the 235 units analyzed in the EIR to 150 units. Therefore, the total increased
development in the area would be offset by the 85 units that no longer would be built at
The Oaks Shopping Center site (235 units – 150 units = 85 units). This reduction at The
Oaks Shopping Center Site would offset part of the 135 unit increase at the Glenbrooks site,
but not the full increased amount of 135 units units. There would still be an increase in the
area of 122 units (135 units - 85 units = 50 units), which does not exceed the screening
threshold of 50 additional units. Hence, the additional density would not create an new or
substantially more severe significant impact than was analyzed in the EIR.
HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee
that the RHNA realistically can be accommodated. Based on consultation with HCD and
the City’s housing consultant expert, it is anticipated that HCD will require sites to
accommodate units equivalent to a moderate surplus above the City’s housing need, or
approximately 1,400 units. Of the nine identified sites, the City Council has directed staff to
submit six sites to HCD for review as to their adequacy under State Planning and Zoning
Law.
The means of achieving the development of these units are provided for in the policies and
programs described in the Housing Element. The City's quantified objectives are identified
in Table 3.4 of the Housing Element. The City is not obligated to construct the housing
units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City is required to demonstrate adequate
capacity for 1,064 housing units by identifying sufficient specific sites in order to satisfy the
RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy.
In addition to analyzing the 2014-2022 Housing Element for the specified planning
period, the Final EIR analyzes the overall environmental effects of increasing housing units
on a citywide basis to address, which is necessary the address the two future housing
elements that are expected to be adopted during the period between 2014 and General Plan
Amendment horizon year of 2040. The Plan Bay Area (the Bay Area Region’s Sustainability
Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan) identifies that the City of
Cupertino’s housing need by 2040 will be 4,421 units.
50
I-8
C. Conforming General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and
Density Bonus Amendments
As part of the Housing Element update process, Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) in Title 19
(Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code will be amended to be consistent with the 2007–2014
Housing Element Program 12 (Density Bonus Program). Chapter 19.20 (Permitted,
Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.76
(Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T) Zones), and
Chapter 19.84 (Permitted, Conditional And Excluded Uses In Open Space, Park And
Recreation And Private Recreation Zoning Districts), also in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s
Municipal Code, will be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining
to permanent emergency shelters and to comply with the State Employee Housing Act with
respect to farmworker housing and employee housing. In addition, Program 17 of the
Housing Element, which addresses the potential loss of multi-family housing and
displacement of lower- and moderate-income households due to new development, will be
amended to comply with recent legislation and to mitigate the potential displacement
impacts to renters (e.g. tenant relocation benefits).
The Planning Commission Recommendation also includes revisions to the General Plan
Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance (including the Chapters listed above and 19.08
(Definitions) and 19.144 (Development Agreements), and the Zoning map to ensure
consistency with the General Plan as a result of changes to Housing Element policies or to
address changes required as a result of State legislation adopted since the last General Plan
update (such as Assembly Bill 1358, Complete Streets), and as a result of bringing non-
conforming land uses into conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
D. Project Objectives
The project objectives are as follows:
• Emphasize employment and a mix of economic development opportunities by
replenishing, reallocating, and increasing city-wide office, commercial, and hotel,
allocations in order to capture:
• A share of the regional demand for office and hotel development, and
• Retail sales tax leakage in the trade area.
• Address local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino by replenishing, re-allocating and increasing city-
wide residential allocations to be consistent with 2040 Bay Area Plan projections to
allow flexibility for the city when future state-mandated updates are required to the
Housing Element.
51
I-9
• Update the Housing Element as required by State law.
• Creating opportunities for mixed-use development consistent with Regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
required by SB 375.
• Investing in improvement to adapt to climate change over time.
• Consider increased heights in key nodes and gateways, if proposed development
provides retail development and benefits directly to the community.
• Update General Plan policies to implement multi-modal traffic standards as opposed
to LOS thresholds currently identified. Balancing development objectives with
transportation constraints and opportunities.
• Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District by adopting policies to support its
redevelopment, so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment
destination that serves both the region and the local community.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. Environmental Impact Report
On March 5, 2014, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR to the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and
persons. A postcard notice had previously been delivered in February 2014 to all postal
addresses in the City to announce upcoming dates for the General Plan and Housing
Element projects. The NOP was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies
and interested parties for a total of 30 days, from March 5, 2014 through April 7, 2014,
during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on March 11, 2014. Comments on
the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies,
and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting on June 18, 2014 and ending
August 1, 2014. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional and State agencies. Copies
of the Draft EIR in paper or electronic format were available to interested parties for
purchase or review at Cupertino City Hall. The Draft EIR was also available for review at
libraries in the City and in surrounding communities, and an electronic version of the Draft
EIR and all appendices were posted on a website the City created for the combined General
Plan and Housing Element projects at www.cuptertinogpa.org, which included an
electronic comment portal to receive public comment 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The City continues to make these documents available on its website for the Project at the
following URL: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/app_folders/view/1. The public was also
invited to submit written comments on the Draft EIR to the City of Cupertino Community
Development Department by mail or e-mail to planning@cupertino.org.
52
I-10
Notice of availability of the Draft EIR was made in several ways. The City sent a postcard
announcing the availability of the Draft EIR and inviting attendance at the Draft EIR
comment meeting to all postal addresses in Cupertino. In addition, in accordance with
CEQA, the City posted the Notice of Availability (NOA) on the Project website. The City
also sent emails providing notice of the Draft EIR’s availability to all persons who had
indicated an interest in the Project and signed up for notifications through the City’s
website. The local media publicized the availability of the Draft EIR and the public
comment period.
The City held a Community Open House and EIR Comment Meeting during the comment
period on June 24, 2014. The City solicited written comments at the meeting by distributing
comment cards that were collected at the end of the evening.
The 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR ended on August 1, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.
Agencies, organizations, and members of the public submitted written comments on the
Draft EIR. The Responses to Comments Document, which is the third volume of the Final
EIR, was issued for public review on August 28, 2014 and sent to public agencies who had
commented on the Draft EIR. Chapter 5 of the Responses to Comments Document provides
responses to the comments received during the comment period on the Draft EIR. Late
comments received after the close of the public comment period have been addressed in
memoranda submitted to the City Council.
On September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held a Study Session on the EIR and took
public comments. On October 7, 2014, the City Council held a Study Session on the Final
EIR and took public comments.
On October 2, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee determined that the EIR was
adequate and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR. On October 20, 2014,
following a duly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2014 that was continued on October
20, 2014, the City Planning Commission, recommended that the City Council certify the
Final EIR.
B. Additional Housing Element Public Review Process
The Housing Element must identify community involvement and decision-making
processes and techniques that constitute affirmative steps for receiving input from all
economic segments of the community, especially low-income persons and their
representatives, as well as from other members of the community. Public participation,
pursuant to Section 65583(c)(8) of the Government Code, was accomplished in a variety of
ways. Outreach was conducted in the form of in-person interviews with stakeholders
including several housing-related non-profits and organizations that provide services to low
income families and individuals in the City; and with parties interested in the Housing
53
I-11
Element process, including property owners and community groups such as the Concerned
Citizens of Cupertino and neighborhood groups. Below are some examples of outreach and
noticing conducted as part of the Housing Element update.
• Notice postcard sent to every postal address in the City.
• Joint Housing Commission and Planning Commission workshop – January 23, 2014
• Housing Commission Workshop – February 12, 2014
• Open House – February 19, 2014, September 16, 2014
• Study Session held with Planning Commission – February 19, 2014
• Study Session held with City Council – March 3, 2014
• Housing Commission meeting on housing policy – March 19, 2014
• Joint Planning Commission/City meeting on housing policy – April 1, 2014
• Newspaper notices.
• Notices sent to all prospective housing element site property owners prior to City
Council authorization to commence environmental review.
• Notices sent to all prospective housing element site property owners prior to
Planning Commission and City Council prioritization of the sites for HCD review.
• Webpage hosted focusing on the Housing Element Update process.
• Notice of website additions and Workshop reminders e-mailed to over 300 Housing
Element website subscribers.
• Staff presentations at the Chamber of Commerce.
• Housing Commission Meeting – August 28, 2014
• Planning Commission Hearing – October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014
The City’s outreach also included stakeholder meetings with non-profit and for-profit
housing developers, building industry trade groups, architects, planners, and affordable
housing funders. The Housing Element update process in the City has involved a number of
groups and individuals in the process of reviewing current housing conditions and needs
and considering potential housing strategies. Two public workshops were held at Housing
Commission meeting and at a Joint Planning Commission Housing Commission meeting. In
addition, one publicly noticed Planning Commission Study Session was held and included
54
I-12
opportunity for public comment. Feedback from these study sessions and public workshops
was used to identify needs, assess constraints and develop draft programs for the Housing
Element update, and are included in Section 1.3 of Appendix A of the General Plan.
IV. FINDINGS
The findings, recommendations, and statement of overriding considerations set forth below
(the “Findings”) are made and adopted by the Cupertino City Council as the City’s findings
under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the Project. The Findings provide
the written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project’s
environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the overriding
considerations that support approval of the Project despite any remaining environmental
effects it may have.
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR with regard to
project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of
each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a
summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City’s
findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of
mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions
can be found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations
regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts.
When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, present,
and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a
summary of projections in an adopted planning document. The cumulative impacts
analysis in the Final EIR uses the projections approach and takes into account growth from
the Project within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in
combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the
surrounding region, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
In adopting mitigation measures, below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure
identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such
mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project in the findings
below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth
below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical
error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control
unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified
by these findings.
55
I-13
Sections V and VI, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR
identifies as either significant and unavoidable or less than significant with adopted
mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
V. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
DISPOSITION OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES RESULTING IN
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The Final EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the approval of the Project, some of which can be reduced, although not to a
less-than-significant level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). In some cases, the City cannot require or
control implementation of mitigation measures for certain impacts because they are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(2). Therefore, as explained below, some impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable notwithstanding adoption of feasible mitigation measures. To the extent that
these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the
environment, and because the City cannot require mitigation measures that are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies to be adopted or implemented by
those agencies, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant and unavoidable
adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Section XII, below. Public
Resources Code § 21081(a)(3). As explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section
V are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in
full by this reference.
A. Impact AQ-1: Implementation of the Project would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
The Final EIR finds that while the Project would support the primary goals of the 2010 Bay
Area Clean Air Plan, the buildout of the Project would conflict with the BAAQMD Bay Area
Clean Air Plan goal for community-wide VMT to increase at a slower rate compared to
population and employment growth. The rate of growth in VMT would exceed the rate of
population and employment growth, resulting in a substantial increase in regional criteria
air pollutant emissions in Cupertino.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Policies and development standards in the Project would lessen the impact, but due to the
level of growth forecast in the city and the programmatic nature of the Project, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable.
B. Impact AQ-2: Implementation of the Project would violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
56
I-14
The Final EIR finds that future development under the Project would result in a substantial
long-term increase in criteria air pollutants over the 26-year General Plan horizon. Criteria
air pollutant emissions would be generated from on-site area sources (e.g., fuel used for
landscaping equipment, consumer products), vehicle trips generated by the project, and
energy use (e.g., natural gas used for cooking and heating). Because cumulative
development within the City of Cupertino could exceed the regional significance thresholds,
the Project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time as the
attainment standards are met in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce these impacts, but not to a
less-than-significant level. Due to the programmatic nature of the Project, no additional
mitigation measures are available beyond Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b;
therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a:
As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future
development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic
control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b:
As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future
development projects that could generate emissions in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during construction, as
determined by project-level environmental review, when applicable, to implement the current
BAAQMD construction mitigation measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) or
any construction mitigation measures subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD.
C. Impact AQ-3: Implementation of the Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors).
The Final EIR finds that the Project will combine with regional growth within the air basin
to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for the SFBAAB, which is
currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and
National PM2.5, and California PM10 ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Any project that
produces a significant regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to
the cumulative impact. Mitigation measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b, set forth and incorporated
57
I-15
above, would reduce impacts to the extent feasible , but the Project’s impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Air
pollutant emissions associated with the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to air quality impacts, and the Project’s impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
D. Impact AQ-6: Implementation of the Project would cumulatively
contribute to air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
As described in the discussion of Impact AQ-3, the Final EIR finds that regional air quality
impacts will be significant. Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact
with respect to air quality even with the applicable regulations, as well as the Mitigation
Measures AQ-2a, AQ-2b, AQ-4a and AQ-4b and the General Plan policies outlined in
Impact AQ-1 through AQ-5. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a, AQ-2b, AQ-4a and AQ-4b and the General
Plan policies outlined in Impact AQ-1 through AQ-5, would lessen the impact, but not to a
less-then-significant level. Because the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently
designated as a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National
PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS , the Project’s cumulative impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
E. Impact NOISE-3: Implementation of the Project would result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project would have a significant impact if it
results in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project. The Final EIR anticipates that there would be
substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels throughout Cupertino as a result of
implementation of the Project and ongoing regional growth, and that these increases would
result primarily from increases in transportation-related noise, especially noise from
automobile traffic.
Although the Project contains policies that could in certain cases reduce or prevent
significant increases in ambient noise at sensitive land uses upon implementation (e.g.,
noise-reducing technologies, rubberized asphalt, soundwalls, berms, and improved
building sound-insulation), the measures described in these policies would not be
universally feasible, and some of the most effective noise-attenuation measures, including
58
I-16
sound walls and berms, would be infeasible or inappropriate in a majority of locations
where sensitive land uses already exist.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. All
conceivable mitigations would be either economically impractical, scientifically
unachievable, outside the City’s jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals
and objectives. Therefore, even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and
General Plan policies, the impact to ambient noise levels would remain significant and
unavoidable.
F. Impact NOISE-5: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to noise.
The Final EIR finds that the analysis of the Project, as described in the discussions of Impact
NOISE-3, addresses cumulative noise impacts from implementation of the Project. Similarly,
the noise contours and traffic-related noise levels developed for the Project include and
account for regional travel patterns as they affect traffic levels in the City. Thus, the future
noise modeling which served as the foundation for the overall Project analysis was based on
future, cumulative conditions, and finds that implementation of the Project would result in
significant cumulative impacts.
The Final EIR finds that even after the application of pertinent policies and strategies of the
General Plan Amendment cumulative noise impacts of the Project, as described in the
discussion of Impact NOISE-3, would remain significant and unavoidable. Thus,
implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact with respect to noise.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant
level. As explained in the discussion of Impact NOISE-3, all conceivable cumulative noise
mitigations would be economically impractical, scientifically unachievable, outside the
City’s jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives, and would
be infeasible. Therefore, even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and
General Plan policies, the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
G. Impact TRAF-1: Implementation of the Project would conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit.
59
I-17
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project would generate additional motor
vehicle trips on the local roadway network, resulting in significant impacts to sixteen (16)
out of 41 study intersections during at least one of the AM or PM peak hours. See Draft EIR,
Table 4.13-13.8
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would secure a funding mechanism for future roadway
and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects
based on then current standards, but not to a less-than-significant level. Impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable because the City cannot guarantee improvements at
these intersections at this time. This is in part because the nexus study has yet to be
prepared and because some of the impacted intersections are within the jurisdiction of the
City of Sunnyvale, the City of Santa Clara, and Caltrans. The City will continue to cooperate
with these jurisdictions to identify improvements that would reduce or minimize the
impacts to intersections and roadways as a result of implementation of future development
projects in Cupertino, but, because many of the improvements in Mitigation Measure TRAF-
1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and not the City of
Cupertino, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1:
The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee
Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to
mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the
preparation of the Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a
"nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600
legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support
implementation of the Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable
relationship" or nexus exist between the transportation improvements and facilities required to
mitigate the transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the Project. The following
examples of transportation improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of
service standards and these, among other improvements, could be included in the development impact
fees nexus study:
♦ SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): An exclusive left-turn lane
for the northbound leg of the intersection (freeway off-ramp) at the intersection of SR 85 and
Stevens Creek Boulevard would result in one left-turn lane, one all-movement lane, and one right
turn lane. The additional lane could be added within the existing Caltrans right-of-way.
8 Following completion of the Draft EIR, the impacts to Intersection #29 were determined to be
less-than-significant rather than significant. See Supplemental Text Revisions Memo.
60
I-18
♦ Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): The addition of a second exclusive left-turn
lane for the eastbound leg of the intersection from Stevens Creek Boulevard to northbound
Stelling Road, which could be accomplished by reworking the median. Right turns would share
the bike lane.
♦ Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (#5): Widen De
Anza Boulevard to four lanes in each direction or the installation of triple left-turn lanes.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in
the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through
traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the
bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield
to pedestrians.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): Restripe westbound Stevens Creek
Boulevard to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through vehicles may be
required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and will still be controlled by the traffic
signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights. The
pedestrian crossings will not be affected may enhance the bicycling experience.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): Realign the intersection that
is currently offset resulting in inefficient signal timing such that the McClellan Road and
Pacifica Drive legs are across from each other may be required. In addition, double left turn lanes
may be required to be added to De Anza Boulevard with sections of double lanes on McClellan
Road and Pacifica Drive to receive the double left turn lanes. These improvements will require the
acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of existing commercial buildings. However, some
existing right-of-way could be abandoned, which would reduce the net right-of-way take.
♦ Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16): The addition of a third southbound through lane to
the southbound approach of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road may be required,
as well as the addition of a southbound exclusive right-turn lane. Three southbound receiving
lanes on the south side of the intersection currently exist. An additional westbound through lane
for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead
westbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of a westbound exclusive
right-turn lane may be required. This will require widening Homestead Road. An additional
eastbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane
on Homestead eastbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of an
eastbound exclusive left-turn lane for a total of two left-turn lanes may be required. These
improvements will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of parking areas.
♦ Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding
a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to
be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General
61
I-19
Plan development. This could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. Right-of-way
acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report
(PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which
may include widening the overcrossing and may also include a redesign of the interchange to go
from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the
right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
♦ Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19): An additional through lane for a total of
three through-movement lanes for the northbound leg of the intersection at the Wolfe Road and I-
280 Southbound Ramp may be required. This additional northbound through lane would require
widening to the freeway overcrossing. In addition to widening the overcrossing, the City may
wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond
design. This could help with the problem of heavy volume in the right lane, which contributes to
the level of service deficiency.
♦ Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#21): The restriping of the
westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated
from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn
vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected.
Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance
the bicycling experience.
♦ North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24): Restriping of the
southbound leg of the intersection (Quail Avenue) to provide a separate left turn lane may be
required. This will require the removal of on-street parking near the intersection. The level-of-
service calculations show that with implementation of these improvements, the intersection
would operate at an acceptable LOS D.
♦ Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27): The addition of a separate left-turn lane
to northbound Tantau Avenue may be required. Right-of-way acquisition and demolition of
existing commercial buildings would be required.
♦ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30): The restriping of the
westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated
from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn
vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected.
Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance
the bicycling experience.
♦ Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP,
County)(#31): The addition of a second right-turn lane for the southbound leg of the intersection
at the Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard may be required.
62
I-20
Both lanes would need to be controlled by the signal, and disallow right turns on red. Right-of-
way acquisition may be required.
♦ Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County)
(#32): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway
Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one through-movement lane, and one
exclusive right-turn lane may be required. Right-of-way acquisition would be required.
The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing
building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall
be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated
by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate.
Traffic mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building
permit is issued. The City shall use the traffic mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees
advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other
things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic impacts.
H. Impact TRAF 2: Implementation of the Project would conflict with an
applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to,
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways.
The Final EIR finds that of the 41 intersections studied in the EIR traffic analysis, 21 are
included in Santa Clara County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). See Table 4.3-
13, Draft EIR. The Project would result in significant impacts to 11 CMP intersections
during at least one of the peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, set
forth and incorporated above, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1.
As described in the discussion of Impact TRAF-1, because many of the improvements in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies
and not the City of Cupertino, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
I. Impact TRAF-6: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
The Final EIR finds that the analysis of the Project, as described in the discussions of Impact
TRAF-1 and Impact TRAF-2, addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in
63
I-21
the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as
Project-specific impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to the City’s transportation
network resulting from the Project would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1.
As discussed under TRAF-1, because many of the improvements in Mitigation Measure
TRAF-1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and not the City of
Cupertino, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
VI. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR THAT
ARE REDUCED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION
MEASURES ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED INOT THE PROJECT
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Project. It is
hereby determined that the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will be
mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided by adopting and incorporating these
mitigation measures conditions into the Project. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). As
explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section VI are based on the Final EIR, the
discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A. Impact AQ-4: Implementation of the Project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution.
The Final EIR finds that the Project could result in locating sensitive receptors in proximity
to major sources of air pollution or the siting of new sources of air pollution in proximity to
sensitive receptors in the city. Nonresidential land uses that generate truck trips may
generate substantial quantities of air pollutants within 1,000 feet of off-site sensitive
receptors. In addition, proposed sensitive land uses in Cupertino may be within 1,000 feet
of major sources of air pollutants, which would create a significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4a:
Applicants for future non-residential land uses within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate
100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered
Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the Project to
64
I-22
the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City
of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk
exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that
Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer
and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs
may include but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on-site.
• Electrifying warehousing docks.
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
• Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental
document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the Project.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4b:
Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g. hospitals, nursing homes, day
care centers) in Cupertino within 1,000 feet of a major sources of TACs (e.g. warehouses, industrial
areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicle per day), as measured from
the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall
submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project
approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity
factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 16 years. If the HRA
shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations
exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be
required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential
cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e. below ten in one million or a hazard index of
1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are
not limited to:
• Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately
sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters.
Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the
65
I-23
environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the
Project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all
building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.
B. Impact BIO-1: Implementation of the Project would have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant
or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive
or special-status species.
The Final EIR finds that some special-status bird species such as Cooper’s hawk and white-
tailed kite could utilize the remaining riparian corridors and heavily wooded areas for
nesting, dispersal and other functions when they pass through urbanized areas. More
common birds protected under MBTA may nest in trees and other landscaping on the
Project Component locations. Given the remote potential for occurrence of nesting birds at
one or more of the Project Component locations and possibility that nests could be
inadvertently destroyed or nests abandoned as a result of construction activities, this would
be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1:
Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. If construction
activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August
31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal or construction
activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction activities outside
the nesting period. If construction would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31),
preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or
construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has
been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests containing
viable eggs or young birds shall be documented and protective measures implemented under the
direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective
measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e. demarcated by
identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as
determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for
disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum
of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion
zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the
qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds.
66
I-24
Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have
left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
C. Impact BIO-6: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project could result in further conversion of
existing natural habitats to urban and suburban conditions, limiting the existing habitat
values of the surrounding area and potentially resulting in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to biological resources.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, set forth and incorporated above, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact,
and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
D. Impact HAZ-4: Implementation of the Project would be located on a site
which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
The Final EIR finds that because hazardous materials are known to be present in soil, soil
gas, and/or groundwater due to past land uses at certain sites that may be redeveloped as
part of the Project, the direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials could
potentially cause adverse health effects to construction workers and future site users. The
severity of health effects would depend on the contaminant(s), concentration, use of
personal protective equipment during construction, and duration of exposure. The
disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities, if present, could
pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the environment and impacts
could be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a:
Construction at the sites with known contamination shall be conducted under a project-specific
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is prepared in consultation with the Regional
67
I-25
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), as
appropriate. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the
environment, and future site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at
the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the
subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the project
site during past investigations; identify management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if
contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or
other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies,
and regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater
suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project
excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe required worker health and safety
provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and
federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the
ESMP.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b:
For those sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for
redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed
by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the
potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor
controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil
vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting.
The vapor intrusion assessment and associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated
into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a).
E. Impact HAZ-7: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than
significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous
materials.
The Final EIR takes into account growth projected by the Project within the Cupertino city
boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected
growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the
Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG). Potential cumulative hazardous materials
impacts could arise from a combination of the development of the Project together with the
regional growth in the immediate vicinity of the Project Study Area. As discussed under
Impact HAZ-4, disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities,
if present, could pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the
environment and impacts could be potentially significant.
68
I-26
With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, set forth and
incorporated above, in conjunction with compliance with General Plan policies and
strategies, other local, regional, State, and federal regulations, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact, and the impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b.
F. Impact UTIL-6: Implementation of the Project would result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves, or may
serve the project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
Buildout of the Project would have a significant impact if future projected demand exceeds
the wastewater service capacity of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plan
(SJ/SCWPCP) or the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP), or the Cupertino
Sanitary District (CSD) or City of Sunnyvale collection systems.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c, set forth below,
which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a:
The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to increase the available citywide treatment
and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying
reduced wastewater generation rates are approved by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-
6c.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b:
The City shall work to establish a system in which a development monitoring and tracking system to
tabulate cumulative increases in projected wastewater generation from approved projects for
comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District’s treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and implemented. If it is anticipated that with
approval of a development project the actual system discharge would exceed the contractual treatment
threshold, no building permits for such project shall be issued prior to increasing the available
citywide contractual treatment and transmission capacity as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-
6a.
69
I-27
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c:
The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to prepare a study to determine a more
current estimate of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the actual development to be
constructed as part of Project implementation. The study could include determining how the
green/LEED certified buildings in the City reduce wastewater demands.
G. Impact UTIL-7: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater treatment.
The Final EIR finds that buildout of the Project would generate a minor increase in the
volume of wastewater delivered for treatment at SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, representing less
than 1 percent of the available treatment capacity at the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, and it
would occur incrementally over a period of 26 years. Based on the recent trends of
diminishing wastewater treatment demand and the projected population growth in the
service areas, cumulative wastewater treatment demand over the Project buildout period is
far below the excess capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP. Because the cumulative
demand would not substantially impact the existing or planned capacity of the wastewater
treatment systems, which have sufficient capacity for wastewater that would be produced
by the Project, the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities would not be
necessary.
With implementation of Mitigation Measured UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b and UTIL-6c, set forth and
incorporated above, cumulative development combined with the Project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this cumulative impact, and the impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c.
H. Impact UTIL-8: The Project would not be served by a landfill(s) with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste
disposal needs.
The Final EIR finds that anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-than-
significant impact with regard to target disposal rates, and that the City would continue its
current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies. Nevertheless, the 2023 termination of
the agreement between the Newby Island Landfill facility, as well as that facility’s estimated
closure date in 2025, would result in insufficient solid waste disposal capacity at buildout of
the Project, resulting in a significant impact.
70
I-28
Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-8:
The City shall continue its current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies in an effort to further
increase its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate. In addition, the City shall monitor
solid waste generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that
sufficient capacity exists to accommodate future growth. The City shall seek new landfill sites to
replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed.
I. Impact UTIL-10: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste.
The Final EIR finds that buildout of the Project will increase the quantity of solid waste for
disposal. AB 939 established a goal for all California cities to provide at least 15 years of
ongoing landfill capacity; however, growth from other cities in the region may exceed the
growth that was taken into account when determining landfill capacity. Also, because the
Newby Island Landfill facility, which currently takes approximately 92 percent of the City's
solid waste, is expected to close in 2025, Cupertino may eventually experience insufficient
landfill capacity to accommodate existing or increased population and employment levels.
Although implementation of existing waste reduction programs and diversion requirements
would reduce the potential for exceeding existing capacities of landfills, the potential lack of
landfill capacity for disposal of solid waste would be a significant cumulative impact.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, set forth and incorporated above, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact,
and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-8.
VII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which
the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.2(d); Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(5). Direct growth inducement
would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of substantial new housing
that would support increased population in a community or establishes substantial new
71
I-29
permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase
demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. Indirect
growth inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that requires
physical development or removes an obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing
infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). It must not be
assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment. State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d). Section 6.3 of the
Draft EIR analyzes the growth inducing impacts of the Project. As explained in Section IX,
below, the findings in this Section VII are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and
analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
Implementation of the Project would directly induce population, employment and economic
growth by replenishing the commercial, residential, hotel, and office space allocation within
some areas of the city. The Project would result in the following growth patterns based on
the expected growth assumptions for the city boundary:
• Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased office space
development allocation of approximately 500,000 square feet for a total office
allocation of 1,040,231 square feet. This would result in a total anticipated office
space of approximately 11,470,005 square feet by 2040.9
• Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in a commercial space
development allocation of approximately 1,343,679 square feet, which is an increase
of 642,266 square feet in the allocation pool but a net increase of 0 square feet. That
is because all 642,266 square feet of increase allocation would come from demolition
and rebuilding of existing commercial square footage (see footnote 5, above). This
would result in a total anticipated commercial space of approximately 4,430,982
square feet by 2040.10
• Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased hotel room
development allocation of approximately 1,000 rooms for a total hotel room
allocation of 1,339 rooms. This would result in a total anticipated hotel room
inventory of approximately 2,429 rooms by 2040.11
State law requires the City to promote the production of housing to meet its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation made by ABAG. The housing and commercial/ industrial
growth in Cupertino would allow the City to address its regional fair-share housing
obligations.
9 Existing built/approved office space was 8,929,774 square feet in 2013.
10 Existing built/approved commercial space was 3,729,569 square feet in 2013. With the
remaining commercial allocation, commercial buildout by 2040 is estimated to be 4,430,982 square
feet. Cupertino Community Development Department (October 31, 2014).
11 Existing built/approved hotel rooms was 1,090 rooms in 2013.
72
I-30
The Project is considered growth inducing because it encourages new growth in the
urbanized areas of Cupertino. Development in these areas would consist of infill
development on underutilized sites, sites that have been previously developed, and sites
that are vacant and have been determined to be suitable for development. However,
because infrastructure is largely in place and commercial or office growth would be
required to comply with the City’s General Plan, Zoning regulations and standards for
public services and utilities; secondary or indirect effects associated with this growth do not
represent a new significant environmental impact which has not already been addressed in
the individual resource chapters of this EIR.
VIII. ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR analyzed four alternatives, examining the environmental impacts and
feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet project
objectives. The project objectives are listed in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Draft
EIR; the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, including feasible
mitigation measures identified to avoid these impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 4
(Environmental Evaluation) of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in
Chapter 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the Draft EIR.
Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the
Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives. As
explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section VII are based on the Final EIR,
the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A. The No Project Alternative
CEQA requires evaluation of the “no project” alternative. State CEQA Guidelines §
15126.6(e). Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project
Alternative assumes that growth and development would continue to occur under the
provisions of the current 2000-2020 General Plan, including the development allocations for
office and commercial space, and hotel and residential unit allocations. Thus, no new
development potential beyond what is currently permitted in the 2000-2020 General Plan
would occur.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative would allow for the following
new development allocations:
• Office allocation: 540,231 square feet (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 701,413 square feet (no net increase from 2000-2020 General
Plan)
73
I-31
• Hotel allocation: 339 rooms (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Residential allocation: 1,895 units (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
As discussed in Section 5.1.7 of the Draft EIR, the No Project Alternative would not achieve
any of the City’s project objectives, which are as follows, except that it would provide for the
RHNA for the 20014-2022 planning period:
• Emphasize employment and a mix of economic development opportunities by
replenishing, reallocating, and increasing city-wide office, commercial, and hotel,
allocations in order to capture:
• A share of the regional demand for office and hotel development, and
• Retail sales tax leakage in the trade area.
• Address local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino by replenishing, re-allocating and increasing city-
wide residential allocations to be consistent with 2040 Bay Area Plan projections to
allow flexibility for the city when future state-mandated updates are required to the
Housing Element.
• Update the Housing Element as required by State law.
• Creating opportunities for mixed-use development consistent with Regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
required by SB 375.
• Investing in improvement to adapt to climate change over time.
• Consider increased heights in key nodes and gateways, if proposed development
provides retail development and benefits directly to the community.
• Update General Plan policies to implement multi-modal traffic standards as opposed
to LOS thresholds currently identified. Balancing development objectives with
transportation constraints and opportunities.
• Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District by adopting policies to support its
redevelopment, so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment
destination that serves both the region and the local community.
For the foregoing reasons, the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible.
74
I-32
B. Land Use Alternative A
Land Use Alternative A identifies how growth would occur if the City largely continues the
policies of the current 2005 General Plan, while making minor development allocation and
boundary changes. The 2005 General Plan land use standards would continue to apply to
Vallco Shopping Mall, and it would not be redeveloped in any substantial manner.
Alternative A would increase city-wide office and hotel allocation but would not increase
allocations for commercial and residential uses. No maximum height increases are
proposed under this alternative.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1, the Land Use Alternative A would allow for the following
new development allocations:
• Office allocation: 1,040,231 square feet (net increase of 500,000 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 701,413 square feet (no net increase from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
• Hotel allocation: 600 rooms (net increase of 261 rooms from the 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Residential: 1,895 units (no net increase from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
As discussed in Section 5.2.8 of the Draft EIR, Alternative A would not achieve the project
objectives concerning local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino, because it would not provide sufficient residential units to
meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064 units. In order to fully
comply with the RHNA, the City would need to provide a moderate surplus in addition to
the RHNA or approximately 1,400 units. Alternative A only allows for a surplus of only
eight units, however. Alternative A also would not increase the allocation of residential
units to accommodate Plan Bay Area projections for residential growth by 2040 (4,421 units).
Alternative A fails to meet project objectives with regard to reallocating, replenishing and
increasing city-wide office, commercial and hotel allocations for purposes of economic
development, because Alternative A does not allow for any commercial growth beyond that
allocated under the 2000-2020 General Plan and allows in insufficient amount of office and
hotel growth. Further, Alternative A does not meet the project objective to consider
increased heights in key Nodes and Gateways, because no maximum height increases are
proposed under this alternative.
Alternative A also does not meet the City’s objective of creating mixed use development
consistent with Plan Bay Area and SB 375, because it would not concentrate development in
major transportation corridors to the same degree as Alternatives B and C. Alternative A
75
I-33
does not envision a complete redevelopment for Vallco Shopping District that would
involve adding office and residential uses as in Alternatives B and C. This would not
completely meet the project objective to revitalize the Shopping District so it becomes a
cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment destination that serves both the region and
the local community.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative A is hereby rejected as infeasible.
C. Land Use Alternative B
Land Use Alternative B identifies how the City can focus development along major mixed-
use corridors in order to create more complete commercial, office and entertainment areas,
and to address mid-term housing needs. It would increase development allocations for
office, commercial and hotel land uses in order to better capture retail sales leakage and
regional demand for office development. Alternative B also envisions the transformation of
the Vallco Shopping Mall into a retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination.
Alternative B would allow for revised height standards at key Gateways and Nodes within
Special Areas along major transportation corridors. Alternative B also would increase
residential allocations to the amount necessary to meet the City’s RHNA of 1,064 units plus
a moderate surplus, or approximately 1,400 units, but would increase the allocation of
residential units to accommodate only 75 percent of Plan Bay Area projections for
residential growth by 2040.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1 and the Supplemental Text Revisions, the Land Use
Alternative B would allow for the following new development allocations:
• Office allocation: 2,540,231 square feet (net increase of 2,000,000 square feet from
the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of 0 square feet from
2000-2020 General Plan)12
• Hotel allocation: 839 rooms (net increase of 500 rooms from the 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Residential allocation: 3,316 units (net increase of 1,421 units from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
While Alternative B meets all of the project objectives, in comparison with the Planning
Commission Recommendation, described in Section II.A, above, Alternative B would not
reduce the amount of additional office development in the City sufficiently to further reduce
the regional traffic impacts of creating jobs in Cupertino without commensurate, increased
12 See footnote 5, above.
76
I-34
development of housing. Furthermore, as described in Section 5.3.8 of the Draft EIR,
Alternative B would not go as far as Alternative C in meeting project objectives with regard
to reallocating, replenishing and increasing city-wide commercial and hotel allocations for
purposes of economic development, and replenishment of the residential allocation.
Alternative B envisions that the Vallco Shopping District will be completely, but does not
specifically allocate any development potential to that Special Area. Alternative B allows for
500 fewer hotel rooms and 1,105 fewer residential units than the Planning Commission
Recommendation, however.
The City commissioned a Market Study 13 which indicates that the City has a strong market
for office, hotel room and residential development. An allocation of only 500 hotel rooms
and only 75 percent of the Plan Bay Area projection for residential development by 2040
would not achieve the City’s goal of capturing a share of the regional demand for hotel
development or meeting the City’s goals of providing fewer affordable housing options.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative B is hereby rejected as infeasible.
D. Land Use Alternative C
Land Use Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally
and regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and
account for a large portion of the City’s RHNA. Similar to the Planning Commission
Recommendation, Alternative C envisions that the Vallco Shopping District will be
completely redeveloped. In addition, under Alternative C, the Vallco area would become
the “downtown” of Cupertino, serving the mixed-use hub for residents, workers and the
larger region. Alternative C would increase development allocations to levels higher than
those that would be allowed under either Land Use Alternative A or Land Use Alternative B
in order to fully capture retail sales leakage and regional demand for office and hotel
development. Alternative C would allow for revised height standards at key Gateways and
Nodes within Special Areas along major transportation corridors at heights greater than
those allowed under Alternative B. The increases in heights and densities in key Nodes,
Gateways and Sub-areas are consistent with the City’s goals of concentrating development
along the five mixed-use corridors. Alternative C also would increase residential allocations
to the amount necessary to meet the City’s RHNA of 1,064 units plus a moderate surplus, or
approximately 1,400 units, and would increase the allocation of residential units to
accommodate 100 percent of Plan Bay Area projections for residential growth by 2040.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1 and the Supplemental Text Revisions, the Land Use
Alternative C (the “proposed Project” in the EIR) would allow for the following new
development allocations:
13 BAE Urban Economics, General Plan Amendment Market Study (February 13, 2014).
77
I-35
• Office allocations: 4,040,231 square feet (net increase of 3,500,000 square feet from
the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of 0 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)14
• Hotel allocation: 1,339 rooms (net increase of 1,000 rooms from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
• Residential allocation: 4,421 units (net increase of 2,526 units from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
While Land Use Alternative C would meet all of the project objectives, the combination of
the office allocation in Alternative C together with the other land use allocations in
Alternative C would not be as effective as the Planning Commission Recommendation in
providing for new hotel space or as balanced as the Planning Commission
Recommendation, which includes the lower office allocation in Alternative A, in achieving
the project objective of creating a mix of economic development opportunities.
Furthermore, the environmental effects from the larger office allocation in Alternative C
would be marginally greater than the environmental effects from the office allocation in the
Planning Commission Recommendation (which has the same office allocation as Alternative
A). That is because the Alternative C office allocation is 3.8 times greater than the office
allocation in the Planning Commission Recommendation. Increased allocation to office
development would mean more jobs and, as people move to Cupertino to fill those jobs, a
higher population. For example, Draft EIR Table 5-2 projects a 70 percent greater increase in
jobs and a 75 percent greater increase in population under Alternative C compared to the
increases under Alternative B. The increased development and population growth resulting
from the Alternative C office allocation would have greater effects on the environment than
the office allocation component of the Planning Commission Recommendation and
Alternative B. Alternative B would reduce air quality impacts, as described in the analysis
of Impact AIR-1, because the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for Alternative B is lower and
reduces the impact to less than significant. See Draft EIR Table 5.5. The VMT for the
Planning Commission Recommendation would be similar to Alternative A, with some
increase due to the increased hotel allocation. This is because the mix of development in the
Planning Commission Recommendation, which includes the same office allocation as
Alternative A, has a similar balance of development. In categories where all of the
alternatives were found to have significant and unavoidable impacts, namely air quality,
noise, and traffic, Land Use C’s office allocation would result in greater environmental
impacts, as it represents the greatest amount of development, which would result in higher
consumption of non-renewable resources, generate the greatest amount of waste and
pollutants, and increase the demand of public facilities and infrastructure.
14 See footnote 5, above.
78
I-36
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative C is hereby rejected as infeasible.
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the Planning Commission
Recommendation and the Alternatives, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines
requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such
a selection be disclosed. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that
would be expected to create the least significant environmental effects. Identification of the
environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative
selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of Cupertino.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-5, the impacts associated with each of the four land use
scenarios analyzed in this EIR would essentially be the same. As previously stated, this is
because the recommended mitigation measures would apply to all of the alternatives, and
compliance with the General Plan policies designed to reduce environmental impacts would
also apply to all future development in Cupertino. However, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5-
5, for Land Use Alternative B air quality Impact AQ-1 (Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan) would be less than significant for
Alternative B but would be significant and unavoidable for the other alternatives. That is
because the mix of development in Alternative B would increase office square footage, but
to all lesser extent than Alternative C, while at the same time increasing the residential
allocation unlike Alternative A and the No Project Alternative.
While Alternative C represents the maximum extent of residential development anticipated
by the Plan Bay Area for Cupertino by 2040, Alternative C’s higher increase in office square
footage (4,040,231 square feet compared to the lower office increase in Alternative B of
2,540,231 square feet), together with the total increase in residential allocation, does not
reflect a balanced jobs-housing ratio that results in lower per capita VMT when compared to
Alternative B. Under Alternative C, land uses allocations in the General Plan would
generate 897,419 VMT per day (10.47 miles per service population per day in 2013). Based
on the future estimates of VMT per person for Cupertino for year 2040, 1,264,271 VMT per
day (10.94 miles per service population per day in 2040) would be generated in Cupertino.
Accordingly, the daily VMT in the Project Study Area under Alternative C would increase
at a slightly greater rate (40.9 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service
population of the Project Study Area (34.8 percent). In comparison, under Alternative B,
based on the future estimates of VMT per person for Cupertino for year 2040, 1,097,596 VMT
per day (10.24 miles per service population per day in 2040) would be generated in the City.
Under Alternative B, daily VMT in the Project Study Area would increase at a slower rate
(22.3 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study
Area (25.0 percent). When the VMT increase is less than or equal to the projected
population increase, this represents a balanced jobs-housing ratio.
79
I-37
In identifying an Environmental Superior Alternative, the analysis in the EIR is based on the
principle that less development would mean reduced effects on the environment. Each
incremental increase in development allocations among the alternatives represents
increased population and activity which would result in increased noise, air quality,
greenhouse gas, traffic, and utilities impacts. Although a number of these impacts would be
significant and unavoidable under every alternative, the severity of the significant and
unavoidable impacts would vary according to the development allocations within a given
alternative. For example, while Land Use Alternative B would reduce Air Quality Impact
AQ-1, as described above in Section VIII.D, the No Project Alternative would be the
environmentally superior alternative because it would not allow for new development to
occur beyond what is currently planned for in the 2000-2020 General Plan, which would
result in the least amount of development in the City and thereby reduce the consumption
of renewable resources (e.g., lumber and water) and nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil
fuels, natural gas, and gasoline). Less development would place fewer demands on public
service providers (which could require new facilities), would require fewer road, sewer,
water and energy infrastructure improvements, and would generate less waste, which
would overall reduce impacts on the environment.
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Accordingly, the
environmentally superior alternative would be Land Use Alternative A, because less
development would occur compared to Land Use Alternative B, Land Use Alternative C,
and the Planning Commission Recommendation. Under Land Use Alternative A, no new
commercial space, hotel rooms or residential units would be permitted beyond the
allocations in the current General Plan.
For the foregoing reasons, Alternative A is considered the environmentally superior
alternative.
IX. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Project, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, City staff reports relating to the Project and other
documents relating to public hearings on the Project, by reference, in their entirety. Without
limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation
measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of
impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the Project, the determination of the
environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project.
80
I-38
X. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the Project constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Those
documents and materials are located in the offices of the custodian for the documents and
materials, which is the City of Cupertino Community Development Department, Cupertino
City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202.
XI. NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for
further review and comment when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. No
significant new information was added to the Draft EIR as a result of the public comment
process. The Final EIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies and makes
insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR does not identify any new
significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact.
The EIR analyzes full buildout of 2040 growth for Cupertino as projected in Plan Bay Area.
The Planning Commission Recommendation consists of the same commercial and hotel
development allocations that were analyzed in the EIR for Alternative C, the same office
allocation as the amount analyzed in the EIR for Alternative A, and no residential allocation.
The Housing Element sites in the Planning Commission Recommendation are nine of the 19
sites analyzed in the EIR. In addition, some development is reassigned among the sites
resulting in fewer units than analyzed in the EIR on some sites and more on one other site,
the maximum height limits are either the same as or reduced from Alternative C except at
two locations where they are increased by a minor amount, and the maximum densities are
either the same as or reduced from Alternative C except at two locations where they are
increase by a minor amount.
Accordingly, most portions of the Planning Commission Recommendation were analyzed in
the EIR, either as part of Alternative C or as part of Alternative A. The elimination of the
residential allocation will not have a new or substantially more severe significant effect on
the environment because residential development will be allowed at the locations, densities
and intensities as provided for in the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as
amended by the Project and analyzed in the EIR. The minor increases in maximum building
heights at two locations and densities at one location will not have any new significant
effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental
impact for the reasons stated in Section II.A and II.B, above.
For the foregoing reasons, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.
81
I-39
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, the City has found that the Project will result in project and cumulative
significant adverse environmental impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic and
transportation that cannot be avoided following adoption, incorporation into the Project,
and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. In addition, there are no
feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project’s significant
environmental impacts. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when
the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not
avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its
actions. See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b). Having balanced the economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including region-wide or
statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts, the City finds that the Project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.
The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits
of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence
supporting the benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding sections of these
Findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section X,
above. The City further finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate
and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final
EIR and other information in the administrative record.
1) The Vision Statement in the General Plan states that “Cupertino aspires to be a
balanced community with quiet and attractive residential neighborhoods; exemplary
parks and schools; accessible open space areas, hillsides and creeks; and a vibrant,
mixed use ‘Heart of the City.’ Cupertino will be safe, friendly, healthy, connected,
walkable, bikeable and inclusive for all residents and workers, with ample places and
opportunities for people to interact, recreate, innovate and collaborate.” In
incorporating the office allocation from Land Use Alternative A and the commercial
and hotel allocations from Land Use Alternative C, the Project provides the City with a
balanced mix of economic development opportunities while seeking to lessen
significant impacts by pursuing the highest possible levels of development.
2) The Project provides the City with the commercial development allocation it needs to
increase sales and avoid retail leakage in the trade area, as recommended on page 50
of the General Plan Amendment Market Study (BAE Urban Economics, February 13,
2014), and as set forth in the project objectives.
3) The Project provides for economic growth by creating employment-related land uses.
This will attract new businesses and allow existing businesses to stay and grow within
82
I-40
the City, improve sales tax and property tax revenue to help the City maintain a
healthy fiscal balance to provide its residents with high quality services.
4) The Project concentrates growth along the City’s major transportation corridors and in
the City’s employment centers, which are areas that are within walking distance/bus
distance of large employment areas. Encouraging development in existing urbanized
areas results in fewer impacts from the construction of new infrastructure, maximizes
use of existing impervious surfaces, provides multi-modal transportation
opportunities, and reduces miles traveled, which translates into air quality benefits.
5) The Project concentrates growth at locations with existing uses and, as a result,
potential future development under the Project would consist largely of either
redevelopment of existing building, selective demolition of existing structures and
replacement with new construction, or new infill development adjacent to existing
uses, all of which would serve to lessen environmental impacts.
6) The Project policies concentrating growth along transportation corridors and in
employment centers contributes to community goals of protecting the City’s
neighborhoods and connectivity.
7) The Project includes policies that encourage conservation of water and energy
resources in conformance with the City’s sustainability goals.
8) The Project is in conformance with the principles of planning sustainable communities
by meeting both the present and future housing needs of the City, and fulfills the City
Council’s charge to prepare a Housing Element.
9) The Project is consistent with key planning documents, including Plan Bay Area,
which is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community
Strategy (SCS), as well as SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
Act.
10) The Project meets the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064
units, and provides a moderate surplus above the City’s housing need, or
approximately 1,400 units.
11) The Project provides opportunities for increased building heights in key Nodes and
Gateways.
12) The Project provides for revitalizing the Vallco Shopping Mall and transforming it into
a locally and regionally significant retail, employment, and entertainment destination,
which would become the “downtown” of Cupertino.
83
I-41
13) The Gateways and Nodes located within some of the Project’s Special Areas represent
key locations in the City that, with the use of design elements, such as buildings,
arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and public art, have
the opportunity to create a memorable impression of Cupertino. These key locations
are essential for providing residents, visitors, and workers an attractive, friendly, and
comfortable place with inviting active pedestrian spaces and services.
XIII. SUMMARY
1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the
City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to each of the
significant environmental effects of the Project:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR.
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other public agency.
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR
that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant
environmental effects of the Project.
2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the
City determines that:
a. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
b. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable
are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, above.
84
- 1 -
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-211
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE AND
REPLENISH DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION, AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND
REORGANIZATION AND IMPROVE PRESENTATION AND READABILITY
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPA-2013-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to replenish, reallocate and
increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development
activity while keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives and to consolidate
development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, under a
comprehensive community vision, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Housing Law, the City Council has directed staff to update the
Housing Element of the General Plan and make associated zoning amendments to comply with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Council’s consideration of this rezoning, and following
the Commission’s recommendation, the Council adopted Resolution No. 14-211, adopting a
General Plan Amendment covering the properties which are the subject of this rezoning
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map,
proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the Rezoning application is part of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update and Associate Rezoning, all as fully described and analyzed in the June 2014 General
Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Project Environmental
Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007), as amended by text
revisions in the August 2014 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update and
Associated Rezoning Project EIR Response to Comments Document (“Response to Comments
Document”) and the Supplemental Text Revisions dated October 8, 2014 (together, the “Final
EIR”);
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014 at a
Planning Commission Study Session; and
85
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council on October 7, 2014 at a City
Council Study Session; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, the Planning
Commission has recommended that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City,
adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, and adopt the
mitigation measures for the Project that are identified in Findings; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held public hearings on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014 to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on October 14, 2014 the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City,
adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the
mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City
that are identified in Findings; and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0-1 (Takahashi
absent) vote that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01)
(Resolution no. 6761); authorize staff to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for review and certification (GPA-2013-
02); approve the prioritized list of potential Housing Element sites in the event amendments are
needed to the proposed Housing Element sites upon HCD review (Resolution no. 6762);
approve the Zoning Map Amendments, Z-2014-0X, in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6763); approve the Municipal Code Amendments to make
changes to conform to the General Plan and Housing Element and other clean up text edits
(MCA-2014-01) (Resolution no. 6764); approve the Specific Plan Amendments, SPA-2014-01, in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6765); and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one
public hearing to consider the amendments to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this
Resolution;
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the
public hearing on November 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-210
certifying the EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting
Mitigation Measures, and adopting of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the EIR and finds that scope
86
- 3 -
of this Resolution falls within the previously certified EIR and that the rest of the amendments
proposed in the Resolution do not constitute a project under CEQA, are exempt and no further
environmental review is required; and
NOW, THEREFORE:
After careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted
in this matter, the City Council hereby finds:
1. The allocation in the General Plan do not limit the number of residences which may be
built on an annual basis;
2. The allocations are consistent with the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG)
projections to 2040 and are intended to meet the City’s appropriate share of the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA);
3. The General Plan is necessary to prescribe reasonable controls and standards for affected
land uses to insure compatibility and integrity of those uses with other uses;
4. The General Plan provides reasonable property development rights while protecting
environmentally sensitive land uses and species;
5. The General Plan identifies standards and policies for use throughout the City; and
6. The General Plan is necessary to protect the general public health, safety, or welfare of
the community as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
After careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted
in this matter, the City Council hereby adopts:
1. Amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2013-01) as shown in Exhibit
GPA-1 and
2. Changes to the Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit GPA-2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November 2014, at a Meeting of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
87
COMMUNITYVISION 2040
Cupertino’s General Plan for Community-wide Change, Mobility, Sustainability and Health
Public Review Draft | October 2014
EXHIBIT GPA-1
88
89
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Council
Gilbert Wong, Mayor
Rod Sinks, Vice Mayor
Barry Chang, Council Member
Orrin Mahoney, Council Member
Mark Santoro, Council Member
Planning Commission
Paul Brophy, Chair
Winnie Lee, Vice Chair
Don Sun, Commissioner
Alan Takahashi, Commissioner
Margaret Gong, Commissioner
City Staff
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director
Carol Korade, City Attorney
Colleen Winchester, Assistant City Attorney
Gary Chao, Assistant Community Development Director
Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
Rebecca Tolentino, Senior Planner
Christopher Valenzuela, Senior Planner
George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Tiffany Brown, Associate Planner
Angela Tsui, Economic Development Manager
Carol Atwood, Director of Recreation and Community Services
Rick Kitson, Director of Public Affairs
Timm Borden, Public Works Director
Albert Salvador, Building Official
Chad Mosely, Senior Civil Engineer
David Stillman, Senior Traffic Engineer
Teri Gerhardt, GIS Manager
Adam Araza, GIS Department
90
Aki Honda Snelling
Alex Wykoff
Andrea Sanders
Alyssa Carlsen
Beth Ebben
Cheri Donnelly
Chylene Osborne
Colleen Lettire
Diana Pancholi
Donna Henriques
Erin Cooke
Erwin Ching
Grace Schmidt
Hella Sanders
Jeff Greef
Julia Kinst
Kaitie Groeneweg
Kirsten Squarcia
Kristina Alfaro
Louis Sarmiento
Melissa Names
Melissa Tronquet
Michelle Combs
Pete Coglianese
Rei Delgado
Robert Kim
Ron Bullock
Ryan Roman
Simon Vuong
Stephen Rose
Sylvia Mendez
Tiffanie Cardenas
Winnie Pagan
MIG, Inc.
Daniel Iacofano, CEO/Principal
Chris Beynon, Principal
Laura Stetson, Principal
Dan Amsden, Senior Project Manager
Ellie Fiore, Outreach and Policy Specialist
Genevieve Sharrow, Project Associate
Jeff Liljegren, Project Associate
Marissa Reilly, Project Associate
Jamillah Jordan, Project Associate
Lillian Jacobson, Research Assistant
BAE Urban Economics
Janet Smith-Heimer, President
David Shiver, Principal
Ray Kennedy, Vice President
Stephanie Hagar, Senior Associate
Greensfelder CRE
David Greensfelder, Managing Principal
Veronica Tam & Associates
Veronica Tam, Principal
Jessica Suimanjaya, Associate
PlaceWorks
Steve Noack, Principal
Terri McCracken, Senior Associate
Hexagon Transportation
Gary Black, President
Jill Hough, Vice President
CITY STAFF (Community Outreach)CONSULTANT TEAM
91
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction...................................................... I-1
Purpose of Community Vision 2040............................................. I-3
Vision Statement........................................................................... I-4
Guiding Principles......................................................................... I-4
Organization of the Document..................................................... I-8
Community Vision 2040 Adoption................................................ I-9
Community Vision 2040 Implementation..................................... I-10
Chapter 2: Planning Areas................................................. PA-1
Introduction....................................................................................PA-3
Special Areas..................................................................................PA-4
Neighborhoods..............................................................................PA-18
Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Design Element...... LU-1
Introduction................................................................................... LU-3
Context.......................................................................................... LU-4
Looking Forward............................................................................ LU-11
Citywide Goals and Policies.......................................................... LU-13
Planning Areas Goals and Policies................................................ LU-78
Chapter 4: Housing Element.............................................. HE-1
Introduction................................................................................... HE-3
Housing Needs Assessment......................................................... HE-4
Regional Housing Needs and Allocations.................................... HE-15
Housing Resources........................................................................ HE-16
Housing Plan.................................................................................. HE-18
Chapter 5: Mobility Element.............................................. M-1
Introduction....................................................................................M-3
Context.......................................................................................... M-4
Looking Forward............................................................................ M-14
Goals and Policies......................................................................... M-16
92
CONTENTS
Chapter 6: Environmental Resources................................. ES-1
Introduction................................................................................... ES-3
Context.......................................................................................... ES-4
Looking Forward............................................................................ ES-26
Goals and Policies......................................................................... ES-27
Chapter 7: Health and Safety ............................................HS-1
Introduction................................................................................... HS-3
Context......................................................................................... HS-4
Looking Forward........................................................................... HS-18
Chapter 8: Infrastructure.................................................... INF-1
Introduction................................................................................... INF-3
Context.......................................................................................... INF-4
Looking Forward............................................................................ INF-9
Goals and Policies......................................................................... INF-11
Chapter 9: Recreation, Parks and Community Service
Element.............................................................................. RPC-1
Introduction................................................................................... RPC-3
Context.......................................................................................... RPC-4
Looking Forward............................................................................ RPC-21
Goals and Policies......................................................................... RPC-23
Technical Appendices
Appendix A: Land Use Definitions............................................... A-1
Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report......................... B-1
Appendix C: Air Quality.................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Community Noise Fundamentals............................ D-1
Appendix E: Geologic and Seismic Hazards.................................E-1
Appendix F: Slope Density............................................................ F-1
93
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1
94
95
I-3
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY VISION 2040
Community Vision 2040 is a roadmap to the future that
encompasses the hopes, aspirations, values and dreams
of the Cupertino community. The underlying purpose of
this document is to establish the policy and regulatory
framework necessary to build a great community that
serves the needs of its residents, maximizes the sense
of connection between neighborhoods and enhances
Cupertino as a great place to live, work, visit and play.
Community Vision 2040 provides a framework for integrating
the aspirations of residents, businesses, property owners and
public officials into a comprehensive strategy for guiding
future development and managing change. It describes
long-term goals and guides daily decision making by the
City Council and appointed commissions. This document
functions as the City of Cupertino’s State-mandated General
Plan, and covers a time frame of 2014–2040. As such, the
goals, policies and strategies contained in this document
lay the foundation for ensuring there is appropriate land use
and community design, transportation networks, housing,
environmental resources and municipal services established
between now and 2040.
Due to the breadth of topics covered in Community Vision
2040, conflicts between mutually-desirable goals are
inevitable. For instance, increased automobile mobility may
conflict with a safe, walkable community. This document
reconciles these conflicts in the interest of building a
cohesive community. Per State law, every goal and policy
in this plan has equal weight. The City recognizes that the
interests of residents of a particular street or neighborhood
may need to be balanced with the overall needs and
potentially greater goal of building a community. These
are conscious choices that the City makes in the interest of
building community.
CONTENTS
I-3 Purpose of Community
Vision 2040
I-4 Vision Statement
I-4 Guiding Principles
I-8 Organization of the
Document
I-9 Community Vision 2040
Adoption
I-10 Community Vision 2040
Implementation
96
I-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
VISION STATEMENT
In order to prioritize goals and actions, the City developed
an overarching vision statement based on extensive
community input received during the 2013-14 General Plan
Amendment process. This input culminated in A Vision for
Cupertino, shown on the following page, which reflects
ideas, thoughts and desires from residents, local business
and property owners, study area stakeholders, elected and
appointed officials, and other members of the Cupertino
community.
This updated vision expresses the community’s desires for
Cupertino’s future. It describes the community’s overall
philosophy regarding the character and accessibility of
existing and new neighborhoods and mixed-use corridors.
Ultimately, all goals, policies and strategies contained in this
document must be consistent with the vision statement.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Guiding Principles (illustrated on pages 1-6 and 1-7)
provide additional detail about Cupertino’s desired future
necessary to fully articulate the ideas contained in the vision
statement. Similarly, the Guiding Principles were developed
based on extensive community input.
The Cupertino community was integral to
the formation of A Vision for Cupertino
through participation and input during
numerous citywide workshops, meetings,
hearings and online surveys
97
I-5
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
A Vision for Cupertino
Cupertino aspires to be a balanced community with quiet and
attractive residential neighborhoods; exemplary parks and schools;
accessible open space areas, hillsides and creeks; and a vibrant,
mixed-use “Heart of the City.” Cupertino will be safe, friendly,
healthy, connected, walkable, bikeable and inclusive for all
residents and workers, with ample places and opportunities for
people to interact, recreate, innovate and collaborate.
Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley seen from the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve
98
I-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
#6: Support Vibrant and Mixed-Use Businesses
Ensure that Cupertino’s major mixed-use corridors and commercial
nodes are vibrant, successful, attractive, friendly and comfortable
with inviting active pedestrian spaces and services that meet the
daily needs of residents and workers.
#5: Ensure a Balanced Community
Offer residents a full range of housing choices necessary to
accommodate the changing needs of a demographically and
economically diverse population, while also providing a full range
of support uses including regional and local shopping, education,
employment, entertainment, recreation, and daily needs that are
within easy walking distance.
#4: Enhance Mobility
Ensure the efficient and safe movement of cars, trucks, transit,
pedestrians, bicyclists and disabled persons throughout Cupertino
in order to fully accommodate Cupertino’s residents, workers,
visitors and students of all ages and abilities.
#3: Improve Connectivity
Create a well-connected and safe system of trails, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, sidewalks and streets that weave the community
together, enhance neighborhood pride and identity, and create
access to interesting routes to different destinations.
#2: Improve Public Health and Safety
Promote public health by increasing community-wide access to
healthy foods; ensure an adequate amount of safe, well-designed
parks, open space, trails and pathways; and improve safety by
ensuring all areas of the community are protected from natural
hazards and fully served by police, fire, paramedic and health
services.
#1: Develop Cohesive Neighborhoods
Ensure that all neighborhoods are safe, attractive and include
convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to a “full-service”
of local amenities such as parks, schools, community activity
centers, trails, bicycle paths and shopping.
Guiding Principles
99
I-7
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
#10: Preserve the Environment
Preserve Cupertino’s environment by enhancing or restoring
creeks and hillsides to their natural state, limiting urban uses to
existing urbanized areas, encouraging environmental protection,
promoting sustainable design concepts, improving sustainable
municipal operations, adapting to climate change, conserving
energy resources and minimizing waste.
#9: Support Education
Preserve and support Cupertino’s excellent public education
system by partnering with local school districts and De Anza
College to improve school facilities and infrastructure, developing
quality City facilities and programs that enhance learning, and
expanding community-wide access to technology infrastructure.
#8: Embrace Diversity
Celebrate Cupertino’s diversity by offering a range of housing,
shopping and community programs that meet the needs of the
full spectrum of the community, while ensuring equal opportunities
for all residents and workers regardless of age, cultural or physical
differences.
#7: Ensure Attractive Community Design
Ensure that buildings, landscapes and streets are attractively
designed and well maintained so they can complement the overall
community fabric by framing major streets and offering desirable
and active pedestrian spaces.
#11: Ensure Fiscal Self Reliance
Maintain fiscal self-reliance in order to protect the City’s ability to
deliver essential, high-quality municipal services and facilities to
the community.
#12: Ensure a Responsive Government
Continue to be a regional leader in accessible and transparent
municipal government; promote community leadership and local
partnerships with local and regional agencies; and remain flexible
and responsive to changing community needs.
100
I-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN
California state law requires that each city and county adopt
a General Plan for the “physical development of the county
or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears
relation to its planning.” The role of the General Plan is
to act as a community’s “constitution,” a basis for rational
decisions regarding long-term physical development and
incremental change. Community Vision 2040 expresses
the community’s development and conservation goals, and
embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future
land uses, both public and private.
Every General Plan is also required to address a collection
of seven “elements” or subject categories. The City has the
authority to address these elements in whatever organization
makes the most sense for Cupertino. The following table
identifies how the sections of the plan address each State-
required element.
Each chapter of Community Vision 2040
directly implements the vision statement
and Guiding Principles that were developed
through an extensive community process
COMMUNITY VISION
2040 CHAPTER
STATE-REQUIRED
TOPICS OR ELEMENTS
1. Introduction not applicable
2. Planning Areas not applicable
3. Land Use and Community
Design
Land Use
4. Housing Housing
5. Mobility Circulation
6. Environmental Resources
and Sustainability
Conservation, Open Space
7. Health and SafetyNoise, Safety
8. Public Infrastructure(optional element)
9. Recreation and
Community Services
(optional element)
101
I-9
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Each topical chapter, or “Element,” of Community Vision
2040 includes an introduction, background context and
information, and a summary of key opportunities or
objectives looking forward. They also include topical goals,
policies and strategies that function in three unique ways:
• Goal: a broad statement of values or aspirations needed
to achieve the vision.
• Policy: a more precise statement that guides the actions
of City staff, developers and policy makers necessary to
achieve the goal.
• Strategy: a specific task that the City will undertake to
implement the policy and work toward achieving the
goals.
COMMUNITY VISION 2040 ADOPTION
Community Vision 2040 is a living document, and can be
adopted or modified over time as community needs change.
Each amendment needs to include a public review process
and environmental impact analysis. Public review occurs
prior to public hearings through community meetings, study
sessions and advisory committee meetings. Public hearings
allow the community to express its views prior to City Council
approval.
State law limits the number of General Plan amendments
to four per year. Cupertino ordinances require that the
City Council determine if a public hearing should be set to
consider a General Plan amendment.
102
I-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
IMPLEMENTATION
Community Vision 2040 is the foundation for planning in
Cupertino. All physical development must be consistent with
it. State law also requires that zoning be consistent with the
plan. The various goals, policies and strategies are carried
out through a myriad of City plans and approval procedures,
such as special planning areas, use permits, subdivisions, the
Capital Improvement Program and park planning.
The annual review of Community Vision 2040 provides the
opportunity to evaluate the City’s progress in implementing
the plan and to assess if mitigation measures are being
followed and if new policy direction should be considered.
103
2
PLANNING AREAS
Chapter 2
104
PA-2
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
PA-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 105
PA-3
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
Cupertino benefits from having many established and
vibrant areas—each with its own unique function, charac-
ter, uses and services. Community Vision 2040 organizes
the city into 21 distinct Planning Areas, divided into two
categories:
1. Special Areas that are expected to transition over the
life of the General Plan and
2. Neighborhoods where future changes are expected to
be minimal
This chapter provides an overview of each Planning Area,
including its current context and future vision. Specific
goals, policies and strategies for each area are included
in the various topical elements of the General Plan (e.g.,
Chapters 3 through 8).
CONTENTS
PA-3 Introduction
PA-4 Special Areas
Heart of the City
Vallco Shopping District
North Vallco Park
North De Anza
South De Anza
Homestead
Bubb Road
Monta Vista Village
Other Non-Residential/
Mixed-Use Areas
PA-18 Neighborhoods
Oak Valley
Creston-Pharlap
Inspiration Heights
Monta Vista North
Monta Vista South
Homestead Villa
Garden Gate
Jollyman
North Blaney
South Blaney
Rancho Rinconada
Fairgrove
106
PA-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
SPECIAL AREAS
Cupertino is defined by its four major roadways: Homestead
Road, Wolfe Road, De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard. These major mixed-use corridors have been
the center of retail, commercial, office and multi-family
housing in Cupertino for decades. They act as the “spines”
of the community–connecting residential neighborhoods
to major employment centers, schools and colleges, civic
uses, parks, highways and freeways, and adjacent cities. In
order to support local and regional commercial, office and
housing needs, each of these corridors must be improved.
They should be enhanced with more pedestrian, bicycle
and transit facilities; supported by focused development
standards; and encouraged to redevelop in order to meet
the current and future needs of the community.
As shown in Figure PA-1, there are nine Special Areas with-
in Cupertino. Each Special Area is located along one of the
four major mixed-use corridors in the city, which represent
key areas within Cupertino where future development and
reinvestment will be focused. The following is a summary of
the location, major characteristics, uses and vision for each
of the city’s nine Special Areas.
Each major mixed-use corridor in Cupertino
has a unique urban feel, streetscape design
and land use characteristic. Above, from
top to bottom, are Homestead Road, Wolfe
Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza
Boulevard (north) and De Anza Boulevard
(south).
107
PA-5
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North Vallco
Park Special
Area
Heart of the City
Special Area
South De Anza
Special Area
North De Anza
Special Area
Homestead
Special Area Vallco Shopping District
Special Area
Bubb Road
Special Area
Monta Vista
Village Special
Area
west
crossroads central east
South Vallco Park
Gateway
City
Center
Node
Oaks Gateway
North Crossroads Node
North Vallco
Gateway
Stelling Gateway
North
De Anza
Gateway
Civic
Center
Node
De Anza College Node
Community Recreation Node
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Los Altos
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Special Areas
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Heart of the City
Vallco Shopping District
North Vallco Park
North De Anza
South De Anza
Homestead
Bubb Road
Monta Vista Village
Figure PA-1
Special Areas
108
PA-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The Heart of the City is the key commercial,
office and residential Special Area that
functions as the “downtown” of Cupertino
Heart of the City
Context
The Heart of the City Special Area is a key mixed-use,
commercial corridor in Cupertino. The area encom-
passes approximately 635 acres along Stevens Creek
Boulevard between Highway 85 and the eastern city limit.
Development within this Special Area is guided by the
Heart of the City Specific Plan which is intended to cre-
ate a greater sense of place, more community identity,
and a positive and memorable experience for residents,
workers and visitors of Cupertino. The Heart of the City
Specific Plan area includes five specific subareas, each with
unique characteristics, land uses and streetscape elements.
The subareas include: West Stevens Creek Boulevard;
Crossroads; Central Stevens Creek Boulevard; City Center;
and East Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The West Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea is located
between Highway 85 and Stelling Road. The primary use
for this area is quasi-public/public facilities, with support-
ing uses including mixed commercial/residential. The De
Anza College Node defines the southern half of the West
Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea. Also included within this
area are the Oaks Gateway and Community Recreation
Node consisting of Memorial Park, the Senior Center,
Sports Center and Quinlan Community Center.
The Crossroads subarea is located between Stelling
Road and De Anza Boulevard and is the historic core of
Cupertino. This area consists of specialty shops, grocery
stores and restaurants that form a strong central focal point.
The primary use in this area is commercial/retail, with com-
mercial office above the ground level allowed as a second-
ary use. Limited residential is also allowed as a supporting
use per the Housing Element. The North Crossroads Node
encompasses the northern half of the subarea.
The North Crossroads Node is a key
commercial/retail destination along Stevens
Creek Boulevard and includes many newer,
smaller scale stores and restaurants
109
PA-7
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea is located
on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between De
Anza Boulevard and Torre Avenue, and on the north and
south sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Torre
Avenue and Portal Avenue. The primary use for this area
is commercial/commercial office, with office above ground
level as the secondary use. Residential/residential mixed
uses are allowed as a supporting use.
The City Center subarea is located south of the Central
Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea, between De Anza and
Torre Avenue/Regnart Creek. The primary use for this area
is office/residential/hotel/public facilities/commercial retail/
mixed-uses. This subarea is further defined into the City
Center Node and Civic Center Node. The City Center Node
includes Cali Plaza. The Civic Center Node includes City
Hall, Cupertino Community Hall, Cupertino Public Library,
as well as the Library Plaza and Library Field.
The East Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea is located at
the east end of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and
extends from Portal Avenue to the eastern city limit. The
area is largely defined by the South Vallco Park Gateway
immediately east of the Vallco Shopping District, which
includes Nineteen 800 (formerly know as Rosebowl), The
Metropolitan and Main Street developments. This area is
intended as a regional commercial district with retail/com-
mercial/ office as the primary uses. Office above ground
level retail is allowed as a secondary use, with residential/
residential mixed-use as a supporting use per the Housing
Element.
The City Center Node serves as a medium
to higher scale mixed-use commercial,
employment and residential center
The South Vallco Park Gateway area
includes a mix of office uses, such as low
rise Apple office buildings, as well as some
of the city’s newest mixed-use projects
110
PA-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Heart of the City area will continue being a focus
of commerce, community identity, social gathering and
pride for Cupertino. The area is envisioned as a tree-lined
boulevard that forms a major route for automobiles, but
also supports walking, biking and transit. Each of its five
subareas will contribute their distinctive and unique charac-
ter, and will provide pedestrian and bicycle links to adjacent
neighborhoods through side street access, bikeways and
pathways. While portions of the area is designated as a
Priority Development Area (PDA), which allows some higher
intensity near gateways and nodes, development will
continue to support the small town ambience of the com-
munity. The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor will continue
to function as Cupertino’s main mixed-use, commercial and
retail corridor. Residential uses, as allowed per the Housing
Element, should be developed in the “mixed-use village”
format described later in the Land Use and Community
Design Element.
The Civic Center Node will continue to
serve as the center of City government with
civic, library and recreational amenities
The Heart of the City will continue to be a
focus for citywide commerce, community
identity and social gathering
111
PA-9
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vallco Shopping District
Context
The Vallco Shopping District Special Area encompasses
Cupertino’s most significant commercial center, formerly
known as the Vallco Fashion Park. This Special Area
is located between Interstate 280 and Stevens Creek
Boulevard in the eastern part of the city. The North
Blaney neighborhood, an established single-family area, is
adjacent on the west side of the Vallco Shopping District.
Wolfe Road bisects the area in a north-south direction,
and divides Vallco Shopping District into distinct subar-
eas: Vallco Shopping District Gateway West and Vallco
Shopping District Gateway East. In recent years there has
been some façade improvement to the Vallco Fashion Mall;
however, there has been no major reinvestment in the mall
for decades. Reinvestment is needed to upgrade or replace
older buildings and make other improvements so that this
commercial center is more competitive and better serves
the community. Currently, the major tenants of the mall
include a movie theater, bowling alley and three national
retailers. The Vallco Shopping District is identified as a
separate Special Area given its prominence as a regional
commercial destination and its importance to future plan-
ning/redevelopment efforts expected over the life of the
General Plan.
Vision
The Vallco Shopping District will continue to function as
a major regional and community destination. The City
envisions this area as a new mixed-use “town center” and
gateway for Cupertino. It will include an interconnected
street grid network of bicycle and pedestrian-friendly
streets, more pedestrian-oriented buildings with active
uses lining Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road,
and publicly-accessible parks and plazas that support the
New development in the South Vallco Park
area should be pedestrian-oriented
112
PA-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
pedestrian-oriented feel of the revitalized area. New devel-
opment in the Vallco Shopping District should be required
to provide buffers between adjacent single-family neighbor-
hoods in the form of boundary walls, setbacks, landscaping
or building transitions.
Improving circulation and connectivity,
including pedestrian and bicycle mobility, is
a key vision for future redevelopment within
the Vallco Shopping District
113
PA-11
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North Vallco Park
Context
The North Vallco Park Special Area encompasses 240 acres
and is an important employment center for Cupertino and
the region. The area is bounded by Homestead Road to the
north and Interstate 280 to the south. The eastern edge is
defined by the properties that line the eastern frontage of
Tantau Avenue, and the western edge includes the com-
mercial development west of Wolfe Road. The North Vallco
Gateway is located within this Planning Area, and includes
a medium-density multi-family residential project east of
Wolfe Road and two hotels and the Cupertino Village
Shopping Center west of Wolfe Road. Cupertino Village
offers cafes and restaurants for nearby workers and serves
as a village center for the residential uses in this area. The
remainder of the Planning Area is defined by the new Apple
Campus 2 development located on the east side of Wolfe
Road.
Vision
The North Vallco Park area is envisioned to become a
sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by
a mix of connected, high-quality and pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. Taller
heights may be allowed in the North Vallco Gateway per
the Land Use and Community Design Element and addi-
tional residential development may be allowed per the
Housing Element.
North Vallco Park includes a mix of uses,
and will is envisioned to be transformed into
a cohesive, pedestrian-scale neighborhood
center
114
PA-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North De Anza
Context
The North De Anza Special Area encompasses 150 acres
and includes the portion of North De Anza Boulevard gen-
erally between Interstate 280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
De Anza Boulevard bisects the area in a north-south direc-
tion. The area predominantly consists of office and campus
uses with come commercial and hotel service uses. The
street network in this area provides connections from the
Garden Gate neighborhood to schools and services on the
east side of De Anza Boulevard.
Vision
The North De Anza area is expected to remain a predomi-
nantly office area. However, its designation as a Priority
Development Area (PDA), and increase in foot traffic due
to workers taking advantage of restaurants and services in
the Heart of the City Planning Area, opens opportunities
to locate higher density office uses along the corridor. This
would include better connections to uses along Stevens
Creek Boulevard in order to make the environment more
pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. Streets in this area are
envisioned to function as a walkable, bikeable grid that
enhances connections for school children and residents
from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson Middle
School and other services on the east side.
North De Anza is expected to remain a
core office area within Cupertino, home to
several larger corporate campuses
115
PA-13
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
South De Anza
Context
The South De Anza Special Area encompasses the por-
tion of South De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Bollinger Road, and the western portion
of South De Anza Boulevard between Highway 85 and
Prospect Road. The South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual
Plan establishes land uses, standards and guidelines for
development and change of use for properties located
within this Planning Area.
Vision
The South De Anza area will remain a predominantly
general commercial area with supporting existing mixed
residential uses. The policies in this area are intended to
encourage lot consolidation (in order to resolve the frag-
mented and narrow lot pattern), promote active retail and
service uses, and improve bike and pedestrian connectivity
to adjacent neighborhoods. For parcels that are not appro-
priately located or configured to accommodate successful
retail, commercial and commercial/office uses may be
allowed in accordance with the City Municipal Code.
South De Anza is expected to remain a
smaller scale commercial district with some
mixed residential
116
PA-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Homestead
Context
The Homestead Special Area is located in the northern por-
tion of the city and includes residential, commercial, office
and hotel uses along Homestead Road, between Interstate
280 and the Sunnyvale city limit. This major mixed-use
corridor continues to be a predominantly mixed-use area
with a series of neighborhood commercial centers and
multi-family housing. The northern portion of this corridor
is in Sunnyvale and is lined mostly with commercial and
lower-intensity residential uses. Additional commercial uses
include a hotel along De Anza Boulevard within the North
De Anza Gateway. The Stelling Gateway, which consists
primarily of commercial and residential uses, is also located
in this area. Community facilities within the Homestead
Planning Area include Franco Park and Homestead High
School. The Apple Campus 2 project is located at the east-
ern end of this corridor in the North Vallco Park Planning
Area and is a major regional employment center.
Vision
The Homestead area will continue to be a predominantly
mixed-use area with residential uses and a series of neigh-
borhood centers providing services to local residents. Bike
and pedestrian improvements in this area will provide bet-
ter connections for residents and workers to access services.
Tree-lined streets and sidewalks will provide an inviting
environment and will link existing and new uses.
The Homestead area includes a mix
of low-rise to mid-rise residential,
commercial, office and hotel uses that
provide a transition between low density
neighborhoods in Sunnyvale and more
intense areas south of Interstate 280
117
PA-15
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Bubb Road
Context
The Bubb Road Special Area is located south of Stevens
Creek Boulevard between the Southern Pacific railroad
tracks and Highway 85, on the north side of McClellan
Road. This area is approximately 30 acres in size and
consists primarily of low-rise industrial and research and
development uses. The area is adjacent to Monta Vista
Village to the west, Monta Vista North neighborhood to the
south, and the mixed-use area of Monta Vista Village to the
north. This area is one of the a few existing industrial areas
in Cupertino.
Vision
The Bubb Road area is envisioned to become a tree-lined
avenue that is more bike and pedestrian friendly. It will
have an improved street grid necessary to accommodate
increased foot traffic from local workers, and school children
from the northern and eastern sections of Cupertino who
travel to the tri-school area. Allowed uses in the Bubb Road
Planning Area consist of those described in the ML-RC ordi-
nance. In addition, neighborhood commercial and limited
residential uses will continue to be allowed. Non-industrial
uses in this area should be carefully reviewed to ensure that
they do not impact the operations of existing industrial uses
in this area. Development directly abutting low-intensity
residential use should provide appropriate landscape buf-
fers and setbacks.
118
PA-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Monta Vista Village
Context
The Monta Vista Village Special Area is an older neighbor-
hood which served as an attractive farming and second
home community since the late 1800s. It includes several
important points of historic interest. Uses in this area consist
of mixed neighborhood commercial, small commercial
office, and multi-family and single-family residential uses.
The area was incrementally annexed by the City starting in
the 1960s, ending with complete annexation in 2004, from
the unincorporated Santa Clara County. Roadway and utility
infrastructure in a portion of this area needs upgrading and
improvements. Monta Vista Village has a small town charac-
ter and provides necessary services to the adjacent Monta
Vista North and South neighborhoods. The streets within
this area serve as a travel route for school children to the
tri-school area in Monta Vista (Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy
Middle and Monta Vista High Schools).
Vision
Monta Vista Village’s small town character as a pedestrian-
oriented, small scaled, mixed-use residential, neighbor-
hood commercial and industrial area will be retained and
enhanced with new development and redevelopment.
Improved pedestrian and bicycle access within the Area
and to adjacent neighborhoods will promote the concept
of complete, connected and walkable neighborhoods and
improve travel routes to the tri-school area in Monta Vista.
119
PA-17
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Areas
Context
In addition to the Special Areas described above, other
Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas are located
throughout Cupertino. These other Non-Residential/
Mixed-Use Special Areas include the following: west side of
Stevens Canyon Road across from McClellan Road; intersec-
tion of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard;
Homestead Road near Foothill Boulevard; northwest corner
of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue; and all other non-
residential properties not referenced in an identified com-
mercial area.
Vision
Neighborhood centers within other Non-Residential/Mixed-
Use Areas should be redeveloped using the “neighborhood
center” concept described in the Land Use and Community
Design Element. Areas not designated as “neighborhood
centers” are encouraged to provide commercial uses with
a traditional storefront appearance. Second-level areas
may be commercial office or residential. Residential uses,
if allowed per the Housing Element, should be developed
in the “mixed-use village” format as described later in the
Land Use and Community Design Element. Buildings are
typically one to two stories in height, but may be up to
three stories in some instances where it is allowed.
120
PA-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
NEIGHBORHOODS
Cupertino has a special community character which contrib-
utes to its unique quality of life and sense of place enjoyed
by people who live and work in the city. Neighborhoods
play a vital role in supporting this great community quality
of life. While Cupertino has grown and expanded over the
years, neighborhoods have continued to serve as unique
and identifiable areas that have great pride for local
residents. In order to maintain the unique character and
vitality of Cupertino’s neighborhoods, these areas must
be served by needed community services such as schools,
parks and neighborhood shopping. Connectivity within
each neighborhood and to surrounding areas is also highly
encouraged to promote social interaction and community
engagement.
Figure PA-2 highlights 12 identifiable neighborhoods within
Cupertino. Each neighborhood is unique in its location,
development pattern, identity and access to community
services. Most of these areas are fully developed. However,
as redevelopment opportunities arise, it is important that
the policies outlined in the General Plan with respect to
neighborhood preservation, connectivity, mobility and
access to services are implemented.
The following is a summary of the location, major
characteristics, uses and vision for each of the city’s 12
neighborhoods.
Each of the city’s 12 neighborhoods have a
unique feel and character that needs to be
protected in order to maintain Cupertino’s
great quality of life
121
PA-19
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN RD
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT RD
85
280
TANTAU AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Oak
Valley Creston-
Pharlap
Homestead
Villa
Garden
Gate
Jollyman
Monta
Vista
North
Inspiration
Heights
North
Blaney
South
Blaney
Fairgrove
Monta
Vista
South
Rancho
Rinconada
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Los Altos
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Neighborhoods
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Oak Valley
Creston-Pharlap
Inspiration Heights
Monta Vista North
Monta Vista South
Homestead Villa
Garden Gate
Jollyman
North Blaney
South Blaney
Fairgrove
Rancho Rinconada
Figure PA-2
Neighborhoods
122
PA-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Oak Valley
Context
The Oak Valley neighborhood is located in the northwest-
ern corner of Cupertino in a natural hillside transition with
plentiful private and public open space. The neighborhood
is bounded by Interstate 280, the City of Los Altos, Foothill
Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Santa Clara
County open space/quarry uses. The Oak Valley develop-
ment, located west of the railroad tracks, is predominantly
defined by single-family residential homes developed
in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Oak Valley is primarily
accessed from Cristo Rey Drive west of Foothill Boulevard.
Development has been directed away from steep slopes,
view sheds, riparian corridors and areas of tree cover and
architectural styles complement the natural setting. Other
uses in the Oak Valley area include the PG&E Monta Vista
Electrical Substation, The Forum senior living community
and skilled nursing facility, Maryknoll Catholic Seminary (in
Los Altos) and the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. Housing in
this neighborhood includes detached single-family homes
and senior independent and assisted living units. This
area is served by several amenities including Santa Clara
County’s Rancho San Antonio Park, Canyon Oak Park and
Little Rancho Park.
The areas south and east of the Union Pacific Railroad
include low to medium density residential development,
mostly in the form of clustered residential, and develop-
ment designed with residential hillside standards to ensure
that the impacts to are limited. The neighborhood has
access to limited services within walking distance including
a small neighborhood center at the intersection of Stevens
Creek and Foothill Boulevards.
The Oak Valley neighborhood is
predominately a single family area, with
great access to open space areas
123
PA-21
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Oak Valley neighborhood will continue to be primarily
a detached, single-family residential area. The area is fully
developed, but there may be limited growth at The Forum
and Gate of Heaven sites. No other land use changes are
anticipated in this area.
Development intensity in the detached single-family resi-
dential portion is governed by a development agreement
that includes a use permit and other approvals. These
approvals describe development areas, intensity and styles
of development, public park dedication, tree protec-
tion, access and historic preservation. The theme of the
approvals is to balance development with environmental
protection by clustering development, setting it back from
sensitive environmental areas and preserving large areas in
permanent open space. Neighborhood connections and
safe routes to Stevens Creek Elementary school on the east
side of Foothill Boulevard will be enhanced with bike and
pedestrian-friendly improvements along Foothill Boulevard
and its key intersections.
124
PA-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Creston-Pharlap
Context
The Creston-Pharlap neighborhood is a single-family
residential area that includes the last remaining unincor-
porated pocket within the Cupertino urban service area.
The Creston portion was subdivided in the mid 1950s but
has remained unincorporated. The surrounding Pharlap
portion was generally subdivided between the mid 1950s
to mid/late 1960s. This neighborhood is developed with
single-family homes, including the Creston area which
has been pre-zoned with a single-family designation. The
Creston-Pharlap neighborhood is served by Stevens Creek
Elementary School, Varian Park and Somerset Park. Also
included in this neighborhood is the Sunny View Retirement
Community, which is a residential care facility for the
elderly that provides skilled nursing and independent liv-
ing. Stevens Creek meanders through the neighborhood
in a general north-south direction. This neighborhood is
separated from the Oak Valley neighborhood by Foothill
Boulevard. The Homestead Crossings neighborhood center
and the neighborhood center at the corner of Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard are located a short
distance away and provide neighborhood serving uses.
125
PA-23
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Creston-Pharlap area is largely developed and is antici-
pated to maintain its single-family character. The Creston por-
tion will ultimately be annexed into the City of Cupertino with
a single-family zoning designation to reflect the existing uses,
consistent with the surrounding Pharlap portion. Potential
trail connections within the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood
may be considered to create trail linkages with the existing
and planned trail system in the area. While this neighborhood
does not include services within its boundary, the neighbor-
hood commercial center at the intersection of Foothill and
Stevens Creek Boulevards is within walking and biking
distance to the southern part of the neighborhood. Bike and
pedestrian-friendly improvements along Foothill Boulevard
and its intersections will help enhance connections from the
neighborhood to services on the west side.
126
PA-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Inspiration Heights
Context
The Inspiration Heights neighborhood is situated in the
western foothills of Cupertino and offers uninterrupted
vistas of the San Francisco Peninsula. The neighborhood
is largely comprised of the undeveloped foothills along
Cupertino’s western and southern edge and extends north
to Stevens Creek Boulevard and east to Foothill Boulevard/
Stevens Canyon Road. Larger lot residential hillside homes
are nestled along the foothills and accessed primarily via
private drives. The Inspiration Heights foothills portion can
be characterized as an environmentally sensitive area given
the topography, vegetation, urban wildlife interface and
proximity to two inferred earthquake faults. The lower ele-
vation portions are more urbanized and consist of smaller
lot and duplex developments closer to Stevens Creek and
Foothill Boulevards, which provide a transition with the
adjoining neighborhoods on the valley floor. Stevens Creek
County Park and the Fremont Older space, operated by
the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, are located to the
south and west of the neighborhood. The neighborhood
is also served by Monta Vista Park, located along the west
side of Foothill Boulevard, and two small neighborhood
service centers (one at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard
and Stevens Creek Boulevard and the other at the inter-
section of Stevens Canyon Road and McClellan Road).
Stevens Canyon Road is also a popular bicycle route for
people accessing the open space preserves through this
neighborhood.
127
PA-25
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Inspiration Heights neighborhood will continue to
be a low-intensity and hillside residential area. The lower
elevation areas are largely developed; however, there
remains some limited development potential in the foot-
hills. Cupertino’s hillsides are an irreplaceable resource that
provides important habitat for wildlife, recreational oppor-
tunities for residents, and visual relief. Given the sensitive
environmental conditions found in the hillsides, greater
attention is needed in the review and consideration of any
future development proposals within this neighborhood.
Enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian environment along
Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Canyon Road up to the
southern edge of the city will help improve neighborhood
connectivity to services as well as the environment for hikers
and bikers who like to use the road to access open space
areas to the south and west.
128
PA-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Monta Vista North
Context
The Monta Vista North neighborhood is located in the
western portion of Cupertino and is generally bounded by
Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, Regnart Creek/Road
to the south, Foothill Boulevard to the west and Highway
85 to the east. This neighborhood is directly adjacent to the
Monta Vista Village Special Area. The Monta Vista North
neighborhood encompasses the tri-school area of Lincoln
Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School and Monta
Vista High School, and also includes community facilities
such as Blackberry Farm, McClellan Ranch Preserve, Linda
Vista Park and Stevens Creek County Park. Located directly
to the south of this neighborhood in the unincorporated
county is the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, oper-
ated by the Midpeninsula Open Space District.
Stevens Creek meanders through the western portion of the
neighborhood through Blackberry Farm Golf Course and
the privately owned and operated Deep Cliff Golf Course.
Both golf courses are depressed in elevation in relation
to the surrounding residential homes and are therefore
subject to flooding. A number of Cupertino’s historic and
commemorative sites are located in this neighborhood near
Stevens Creek. A former quarry site is also located near
the southwest portion of the neighborhood. Much of the
neighborhood east of Stevens Creek is located along the
valley floor; however, the topography in the southwestern
portion of the neighborhood consists of steep slopes and
hilly terrain.
129
PA-27
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Monta Vista North neighborhood is largely built out
with the exception of the former McDonald-Dorsa quarry
site and an adjacent 42-acre property currently under the
same ownership. A portion of this undeveloped land may
be considered for limited future low-density residential
development, which could include trails that would connect
the City’s recreational facilities (McClellan Ranch Preserve
and Linda Vista Park) to Stevens Creek County Park and the
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve.
130
PA-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Monta Vista South
Context
The Monta Vista South neighborhood is located along the
southern edge of Cupertino and is bounded by Regnart
Road/Creek to the north, the City of Saratoga to the south
across Prospect Road, the unincorporated County to the
south and west, and Highway 85 and the City of San Jose
to the east. The neighborhood can be divided into two
general areas with very distinct characteristics. The west
side of the Monta Vista South neighborhood is located in
the southwestern foothills and zoned for residential hillside
development. Lots in this area are primarily over one acre is
size, in some instances up to 13 acres. The east side of the
Monta Vista South neighborhood is located on the valley
floor and is developed in a more traditional residential sub-
division pattern with lots generally 6,000 square feet in size.
Regnart Elementary School, Three Oaks Park and Hoover
Park are located in the eastern portion of the Monta Vista
South neighborhood. Also located at the southern edge of
this neighborhood is the 37-acre Seven Springs Ranch that
was listed on the California Register of Historic Places and
determined eligible for the National Register in 2011.
131
PA-29
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Monta Vista South neighborhood is envisioned to
remain a residential area. There remains some limited
subdivision potential within the residential hillsides,
which would be subject to the City’s hillside policies and
standards. In the eastern portion of the neighborhood,
no change is anticipated with the exception of the Seven
Springs area at the south edge of Cupertino that may
have potential for limited development. Given the historic
designation of the Seven Springs Ranch property, any future
development would be subject to compliance with the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Resources.
132
PA-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Homestead Villa
Context
The Homestead Villa neighborhood is located at the
northern edge of Cupertino at the northwest quadrant
of Interstate 280 and Highway 85. The City of Los Altos
is located to the west and north of this neighborhood,
across Homestead Road. Housing within this neighbor-
hood includes a mixture of traditional single-family homes,
clustered homesites, townhomes, condominiums and
duplexes. The area does not contain any public parks or
schools; however, there is a private school located near the
northeast corner of the neighborhood. The neighborhood
is served by West Valley Elementary School and Cupertino
Middle School across Homestead Road to the north, and
Homestead High School to the east. The neighborhood
is also served by the Homestead Crossing neighborhood
center which currently includes coffee shops, a sandwich
shop, personal service uses and a bank. Also located
directly adjacent on the west, within the City of Los Altos, is
a neighborhood shopping center that currently includes a
pharmacy and specialty grocery store.
133
PA-31
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Homestead Villa neighborhood is largely developed
and is not anticipated to change in character. A trail along
Foothill Boulevard is identified in the General Plan as a
proposed trail linkage that will connect to Stevens Creek
in Mountain View and points north. Bicycle and pedestrian
improvements along Homestead Road will help the neigh-
borhood connect to schools and services.
134
PA-32
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Garden Gate
Context
The Garden Gate neighborhood is located in the central
portion of Cupertino and is predominantly defined by
single-family residential homes with pockets of duplexes
and apartments, including the Villages of Cupertino apart-
ment site. Bounded by Interstate 280, Mary Avenue, the
Heart of the City Special Area and the North De Anza
Special Area, this area is served by several amenities includ-
ing shopping and employment opportunities along Stevens
Creek and De Anza Boulevards, Garden Gate Elementary,
Mary Avenue Dog Park, Memorial Park and the Quinlan
Community Center. A substantial portion of the neighbor-
hood was originally developed in the early 1950s and was
in unincorporated Santa Clara County until it was annexed
to Cupertino in 2001. The remaining neighborhood near
Mary Avenue was developed in the late 1960s. There has
been substantial redevelopment of existing homes in the
neighborhood since the 1990s with varying architectural
styles and building sizes. Lot sizes are generally larger than
other single-family residential neighborhoods in other parts
of the city.
135
PA-33
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Garden Gate neighborhood will continue to be mainly
a residential area. Existing single-family residences will con-
tinue to develop in accordance with the R1 Ordinance, and
there may be redevelopment of some existing apartment
and duplex uses. No other land use changes are anticipated
in this area. Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly improvements
to Stelling Road will help strengthen connections to Quinlan
Center and Memorial Park.
136
PA-34
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Jollyman
Context
The Jollyman neighborhood is located in the central portion
of Cupertino, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. This area
is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes
and is generally located on the valley floor with minimal
changes in grade. Bounded by Highway 85, Stevens Creek
Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard, this area is served
by several amenities including a large park and several
churches along Stelling Road. McClellan Road is a major
east-west corridor through the area. The McClellan Square
Shopping Center, located in the South De Anza Special
Area, includes grocery stores, pharmaceutical services and
a variety of small restaurants and neighborhood serving
uses. Housing types located in this neighborhood include
fourplexes, townhomes and apartments. Jollyman Park and
Faria Elementary School are also located in the Jollyman
Neighborhood.
137
PA-35
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Jollyman neighborhood will continue to be a residential
area. It is anticipated that there may be limited residential
growth in this area on sites that may be subdivided. No
other changes are anticipated in this area. McClellan Road
is a key school route and is envisioned to become a bicycle
and pedestrian route to improve the east-west connection
to connect neighborhoods to the east and west to the tri-
school area.
138
PA-36
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
South Blaney
Context
The South Blaney neighborhood is located in the eastern
portion of Cupertino, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and east of De Anza Boulevard. This area is predominantly
defined by single-family residential homes on the valley
floor with minimal changes in grade. Bounded generally
by Bollinger Road, Miller Road, De Anza Boulevard and
Stevens Creek Boulevard, this area is served by several
amenities including proximity to the Cupertino Library and
two large parks: Wilson Park and Creekside Park. South
Blaney Avenue is a major north-south corridor through the
area. Two creeks run through this neighborhood. Regnart
Creek has mainly a concrete channel and Calabazas Creek
has a more natural channel. The De Anza Plaza Shopping
Center, located in the South De Anza Special Area, includes
a variety of small restaurants and neighborhood serving
uses. Housing types located in this neighborhood include
townhomes and duplexes that line Miller Avenue and
Bollinger Road. Eaton Elementary School is also located in
the South Blaney Neighborhood.
139
PA-37
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The South Blaney neighborhood will continue to be a
residential area. It is anticipated that there may be limited
residential growth in this area on sites that may be sub-
divided or redeveloped with multi-family uses. No other
changes are anticipated in this area. Enhancements to De
Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue and Bollinger Road with a
bicycle and pedestrian route will improve the north-south
and east-west connections in this neighborhood.
140
PA-38
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North Blaney
Context
The North Blaney neighborhood is located in the eastern
portion of Cupertino, north of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and east of De Anza Boulevard. This area is predominantly
defined by single-family residential homes is on the val-
ley floor with minimal grade changes. Bounded generally
by De Anza Boulevard, Highway 280, Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and Perimeter Road, this area is served by
amenities including Portal Park, which includes a number
of recreational amenities such as a tot lot and a recreation
building. The Junipero Serra drainage channel runs along
the northern edge of the neighborhood along Interstate
280. North Blaney is a major north-south corridor through
the area. The Portal Plaza Shopping Center, located in the
Heart of the City Special Area, includes grocery facilities
and a variety of neighborhood serving uses. Proximity to
the Vallco Shopping Mall in the Heart of the City Special
Area provides opportunities for shopping for this neigh-
borhood within close walking distance. Housing types
located in this neighborhood include duplexes, townhomes
and apartments closer to the freeway. The North Blaney
Neighborhood includes Collins Elementary School and
Lawson Middle School.
141
PA-39
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The North Blaney neighborhood will continue to be mainly
a residential area. It is anticipated that there may be
limited residential growth in this area on sites that may be
subdivided or redeveloped. No other land use changes are
anticipated in this area. Bicycle and pedestrian enhance-
ments to North Blaney Avenue will improve the north-south
connection through the city. There is also a potential to
improve the east-west pedestrian and bicycle connection
along the Junipero Serra channel along Interstate 280.
142
PA-40
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Rancho Rinconada
Context
The Rancho Rinconada neighborhood is located in the
southeastern portion of Cupertino, bounded by Stevens
Creek Boulevard, Tantau Avenue, Lawrence Expressway,
Bollinger Road and the Fairgrove Neighborhood. This area
is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes
with some duplexes and apartments. The area is served
by several amenities including shopping and employment
opportunities along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Sterling
Barnhart Park, Sedgwick Elementary School, Cupertino
High School, Lutheran Church of Our Saviour, Bethel
Lutheran Church and Saratoga Creek. The neighborhood
was originally developed in the late 1940s/early 1950s and
the majority of the neighborhood was in unincorporated
Santa Clara County until it was annexed to Cupertino
in 1999. There has been substantial redevelopment of
existing homes in the neighborhood since the 1990s with
varying architectural styles and building sizes. Lot sizes
are generally smaller than other single-family residential
neighborhoods in the city. This area is served by the newly
constructed Sterling Barnhart Park at the eastern end of
the neighborhood. In addition, the Rancho Rinconada Park
and Recreation District operates a swim and recreation
center at the southern end of the neighborhood, which are
available to the residents of the Rancho Rinconada area.
Neighborhood centers serving the area are along Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue to the north.
143
PA-41
CHAPTER 2
Planning Areas
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vision
The Rancho Rinconada neighborhood will continue to be
mainly a residential area. Existing single-family residences
will continue to redevelop in accordance with the R1
Ordinance, and there may be redevelopment of some
existing apartment and duplex uses. No other major land
use changes are anticipated in this area. This area has the
potential for a future park along the Saratoga/San Tomas
Creek Trail west of Lawrence Expressway.
144
PA-42
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Fairgrove
Context
The Fairgrove neighborhood is located in the southeastern
portion of Cupertino and includes the area bounded by Phil
Lane to the north, Tantau Avenue to the east, Bollinger to
the south, and Miller Avenue to the west. The neighbor-
hood is zoned “R1e-Eichler Single Family” and consists
of a group of distinct 220 Eichler homes built in the early
1960s. Hyde Middle School is located within the Fairgrove
neighborhood.
Vision
The Fairgrove neighborhood will continue to be mainly
a low density single-family residential area. The City will
continue to encourage application of the Eichler Design
Handbook Guidelines in the Fairgrove neighborhood to
preserve the neighborhood’s unique character and architec-
tural identity.
The Fairgrove neighborhood has a very
unique character, consisting of 2020 Eichler-
designed homes
145
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Chapter 3
3
146
LU-2
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LU-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 147
LU-3
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTENTS
LU-3 Introduction
LU-4 Context
Development History
Land Use and
Transportation Patterns
Historic Preservation
Hillsides
Neighborhood
Preservation
Regional Land Use
Planning
Cupertino’s
Demographics
Climate Action Plan and
Sustainable Development
Principles
Economic Vitality
Citywide Growth and
Community Benefits
LU-11 Looking Forward
LU-13 Citywide Goals and
Policies
Balanced Community
Community Identity
Streetscape Design
Connectivity
Historic Preservation
Arts and Culture
Economic Development
and Fiscal Stability
Regional Cooperation
and Coordination
Access to Community
Facilities and Services
Hillsides
LU-45 Planning Areas Goals
and Policies
Special Areas
Neighborhoods
INTRODUCTION
The Land Use and Community Design Element is the
keystone of Community Vision 2040. It unifies and informs
the other Elements by providing an overall policy context
for future physical change. It deals with the issues of future
growth and helps define the desired balance among social,
environmental and economic considerations, while enhanc-
ing quality of life in the community.
As Cupertino implements Community Vision 2040, it
aspires to preserve and enhance the distinct character of
each planning area to create a vibrant community with invit-
ing streets and public spaces, preserved, connected and
walkable neighborhoods, exceptional parks and community
services, and a vibrant economy with a strong tax base.
This Element includes goals, policies and strategies that
provide direction on land use and design principles that will
shape future change in Cupertino. In turn, each of the other
Elements in Community Vision 2040 support the land use
and design assumptions included in this Element.
148
LU-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTEXT
Development History
Cupertino was incorporated in 1955 and grew from a
lightly settled agricultural community of 2,500 people
into a mostly suburban community during Silicon
Valley’s expansion from the 1960s through the 1980s.
Cupertino’s attractive natural setting and close proximity to
employment centers and regional transportation networks
makes it a highly desirable place to live.
Land Use and Transportation Patterns
Cupertino’s land use pattern was largely built on a conven-
tional suburban model, with predominantly single-family
residential subdivisions and distinct commercial and
employment centers. This development pattern was also
heavily influenced by the topography of the area, with
more intensive growth located on the valley floor and lower
design residential on the foothills. The western area by the
foothills is semi-rural with steep terrain, larger residential
lots and access to open space. The pattern becomes
more suburban immediately west of Highway 85 where
residential neighborhoods have a more uniform pattern
with smaller lots and older commercial and industrial areas
along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb Road. The land
use pattern becomes more urban east of Highway 85, with
a relatively connected street grid and commercial develop-
ment along major boulevards such as Stevens Creek, De
Anza, Homestead, Stelling and Wolfe. This area also has
significant amounts of multi-family development in and
around the major boulevards.
The suburban pattern is also reflected in building locations,
with most of the older buildings set back from the street
with parking lots in the front. Streets have also been histori-
cally widened to accommodate larger volumes of traffic,
often to the detriment of other forms of transportation such
as walking, biking and transit. In the last 20 years, the City
149
LU-5
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
has made strides towards improving walkability and bike-
ability by retrofitting existing streets to include bike lanes;
creating sidewalks lined with trees along major boulevards;
and encouraging development to provide a more pedestri-
an-oriented frontage with active uses, gathering places and
entries lining the street.
As the City seeks to implement sustainability and com-
munity health objectives, future growth and retrofitting
of existing infrastructure will create vibrant mixed-use,
commercial, employment and neighborhood centers;
pedestrian-oriented and walkable spaces for the community
to gather; and distinct and connected neighborhoods with
easy walkable and bikeable access to services, including
schools, parks and shopping.
Historic Preservation
The Cupertino area was originally settled by the Ohlone
Indians, who lived in the Rancho San Antonio area for over
3,000 years. In 1776 the area was explored by Spanish
soldiers during an expedition let by Colonel Juan Batista
De Anza. The area was later settled by European immi-
grants who established farms on the valley’s fertile land and
enjoyed a thriving agricultural economy.
In the late nineteenth century, the village of Cupertino
sprang up at the crossroads of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
(De Anza Boulevard) and Stevens Creek Road. It was first
known as the West Side. However, by 1898 the post office
at the Crossroads needed a new name to distinguish it from
other similarly named towns. The name “Cupertino” came
from a local creek and winery owned by John T. Doyle, a
San Francisco lawyer and historian. In 1904, the Cupertino
name was officially applied to the Crossroads post office.
At the same time, the Home Union Store at the Crossroads
location was renamed the Cupertino Store and moved to
the northeast corner of the Crossroads.
150
LU-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Many of Cupertino’s pioneer settlers planted vineyards and
wineries proliferated on Montebello Ridge, on the lower
foothills, and on the flat lands below. The valley, which
flourished with orchards, became known as “Valley of the
Heart’s Delight” and was visited by tourists who came by
electric railway and later by rail car.
In the late 1940s, Cupertino was swept up in Santa Clara
Valley’s postwar population explosion. In 1954, Cupertino’s
leaders began a drive for incorporation due to concerns
related to unplanned development, higher taxes and piece-
meal annexations by other cities. In 1955, the incorporation
was approved by an election on September 27, 1955.
Cupertino became Santa Clara County’s thirteenth City on
October 10, 1955. Today, Cupertino is part of Silicon Valley,
home to major world-renowned companies in the high
technology sector.
Hillsides
Cupertino’s hillsides are an irreplaceable resource shared by
the entire Santa Clara Valley. They provide important habi-
tat for plants and wildlife; watershed capacity to prevent
flooding in downstream areas; a wide vegetative belt that
cleanses the air of pollutants; creates recreational opportu-
nities for residents; and a natural environment that provides
a contrast to the built environment. The City balances the
needs of property owners in hillside areas with those of the
environment and the community by allowing low-intensity
residential and other uses in these areas, while requiring
preservation of natural habitat and riparian corridors when
selecting building sites.
Neighborhood Preservation
Cupertino is a city with diverse and unique neighborhoods
that vary in character and composition. As Cupertino
matures, the city must continue to look at preserving and
151
LU-7
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
enhancing its built environment. Cupertino’s vision is to
preserve the distinct character of neighborhoods; provide
walking and biking connections to services including parks,
schools and shopping; and revitalize neighborhood centers
as community gathering places. The City will welcome
citizens as partners in making sure that their neighborhoods
are the kind in which they want to live in the future.
Regional Land Use Planning
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008 (SB 375) calls on each of the State’s 18 metropolitan
areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
to accommodate future population growth and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan
Bay Area, jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), is the region’s first
Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the require-
ments of SB 375 through the year 2040.
Plan Bay Area anticipates that the Bay Area’s population will
grow from about 7 million today to approximately 9 million
by 2040 with employment growth of about 1.1 million jobs.
The Plan provides a strategy for meeting 80 percent of the
region’s future housing needs in Priority Development Areas
(PDAs). These are neighborhoods within walking distance of
frequent transit service, offering a wide variety of housing
options, and featuring amenities such as grocery stores,
community centers and restaurants.
Cupertino’s Demographics
Cupertino’s population has grown from 3,664 in 1960 to
over 58,000 in 2010 per the U.S. Census Bureau. Most of
the population growth has been from annexation of areas
into the city and from tract development during the 1970s
and 1980s. The city’s population is projected to grow to
Priority Development Areas
In 2008, ABAG and the MTC
created a regional initiative
to allow local governments to
identify Priority Development
Areas (PDAs). PDAs are areas
where new development will
support the day-to-day needs
of residents and workers in a
pedestrian-friendly environment
served by transit. While PDAs
were originally established to
address housing needs in infill
communities, they have been
broadened to advance focused
employment growth. PDAs are
critical components for imple-
menting the region’s proposed
long term growth strategy. The
level of growth in each PDA
reflects its role in achieving
regional objectives and how it
fits into locally designated prior-
ity growth plans. Cupertino’s
PDA area includes properties
within a quarter mile of Stevens
Creek Boulevard from Highway
85 to its eastern border and a
portion of North and South De
Anza Boulevards.
152
LU-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
66,110 by 2040 (Plan Bay Area, 2013). The diversity of its
population has grown and changed over the years. In 1960,
94 percent of the population was white while only 6 percent
of the population comprised of other races per the U.S.
Census. This statistic held fairly steady until 1980 when the
population of whites steadily started to decline with only
91 percent being white. By 1990, the population of whites
had plunged to 74 percent and the Asian population had
increased to 23 percent. In the following decade, the white
population continued to decline steadily to 50 percent,
while Asian population stood at 44 percent. By 2010 the
Asian population in Cupertino accounted for almost two
thirds of the population (63 percent). A sizeable portion of
the City’s 2010 population, almost 50 percent are foreign
born while only seven percent of the 1960 population was
foreign born; indicating a large immigrant population.
The population of Cupertino is also growing older. Per
the 1970 census, the median age in the city was 26. The
2010 census reveals that the median age in Cupertino
has increased to 39.9. In 1970, only three percent of the
population was 65 years or over in age; however, the 2010
census indicates that 12.5 percent of the population is 65
years or over.
With the changing demographic and ethnic values, hous-
ing needs are changing as more immigrant families care
for parents in their homes, younger workers look for more
affordable housing, close to services and employment, and
the older generation looks to downsize from their single-
family homes into smaller, single-level homes within walking
distance to shopping and entertainment.
Climate Action Plan and Sustainable
Development Principles
A major challenge today is meeting the energy needs of a
growing population while protecting the environment and
natural resources. The Global Warming Solutions Act of
153
LU-9
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
2006 (AB 32) and Executive Order S-3-05 set a target to
reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by year 2020 and by 80 percent below the 1990 levels
by year 2050. The City is in the process of completing its
Climate Action Plan (CAP), which aims to achieve statewide
and Bay Area emissions reduction targets.
The CAP is based on 2040 growth projections for Cupertino
and identifies policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions at a municipal and community-wide level.
Similar to most neighboring cities, Cupertino has historically
had an imbalance of land uses (housing, services and jobs)
with a roadway infrastructure primarily dedicated to the
automobile. When this imbalance is multiplied at a regional
level, there are regional consequences including, traffic
congestion, high housing costs, increased air pollution and
lack of accessibility for the young, elderly and disabled.
Economic Vitality
Cupertino is fortunate in its location in the heart of Silicon
Valley. Despite its mostly suburban characteristics to the
west and south, the city is home to a number of small,
medium and large software, technology and biomedical
companies. Community Vision 2040 includes more office
growth to support a strong fiscal revenues and a stable tax
base. In particular, policies focus on retaining and increasing
the number of small, medium and major businesses in key
sectors and provide flexible space for innovative startups
that need non-traditional office environment. Policies for
commercial areas seek to revitalize the Vallco Shopping
District, and enhance commercial centers and neighbor-
hood centers, which contribute to the City’s tax base and
serve community needs.
154
LU-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Citywide Growth and Community Benefits
Cupertino’s Community Benefit Program provides the city
with important community benefits, such as new parks and
public gathering places, civic facilities, land or space for
public agencies, senior housing, cultural facilities, and pub-
lic realm and environmental enhancements. These benefits
contribute to the quality of life and general livability of our
city. In addition, funds (cash-in-lieu contributions) can be set
aside for the future provision of community amenities and
affordable and/or special needs housing.
The Community Benefit Program enables the community
to get amenities in return for allowing additional specified
heights within key nodes and gateways along major cor-
ridors. On the other hand, it also provides certainty to the
community as to what those additional heights might be
and where they can be placed. In doing so, the Program
plays a key role in serving our growing community. As
Cupertino’s resident and worker population increase,
additional amenities will be necessary to maintain and
improve the livability of the community. The Community
Benefit Program is one of the key tools the City will use to
help finance and achieve those amenities that maintain and
increase our quality of life. Specifics about the Community
Benefits Program elements are described later in this
Element.
155
LU-11
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LOOKING FORWARD
Maintaining and enhancing Cupertino’s great quality of life
is the keystone of Community Vision 2040. The City will
look towards focusing future change within Special Areas
that are located on Cupertino’s major mixed-use corridors.
These areas already have a mix of commercial, office, hotel
and residential uses, and are located along roadways that
will be enhanced with “Complete Streets” features (see
Mobility Element), improved landscaping and expanded
public spaces (e.g., parks and plazas). In turn, the City
will also protect and enhance Neighborhoods throughout
Cupertino to ensure these largely residential areas continue
to support the community’s great quality of life. As we look
forward, the following are ways the City will address key
challenges and opportunities facing Cupertino:
1. Planning for changing demographics. The City needs
to plan not only for existing families which form a larger
percentage of our population, but also for the growing
demographic of seniors and younger workers through
new housing, services, shopping, entertainment and
community facilities.
2. Local and regional land use planning and collabo-
ration. The City will take an active part in regional
collaborative planning processes related to housing,
transportation, sustainability, health, transportation and
infrastructure financing in order to ensure local land
use and transportation decisions are coordinated with
regional efforts.
3. Integrating community health into land use planning.
The City will enhance and improve health of people
who live and work in our community. This includes
integrating land use and transportation networks to
reduce reliance on auto usage and improving alterna-
tive choices for transportation by focusing growth and
156
LU-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
change in corridors that support all modes of transit,
providing neighborhoods with easy access to schools,
parks and neighborhood centers.
4. Land use and economics. The City will look to diversify
the City’s tax base, support and retain existing busi-
nesses, increase the vitality of aging commercial centers
with redevelopment, seek to diversify shopping oppor-
tunities so that the community has the opportunity to
satisfy their shopping needs within Cupertino.
5. Urban design, form and character. The City will seek
high-quality development to achieve desired physical
environment in Planning Areas, including walkable,
connected neighborhoods, inviting streets that allow
for different modes of transportation, and vibrant and
walkable special areas, and neighborhood centers in
keeping with Community Vision 2040.
6. Preservation of natural environment and hillsides.
Cupertino is blessed with an abundance of natural
resources, including hillsides, creek corridors, and sensi-
tive animal and plant habitats along the foothills. Much
of this land is preserved in low-intensity residential and
agricultural uses or open space. As redevelopment
occurs, the City will strive to preserve these natural
areas through land use and building design decisions.
7. Economic Vitality and Fiscal Stability. As Cupertino’s
population grows and ages, demands on commu-
nity resources will increase. In order to maintain and
enhance the community’s quality of life, the City will
ensure that existing businesses are encouraged to rein-
vest and grow in Cupertino, and that the city continues
to attract new businesses and investment.
157
LU-13
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES
Balanced Community
The City seeks to balance future growth and development
in order create a more complete community. This includes
ensuring a mix of land uses that support economic, social
and cultural goals in order to preserve and enhance
Cupertino’s great quality of life.
Policy LU-1.1: Land Use and Transportation
Focus higher land use intensities and densities within
a half-mile of public transit service, and along major
corridors.
Policy LU-1.2: Development Allocation
Maintain and update the development allocation table
(Table LU-1) to ensure that the allocations for various land
uses adequately meet city goals.
Strategy LU-1.2.1: Planning Area Allocations.
Development allocations are assigned for various Planning
Areas. However, some flexibility may be allowed for
transferring allocations among Planning Areas provided no
significant environmental impacts are identified beyond
those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for Community Vision 2040.
GOAL LU-1
CREATE A BALANCED COMMUNITY
WITH A MIX OF LAND USES THAT
SUPPORTS THRIVING BUSINESSES,
ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION,
COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS AND A
HEALTHY COMMUNITY
158
LU-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE LU-1
CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION BETWEEN 2014-2040
Commercial (s.f.)Offi ce (s.f.) Hotel (rooms)Residential (units)
Current
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailableCurrent
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailableCurrent
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailableCurrent
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailable
Heart of
the City
1,522,9852,272,985 750,0002,263,1582,763,158500,0005528162641,336 2,8361,500
Vallco
Shopping
District
1,207,774600,000(607,774)-1,000,000-375375-600600
Homestead193,678 443,678 250,00069,55094,55025,0001264263006001,130530
N. De Anza51,37276,37225,0002,266,2062,466,206200,00012322310049219170
N. Vallco133,147233,147100,0003,069,6763,144,67675,000315615300554 1,379825
S. De Anza352,283477,283125,000130,708155,70825,000---6281275
Other143,132212,65869,526 564,331 669,331105,000---18,039 18,446407
Major
Employers
---
109,935709,935600,000------
Monta
Vista
Village
93,914114,85920,945442,615466,441
23,826--- 828929101
Citywide3,698,2854,430,982 732,6978,916,1792,553,826 1,116 2,4551,33921,412 25,8204,408
1,000,000
11,470,005
159
LU-15
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-1.2.2: Major Employers. Reserve a develop-
ment allocation for major companies with sales office and
corporate headquarters in Cupertino. Prioritize expansion
of office space for existing major companies. New office
development must demonstrate that the development posi-
tively contributes to the fiscal well-being of the city.
Strategy LU-1.2.3: Unused Development Allocation.
Unused development allocations may be re-assigned to the
citywide allocation table per Planning Area, when develop-
ment agreements and development permits expire.
Strategy LU-1.2.4: Neighborhood Allocation. Allocate
residential units in neighborhoods through the building per-
mit process unless subdivision or development applications
are required.
Policy LU-1.3: Community Benefits Program
At the discretion of the City Council, and as indicated in the
Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1), the City Council
may approve additional heights over the base height stan-
dard in gateways and nodes identified in the Special Areas
map in the Planning Areas chapter (Figure PA-1). In order
to obtain additional height, a developer may propose, and
the City may agree upon, the following community benefits:
1. Ground floor retail component; and
2. One or more of the following benefits equivalent to at
least 15 percent of the increase in value of the site
attributed to the increase in height:
a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements:
i. New or expanded bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
ii. Transit improvements and/or amenities
including adaptive traffic signal management
systems.
TABLE LU-1
CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION BETWEEN 2014-2040
Commercial (s.f.)Office (s.f.) Hotel (rooms)Residential (units)
Current
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailableCurrent
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailableCurrent
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailableCurrent
Built
(Oct 7, 2014)
BuildoutAvailable
Heart of the
City1,522,9852,272,985 750,0002,263,1582,763,158500,0005528162641,336 2,8361,500
Vallco
Shopping
District
1,207,774600,000(607,774)-1,000,000-375375-600600
Homestead193,678 443,678 250,00069,55094,55025,0001264263006001,130530
N. De Anza51,37276,37225,0002,266,2062,466,206200,00012322310049219170
N. Vallco133,147233,147100,0003,069,6763,144,67675,000315615300554 1,379825
S. De Anza352,283477,283125,000130,708155,70825,000---6281275
Other143,132212,65869,526 564,331 669,331105,000---18,039 18,446407
Major
Employers---
109,935709,935600,000------
Monta Vista
Village93,914114,85920,945442,615466,441
23,826--- 828929101
Citywide3,698,2854,430,982 732,6978,916,1792,553,826 1,116 2,4551,33921,412 25,8204,408
160
LU-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
iii. Participation in a community shuttle program
(to provide connections to major employment
and community nodes, including community
facilities and shopping).
b. Public Facilities: Provide land or space for public
entities, such as the City or schools.
c. Senior Housing: Provide at least 15 percent of
housing for seniors, if the proposed project
includes a residential component and is not
already targeted towards seniors.
d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities:
i. Construction of a new, or expansion to, a
community facility (e.g., recreation center, teen
facility, etc.)
ii. Construction of a new, or expansion of, a
community gathering space (e.g., meeting/
conference space, cultural center or museum).
e. Parks and Open Space:
i. New publicly accessible park and/or open
space within a project in excess of park
dedication requirements.
ii. Dedication of land for a new or expanded
park outside the project boundary in excess of
park dedication requirements.
f. Cash-in-Lieu Contribution: A Cash-in-Lieu
contribution is a contribution made to the City
by a developer or applicant and is equivalent to
at least 15 percent of the profit attributed to
the increase in height achieved through the
Community Benefits Program. The funds
161
LU-17
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
are allocated exclusively for purchase of land, capital
improvements or operations related to items a, b, d,
e, and towards the construction of affordable
housing. All Cash-in-Lieu Contributions shall be
made to the City.
Strategy LU-1.3.1: Code Amendment. Update the Zoning
Code and applicable Specific and Conceptual Plans to
codify the provisions of the Community Benefit Program.
Strategy LU-1.3.2: Retail Component. The retail com-
ponent in the Community Benefit Program shall be the
predominant use along the ground floor street frontage (for
public or private streets), and shall be of sufficient depth
and height to create a viable retail space(s).
Strategy LU-1.3.3: Development Agreement. Offers of
Community Benefit must be above and beyond project
design elements and on-site or off-site contributions
required as part of project environmental mitigations
or Federal, State or local requirements as part of the
standard entitlement process. The details and conditions
of the Community Benefit will be achieved through the
Community Benefits Program and will be formalized
through a Development Agreement.
Policy LU-1.4: Land Use in all Citywide Mixed-Use
Districts
Encourage land uses that support the activity and character
of mixed-use districts and economic goals.
Strategy LU-1.4.1: Commercial and Residential Uses.
Review the placement of commercial and residential uses
based on the following criteria:
1. All mixed-use areas with commercial zoning will require
retail as a substantial component. The North De Anza
Special Area is an exception.
162
LU-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure LU-1
Community Form Diagram
163
LU-19
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Mixed-Use Urban Villages
Many of the City’s Housing Element sites are located in major corridors to reduce traffic and
environmental impacts and preserve neighborhoods (Figure LU-1). Housing Element sites, which
are further identified and defined in the Housing Element, represent the City’s priority for resi-
dential development. Residential uses on sites with mixed-use zoning should be designed on the
“mixed-use village” concept discussed in below.
1. Parcel assembly. Parcel assembly of the site is required. Further parcelization is highly dis-
couraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future.
2. Plan for Complete Redevelopment. A plan for complete redevelopment of the site is
required in order to ensure that the site can meet development standards and provide appro-
priate buffers.
3. “Mixed-Use Village” layout. An internal street grid with streets and alleys using “transect
planning” (appropriate street and building types for each area), that is pedestrian-oriented,
connects to existing streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings and open space.
4. Uses. Include a substantial viable, retail component. Retail and active uses such as restaurants,
outdoor dining, and entries are required along the ground floor of main street frontages. Mix
of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who like to live in an active
“mixed-use village” environment. Office uses, if allowed, should provide active uses on the
ground floor street frontage, including restaurants, entries, lobbies, etc.
5. Open space. Open space in the form of a central town square with additional plazas and
“greens” for community gathering spaces, public art, and community events. The locations
and sizes will depend on the size of the site.
6. Architecture and urban design. Buildings should have high-quality, pedestrian-oriented archi-
tecture, and an emphasis on aesthetics, human scale, and creating a sense of place.
7. Parking. Parking in surface lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Underground
parking under buildings is preferred. Above grade structures shall not be located along major
street frontages. In cases, where above-grade structures are allowed along internal street
frontages, they shall be lined with retail, entries and active uses on the ground floor. All park-
ing structures should be designed to be architecturally compatible with a high-quality “town
center” environment.
8. Neighborhood buffers. Setbacks, landscaping and/or building transitions to buffer abutting
single-family residential areas.
Neighborhood Centers serve adjacent neighborhoods and provide shopping and gathering
places for residents. Retaining and enhancing neighborhood centers within and adjacent to
neighborhoods throughout Cupertino supports the City’s goals for walkability, sustainability and
164
LU-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Neighborhood Commercial Centers
Neighborhood Commercial Centers serve adjacent neighborhoods and provide shopping and gath-
ering places for residents. Retaining and enhancing neighborhood centers within and adjacent to
neighborhoods throughout Cupertino supports the City’s goals for walkability, sustainability and creat-
ing gathering places for people. Figure LU-1 shows the location of the Neighborhood Commercial
Centers in Cupertino. The Guiding Principles of sustainability and health in Community Vision 2040
support the retention and enhancement of neighborhood centers throughout the community, and
providing pedestrian and bike connections to them from neighborhoods. Mixed-residential use may
be considered if it promotes revitalization of retail uses, creation of new gathering spaces, and parcel
assembly. Housing Element sites represent the City’s priority for residential development. Residential
uses should be designed on the “mixed-use village” concept discussed in this Element.
165
LU-21
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
2. All mixed-use residential projects should be designed
on the “mixed-use village” concept discussed earlier in
this Element.
3. On sites with a mixed-use residential designation, resi-
dential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites
and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area.
4. Conditional use permits will be required on mixed-use
Housing Element sites that propose units above the
allocation in the Housing Element, and on non-Housing
Element mixed-use sites.
Strategy LU-1.4.2: Public and Quasi-Public Uses. Review
the placement of public and quasi-public activities in lim-
ited areas in mixed-use commercial and office zones when
the following criteria are met:
1. The proposed use is generally in keeping with the goals
for the Planning Area, has similar patterns of traffic,
population or circulation of uses with the area and does
not disrupt the operations of existing uses.
2. The building form is similar to buildings in the area
(commercial or office forms). In commercial areas, the
building should maintain a commercial interface by
providing retail activity, storefront appearance or other
design considerations in keeping with the goals of the
Planning Area.
Policy LU-1.5: Parcel Assembly
Encourage parcel assembly and discourage parcelization
to ensure that infill development meets City standards and
provides adequate buffers to neighborhoods.
Policy LU-1.6: Community Health through Land Use
Promote community health through land use and design.
166
LU-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Community Identity
The City will seek to promote community identity and
design consistency through the development review pro-
cess and infrastructure master plans.
Policy LU-2.1: Gateways
Implement a gateway plan for the city’s entry points (Figure
LU-2) and identify locations and design guidelines for gate-
way features. Look for opportunities to reflect the gateway
concept when properties adjacent to defined gateways are
redeveloped.
Policy LU-2.2: Pedestrian-Oriented Public Spaces
Require developments to incorporate pedestrian-scaled
elements along the street and within the development such
as parks, plazas, active uses along the street, active uses,
entries, outdoor dining and public art.
GOAL LU-2
ENSURE THAT BUILDINGS,
SIDEWALKS, STREETS AND PUBLIC
SPACES ARE COORDINATED TO
ENHANCE COMMUNITY IDENTITY
AND CHARACTER
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
LL
I
NG
RD
De
AN
ZA
BL
VD
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
LF
E
RD
PRUNERIDGE AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
AN
EY
AV
E
M
I
L
L
E
R
AV
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
RO
AD
PROSPECTROAD
85
280
TANTAU AVE
Figure LU-2: Gateways
167
LU-23
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site and Building Design
The City will seek to ensure that the site and building
design of new projects enhance the public realm (e.g.,
streets, parks, plazas and open space areas) and that there
is a focus on integrating connections to adjacent neighbor-
hoods, where appropriate.
Policy LU-3.1: Site Planning
Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to cre-
ate a network of connected internal streets that improve
pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space
and building layouts that support city goals related to
streetscape character for various Planning Areas and
corridors.
Policy LU-3.2: Building Heights and Setback Ratios
Maximum heights and setback ratios are specified in Figure
LU-1. As indicated in the figure, taller heights are focused
on major corridors, gateways and nodes. Setback ratios are
established to ensure that the desired relationship of build-
ings to the street is achieved. Where additional heights
above the base height are allowed, the Community Benefits
Program provides direction on requirements and the pro-
cess of how additional height may be allocated.
GOAL LU-3
ENSURE THAT PROJECT SITE
PLANNING AND BUILDING DESIGN
ENHANCE THE PUBLIC REALM
AND INTEGRATE WITH ADJACENT
NEIGHBORHOODS
168
LU-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-3.3: Building Design
Ensure that building layouts and design are compatible with
the surrounding environment and enhance the streetscape
and pedestrian activity.
Strategy LU-3.3.1: Attractive Design. Emphasize attrac-
tive building and site design by paying careful attention
to building scale, mass, placement, architecture, materials,
landscaping, screening of equipment, loading areas, sig-
nage and other design considerations.
Strategy LU-3.3.2: Mass and Scale. Ensure that the scale
and interrelationships of new and old development comple-
ment each other. Buildings should be grouped to create a
feeling of spatial unity.
Strategy LU-3.3.3: Transitions. Buildings should be
designed to avoid abrupt transitions with existing devel-
opment, whether they are adjacent or across the street.
Consider reduced heights, buffers and/or landscaping to
transition to residential and/or low-intensity uses in order to
reduce visual and privacy impacts.
Strategy LU-3.3.4: Compatibility. Ensure that the floor
area ratios of multi-family residential developments are
compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. Include a
mix of unit types and avoid excessively large units.
Strategy LU-3.3.5: Building Location. Encourage build-
ing location and entries closer to the street while meeting
appropriate landscaping and setback requirements.
Strategy LU-3.3.6: Architecture and Articulation. Promote
high-quality architecture, appropriate building articulation
and use of special materials and architectural detailing to
enhance visual interest.
Strategy LU-3.3.7: Street Interface. Ensure development
enhances pedestrian activity by providing active uses along
169
LU-25
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
a majority of the building frontage facing the street. Mixed-
use development should include retail, restaurant, outdoor
dining, main entries, etc. Residential development should
include main entrances, lobbies, front stoops and porches,
open space and other similar features.
Strategy LU-3.3.8: Drive-up Services. Allow drive-up
service facilities only when adequate circulation, parking,
noise control, architectural features and landscaping are
compatible with the expectations of the Planning Area, and
when residential areas are visually buffered. Prohibit drive-
up services in areas where pedestrian-oriented activity and
design are highly encouraged, such as Heart of the City,
North De Anza Boulevard, Monta Vista Village and neigh-
borhood centers.
Strategy LU-3.3.9: Specific and Conceptual Plans.
Maintain and update Specific/Conceptual plans and design
guidelines for Special Areas such as Heart of the City,
Crossroads, Homestead Corridor, Vallco Shopping District,
North and South De Anza corridors and Monta Vista
Village.
Strategy LU-3.3.10: Entrances. In multi-family projects
where residential uses may front on streets, require pedes-
trian-scaled elements such as entries, stoops and porches
along the street.
Policy LU-3.4: Parking
In surface lots, parking arrangements should be based on
the successful operation of buildings; however, parking to
the side or rear of buildings is desirable. No visible garages
shall be permitted along the street frontage. Above grade
structures shall not be located along street frontages and
shall be lined with active uses on the ground floor on inter-
nal street frontages. Subsurface/deck parking is allowed
provided it is adequately screened from the street and/or
adjacent residential development.
170
LU-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Streetscape Design
The City will seek to improve streetscapes throughout
Cupertino with attractive landscaping, and complete and
safe sidewalks.
Policy LU-4.1: Street and Sidewalks
Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks and pedestrian
and bicycle amenities are consistent with the vision for each
Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.
Policy LU-4.2: Street Trees and Landscaping
Ensure that tree planting and landscaping along streets
visually enhances the streetscape and is consistent for
the vision for each Planning Area (Special Areas and
Neighborhoods):
1. Maximize street tree planting along arterial street front-
ages between buildings and/or parking lots.
2. Provide enhanced landscaping at the corners of all arte-
rial intersections.
3. Enhance major arterials and connectors with landscaped
medians to enhance their visual character and serve as
traffic calming devices.
4. Develop uniform tree planting plans for arterials, con-
nectors and neighborhood streets consistent with the
vision for the Planning Area.
GOAL LU-4
PROMOTE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER
OF PLANNING AREAS AND
THE GOALS FOR COMMUNITY
CHARACTER, CONNECTIVITY AND
COMPLETE STREETS IN STREETSCAPE
DESIGN
171
LU-27
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
5. Landscape urban areas with formal planting
arrangements.
6. Provide a transition to rural and semi-rural areas in
the city, generally west of Highway 85, with informal
planting.
Connectivity
The City will ensure that employment centers and neighbor-
hoods have access to desired and convenient amenities,
such as local retail and services.
Policy LU-5.1: Neighborhood Centers
Retain and enhance local neighborhood shopping centers
and improve pedestrian and bicycle access to neighbor-
hoods to improve access to goods and services.
Policy LU-5.2: Mixed-Use Villages
Where housing is allowed along major corridors or neigh-
borhood commercial areas, development should promote
mixed-use villages with active ground-floor uses and public
space. The development should help create an inviting
pedestrian environment and activity center that can serve
adjoining neighborhoods and businesses.
GOAL LU-5
ENSURE THAT EMPLOYMENT
CENTERS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
HAVE ACCESS TO LOCAL RETAIL
AND SERVICES WITHIN WALKING OR
BICYCLING DISTANCE
172
LU-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-5.3: Enhance Connections
Look for opportunities to enhance publicly-accessible
pedestrian and bicycle connections with new development
or redevelopment.
Historic Preservation
Cupertino has a rich and varied cultural history; however,
only a few historic buildings and resources are preserved
today. The City seeks to encourage preservation of these
precious historic resources and encourage their enhance-
ment in the future.
Policy LU-6.1: Historic Preservation
Maintain and update an inventory of historically significant
structures and sites in order to protect resources and
promote awareness of the city’s history in the following
four categories: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites,
Community Landmarks and Historic Mention Sites (Figure
LU-5).
Policy LU-6.2: Historic Sites
Projects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of Interior
Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
GOAL LU-6
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE
CITY’S HISTORIC AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES
173
LU-29
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU
AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Hanson Permanente
Monta Vista Neighborhood
Cupertino Historical Museum
Memorial Park, Community Center, Sports Complex
De Anza College
De Anza Industrial Park
Cupertino Civic Center
Vallco Shopping District
Vallco Industrial Park
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
Maryknoll Seminary
Snyder Hammond House
De La Vega Tack House
Baer Blacksmith
Enoch J. Parrish Tank House
Nathan Hall Tank House
Gazebo Trim
Union Church of Cupertino
Old Collins School
Miller House
Glendenning Barn
McClellan Ranch Barn
Seven Springs Ranch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
12 13
13
De Anza Knoll
Doyle Winery
“Cupertino Wine Company”
Stocklmeir Farmhouse
Elisha Stephens Place
Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino
Hazel Goldstone Variety Store
Woelffel Cannery
Engles Grocery “Paul and Eddie’s”
Apple One Building
Baldwin Winery
Le Petit Trianon
and Guest Cottages
Interim City Hall
City of Cupertino Crossroads
St. Joseph’s Church
1
7
8
53
A
I
D H
C
E
F
B
9
10
11
2
4
G
~11/2 Mile
West
6
2
1
3
4
8
12
7
14
2
10
1
114
5
133
9
6
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Historic Sites Commemorative Sites
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Community Landmarks
Montebello School, 1892
Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar,
now part of Ridge Vineyards
Picchetti Brothers Winery and Ranch
Woodhills Estate
1
2
3
4
Sites of Historic Mention
(outside city jurisdicition)
Figure LU-5
Historic Resources
174
LU-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-6.3: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites
and Community Landmarks
Projects on Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and
Community Landmarks shall provide a plaque, reader
board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain
the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall
include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built,
a written description and photograph. The plaque shall
be placed in a location where the public can view the
information.
Policy LU-6.4: Public Access
Coordinate with property owners of public and quasi-public
sites to allow public access of Historic and Commemorative
Sites to foster public awareness and education. Private
property owners will be highly encouraged, but not
required, to provide public access to Historic and
Commemorative Sites.
Policy LU-6.5: Historic Mention Sites
These are sites outside the City’s jurisdiction that have
contributed to the City’s history. Work with agencies that
have jurisdiction over the historical resource to encourage
adaptive reuse and rehabilitation and provide public access
and plaques to foster public awareness and education.
Policy LU-6.6: Incentives for Preservation of Historic
Resources
Utilize a variety of techniques to serve as incentives to fos-
ter the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Resources
including:
1. Allow flexible interpretation of the zoning ordinance
not essential to public health and safety. This could
175
LU-31
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
include land use, parking requirements and/or setback
requirements.
2. Use the California Historical Building Codes standards
for rehabilitation of historic structures.
3. Tax rebates (Milles Act or Local tax rebates).
4. Financial incentives such as grants/loans to assist reha-
bilitation efforts.
Policy LU-6.7: Heritage Trees
Protect and maintain the city’s heritage trees in a healthy
state.
Strategy LU-6.7.1: Heritage Tree List. Establish and
periodically revise a heritage tree list that includes trees of
importance to the community.
Policy LU-6.8: Cultural Resources
Promote education related to the city’s history through
public art in public and private developments.
176
LU-32
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Snyder Hammond House
22961 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Old Collins School
20441 Homestead Road -
Cupertino De Oro Club
Maryknoll Seminary
2300 Cristo Rey Drive
Glendenning Barn
10955 N Tantau Avenue –
Hewlett Packard
Baer Blacksmith 22221
McClellan Road – McClellan
Ranch Park
Gazebo Trim
Mary & Stevens Creek Blvd. –
Memorial Park
Nathan Hall Tank House
22100 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Enoch J. Parrish Tank House
22221 McClellan Road –
McClellan Ranch Park
De La Vega Tack House
Rancho Deep Cliff Club House
Union Church of Cupertino
20900 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Miller House
10518 Phil Place
Historic Sites
McClellan Ranch Barn
22221 McClellan Rd
Seven Springs Ranch
11801 Dorothy Anne Way
177
LU-33
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Commemorative Sites
Elisha Stephens Place
22100 Stevens Creek
Boulevard – Existing Plaque
Doyle Winery
“Cupertino Wine Company”
Visible from McClellan
Ranch Park (no photo
available)
De Anza Knoll
Off of Cristo Rey Drive
Le Petit Trianon and
Guest Cottages
1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard
– Foothill-De Anza
Community College,
Listed on the National Register
of Historic Places
Stocklmeir Farm House
22120 Stevens Creek Road
Woelffel Cannery
10120 Imperial Avenue –
Demolished
St. Josephs Church
10110 North de Anza
Boulevard
Apple One Building
10240 Bubb Road
Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino
21840 McClellan Road –
Monta Vista High School,
State of California Historical
Landmark #800
The Crossroads
Intersection at Stevens Creek
Boulevard and De Anza
Boulevard
Interim City Hall
10321 South De Anza
Boulevard
178
LU-34
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Baldwin Winery
1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard
– Foothill-De Anza
Community College
Engles Grocery
“Paul and Eddie’s”
1619 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Hazel Goldstone Variety Store
21700 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar:
Ridge Vineyards
17100 Montebello Road –
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open
Space District
Woodhills Estate
Cupertino/Saratoga Hills,
End of Prospect Road –
Mid-Peninsula Regional
Open Space District, National
Register of Historic Places
Picchetti Brothers Winery
13100 Montebello Road –
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open
Space District
Montebello School
15101 Montebello Road
Sites of Historic Mention
Commemorative Sites (continued)
179
LU-35
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Arts and Culture
Cupertino history and diversity provides a rich background
for community art and culture. The City seeks to encour-
age support public art and the arts community through
development.
Policy LU-7.1: Public Art
Stimulate opportunities for the arts through develop-
ment and cooperation with agencies and the business
community.
Strategy LU-7.1.1: Public Art Ordinance
Maintain and update an ordinance requiring public art in
public as well as private projects of a certain size.
Strategy LU-7.1.2: Gateways. Promote placement of vis-
ible artwork in gateways to the city.
Strategy LU-7.1.3: Artist Workspace. Encourage the
development of artist workspace, such as live/work units, in
appropriate location in the city.
Note: see the Recreation and Community Services Element
for policies related to programming.
GOAL LU-7
PROMOTE A CIVIC ENVIRONMENT
WHERE THE ARTS EXPRESS AN
INNOVATIVE SPIRIT, CULTURAL
DIVERSITY AND INSPIRE COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
180
LU-36
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Economic Development and Fiscal Stability
The City will seek to identify strategies and programs that
support and retain local businesses, attract new businesses
and investment, and ensure the long-term fiscal health of
the City.
Policy LU-8.1: Fiscal Health
Maintain and improve the City’s long-term fiscal health.
Policy LU-8.2: Land Use
Encourage land uses that generate City revenue.
Strategy LU-8.2.1: Fiscal Impacts. Evaluate fiscal impacts
of converting office/commercial uses residential use, while
ensuring that the city meets regional housing requirements.
Policy LU-8.3: Incentives for Reinvestment
Provide incentives for reinvestment in existing, older com-
mercial areas.
Strategy LU-8.3.1: Mixed-use. Consider mixed-use (office,
commercial, residential) in certain commercial areas to
encourage reinvestment and revitalization of sales-tax
producing uses, when reviewing sites for regional housing
requirements.
Strategy LU-8.3.2: Shared or Reduced Parking. Consider
shared or reduced parking, where appropriate as incentives
to construct new commercial and mixed-use development,
GOAL LU-8
MAINTAIN A FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE
CITY GOVERNMENT THAT PRESERVES
AND ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF
LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS, WORKERS
AND VISITORS
181
LU-37
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
while increasing opportunities for other modes of
transportation.
Strategy LU-8.3.3: Infrastructure and Streetscape
Improvements. Consider infrastructure and streetscape
improvements in areas, such as the Crossroads or South
Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a pedestrian-
oriented area that meets community design goals.
Strategy LU-8.3.4: High Sales-Tax Producing Retail Uses.
Consider locations for high sales-tax producing retail uses
(such as life-style and hybrid commodity-specialty centers)
provided the development is compatible with the surround-
ing area in terms of building scale and traffic.
Policy LU-8.4: Property Acquisition
Maximize revenue from City-owned land and resources, and
ensure that the City’s land acquisition strategy is balanced
with revenues.
Policy LU-8.5: Efficient Operations
Plan land use and design projects to allow the City to main-
tain efficient operations in the delivery of services including,
community centers, parks, roads, and storm drainage, and
other infrastructure.
182
LU-38
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-9.1: Cooperation with Business
Establish and maintain a cooperative relationship with the
business community to support innovation and take advan-
tage of economic development opportunities.
Strategy LU-9.1.1: Economic Development Strategy Plan.
Create and periodically update an Economic Development
Strategy Plan in order to ensure the City’s long-term fiscal
health and stability and to make Cupertino an attractive
place to live, work and play.
Strategy LU-9.1.2: Partnerships. Create partnerships
between the City and other public and private organiza-
tions to promote the development of innovative technology
and businesses in the community and facilitate growth and
infrastructure improvements that benefits residents and
businesses.
Strategy LU-9.1.3: Economic Development and Business
Retention. Encourage new businesses and retain existing
businesses that provide local shopping and services, add
to municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality and
enhance the City’s physical environment.
Strategy LU-9.1.4: Regulations. Periodically review and
update land use and zoning requirements for retail, com-
mercial and office development in order to attract high-
quality sales-tax producing businesses and services, while
adapting to the fast-changing retail, commercial and office
environment.
GOAL LU-9
PROMOTE A STRONG LOCAL
ECONOMY THAT ATTRACTS AND
RETAINS A VARIETY OF BUSINESSES
183
LU-39
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-9.1.5: Incubator Work Space. Encourage
the development of flexible and affordable incubator work
space for start-ups and new and emerging technologies.
Strategy LU-9.1.6: Development Review. Provide efficient
and timely review of development proposals, while main-
taining quality standards in accordance with city codes.
Look for a solution-based approach to problems while
being responsive to community concerns and promote
positive communication among parties.
Policy LU-9.2: Work Environment
Encourage the design of projects to take into account the
well-being and health of employees and the fast-changing
work environment.
Strategy LU-9.2.1: Local Amenities. Encourage office
development to locate in areas where workers can walk or
bike to services such as shopping and restaurants, and to
provide walking and bicycling connections to services.
Strategy LU-9.2.2: Workplace Policies. Encourage public
and private employers to provide workplace policies that
enhance and improve the health and well-being of their
employees.
184
LU-40
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Regional Cooperation and Coordination
The City will work with regional agencies to coordinate with
regional plans and address community priorities by partici-
pating in the planning process.
Policy LU-10.1: Regional Decisions
Coordinate with regional and local agencies on planning,
transportation, economic development and sustainability
issues to ensure that the decisions improve fiscal health and
the quality of life for Cupertino residents and businesses.
Policy LU-10.2: Regional Planning Coordination
Review regional planning documents prior to making deci-
sions at the local level.
Policy LU-10.3: Neighboring Jurisdictions
Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions on issues of
mutual interest.
Policy LU-10.4: Urban Service Area
Work with neighboring jurisdictions to create boundaries
that are defined by logical municipal service areas.
Strategy LU-10.4.1: Tax-sharing agreements. Consider
entering into tax-sharing agreements with adjacent jurisdic-
tions in order to facilitate desired boundary realignments.
GOAL LU-10
PROMOTE EFFECTIVE
COORDINATION WITH REGIONAL
AND LOCAL AGENCIES ON
PLANNING ISSUES
185
LU-41
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-10.5: Annexation
Actively pursue the annexation of unincorporated proper-
ties within the City’s urban service area, including the
Creston neighborhoods, which will be annexed on a parcel-
by-parcel basis with new development. Other remaining
unincorporated islands will be annexed as determined by
the City Council.
Access to Community Facilities and Services
The City will seek to improve connectivity and access to
public facilities and services, including De Anza College.
Policy LU-11.1: Connectivity
Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new
developments and community facilities. Review existing
neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for
students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and community
facilities such as the library.
Policy LU-11.2: De Anza College
Allow land uses not traditionally considered part of a col-
lege to be built at De Anza College, provided such uses
integrate the campus into the community, provide facilities
and services not offered in the City and/or alleviate impacts
created by the college.
GOAL LU-11
MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE
COMMUNITY ACCESS TO LIBRARY
AND SCHOOL SERVICES PROVIDED
BY OTHER AGENCIES
186
LU-42
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Hillsides
The City seeks to establish clear hillside policy in order
to provide for the realistic use of privately-owned hillside
lands, while preserving natural and aesthetic features.
Policy LU-12.1: Land Use Regulations
Establish and maintain building and development standards
for hillsides that ensure hillside protection.
Strategy LU-12.1.1: Ordinance and development review.
Through building regulations and development review, limit
development on ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and
steep slopes. Control colors and materials and minimize
the illumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce visible building
mass with measures including, stepping structures down the
hillside, following natural contours, and limiting the height
and mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor.
Strategy LU-12.1.2: Slope-density formula. Apply a slope-
density formula to very low intensity residential develop-
ment in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on
the foothill modified, foothill modified ½ acre and the 5-20
acre slope density formula. Actual lot sizes and develop-
ment areas will be determined through zoning ordinances,
clustering and identification of significant natural features
and geological constraints.
Strategy LU-12.1.3: 1976 General Plan-Previously des-
ignated Very Low Density: Semi-Rural 5-acre. Properties
previously designated Very Low-Density Residential: Semi-
Rural 5-acre per the 1976 General Plan may be subdivided
GOAL LU-12
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE CITY’S
HILLSIDE NATURAL HABITAT AND
AESTHETIC VALUES
187
LU-43
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
utilizing that formula. Properties that have already been
since subdivided in conformance with the above designa-
tion have no further subdivision potential for residential
purposes.
Strategy LU-12.1.4: Existing lots in Foothill Modified and
Foothill Modified 1/2–acre Slope density designations.
Require discretionary review with a hillside exception for
hillside or R1 properties if development is proposed on
substandard parcels on slopes per the R1 and RHS zoning.
Policy LU-12.2: Clustering Subdivisions
Cluster lots in major subdivisions and encourage clustering
in minor subdivisions, for projects in the 5-20-acre slope
density designation. Reserve 90 percent of the land in
private open space to protect the unique characteristics of
the hillsides from adverse environmental impacts. Keep the
open space areas contiguous as much as possible.
Policy LU-12.3: Rural Improvement Standards in
Hillside Areas
Require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to
preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Improvement
standards should balance the need to furnish adequate util-
ity and emergency services against the
Strategy LU-12.3.1: Grading. Follow natural land contours
and avoid mass of grading of sites during construction,
especially in flood hazard or geologically sensitive areas.
Grading hillside sites into large, flat areas shall be avoided.
Strategy LU-12.3.2: Roads. Roads should be narrowed to
avoid harming trees and streambeds.
Strategy LU-12.3.3: Trees. Retain significant specimen
trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters and
integrate them into the developed site.
188
LU-44
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-12.4: Hillside Views
The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundary
of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop, adding to the
City’s scale and variety. While it is not possible to guarantee
an unobstructed view of the hills from every vantage point,
an attempt should be made to allow views of the foothills
from public gathering places.
Strategy LU-12.4.1: Views from Public Facilities. Design
public facilities, particularly open spaces, so they include
views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and
plan hillside developments to minimize visual and other
impacts on adjacent public open space.
Strategy LU-12.4.2: Developments near Public Space.
Located private driveways and building sites as far as pos-
sible from property boundaries adjoining public open space
preserves and parks to enhance the natural open space
character and protect plant and animal habitat.
Policy LU-12.5: Development in the County
Jurisdiction
Development in the County, particularly if located near
Cupertino’s hillsides and urban fringe area, should consider
the goals and policies in Community Vision 2040.
Strategy LU-12.5.1: County Development. Development
in these areas should be compatible with Cupertino’s
hillside policies of low-intensity residential, agricultural or
open space uses. Preservation of the natural environment,
clustering sites to minimize impact and dedication of open
space are encouraged. Visual impacts, access, traffic and
other impacts, and service demands should be assessed in
consultation with Cupertino’s goals and policies.
189
LU-45
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
PLANNING AREA GOALS AND POLICIES
As outlined in the Planning Areas chapter, Community
Vision 2040 organizes the city into 21 distinct Planning
Areas, divided into two categories: (1) Special Areas that
are expected to transition over the life of the General Plan
and (2) Neighborhoods where future changes are expected
to be minimal. The following goals, policies and strategies
are specific to the Planning Areas and provide guidance
for future change in accordance with the community vision.
Figure LU-1 shows maximum heights and residential densi-
ties allowed in each Special Area.
The City Council may grant height increases
above the maximum base height standard
in certain areas if a project includes
community benefits
190
LU-46
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Special Areas
Special Areas are located along major mixed-use corridors
and nodes that have access to a variety of different forms
of transportation. Future growth in Cupertino will be
focused in these areas to manage growth while minimizing
traffic, greenhouse gas and health impacts on the com-
munity. The discussion for each Special Area outlines goals,
policies and strategies related to land use, building form,
streetscape, connectivity, open space, landscaping, and the
urban/rural ecosystem in order to help implement the com-
munity vision for these areas.
191
LU-47
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Heart of the City Special Area
The Heart of the City will remain the core commercial cor-
ridor in Cupertino, with a series of commercial and mixed-
use centers and a focus on creating a walkable, bikeable
boulevard that can support transit. General goals, policies
and strategies will apply throughout the entire area; while
more specific goals, policies and strategies for each sub-
area are designed to address their individual settings and
characteristics.
Policy LU-13.1: Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides design stan-
dards and guidelines for this area, which promote a cohe-
sive, landscaped boulevard that links its distinct sub-areas
and is accessible to all modes of transportation.
Policy LU-13.2: Redevelopment
Encourage older properties along the boulevard to be
redeveloped and enhanced. Allow more intense develop-
ment only in nodes and gateways as indicated in the
Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1).
GOAL LU-13
ENSURE A COHESIVE, LANDSCAPED
BOULEVARD THAT SUPPORTS ALL
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION,
LINKS ITS DISTINCT AND ACTIVE
COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE
SUB-AREAS AND NODES, AND
CREATES A HIGH-QUALITY, DISTINCT
COMMUNITY IMAGE AND A VIBRANT
HEART FOR CUPERTINO
192
LU-48
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-13.3: Parcel Assembly
Encourage the assembly of parcels to foster new develop-
ment projects that can provide high-quality development
with adequate buffers for neighborhoods.
Policy LU-13.4: Neighborhood Centers and Activity
Areas
A majority of the commercial development allocation
should be devoted to rehabilitating neighborhood cen-
ters and major activity centers with a focus on creating
pedestrian-oriented, walkable and bikeable areas with invit-
ing community gathering places. Land uses between the
activity centers should help focus and support activity in the
centers. Neighborhood centers should be retrofitted and
redeveloped using the “neighborhood concept” discussed
earlier in this Element.
Policy LU-13.5: Land Use
The Heart of the City area allows a mix of retail, commer-
cial, office and residential uses. Specific uses are provided
in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. See Figure LU-1 for
residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-13.6: Building Form
Buildings should be high-quality, with pedestrian-oriented
and active uses along the street.
Policy LU-13.7: Streetscape and Connectivity
Create a walkable and bikeable boulevard with active uses
and a distinct image for each subarea.
Strategy LU-13.7.1: Streetscape. Provide active uses
along the street frontage, bike lanes, sidewalks that support
pedestrian-oriented activity, improved pedestrian crossings
at street intersections, and attractive transit facilities (e.g.,
bus stops, benches, etc.).
193
LU-49
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-13.7.2: Street trees and landscaping. Create
a cohesive visual image with street tree plantings along the
corridor, but with distinct tree types for each sub-area to
support its distinct character and function.
Strategy LU-13.7.3: Connectivity. Properties with a block
should be inter-connected with shared access drives.
Provide pedestrian paths to enhance public access to and
through the development. New development, particularly
on corner lots, should provide pedestrian and bicycle
improvements along side streets to enhance connections to
surrounding neighborhoods.
Strategy LU-13.7.4: Traffic calming. Evaluate options
on Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve the pedestrian
environment by proactively managing speed limits, enforce-
ment, and traffic signal synchronization.
Policy LU-13.7: Neighborhood buffers.
Consider buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or
building transitions to buffer abutting single-family residen-
tial areas from visual and noise impacts.
West Stevens Creek Boulevard Subarea
Policy LU-14.1: Land Use
Primary land uses include quasi-public/public facilities, with
supporting mixed commercial/residential uses.
GOAL LU-14
CREATE A PUBLIC AND CIVIC
GATEWAY SUPPORTED BY MIXED-
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
USES
194
LU-50
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-14.2: Streetscape
Street tree planting that supports an active, pedestrian-
oriented environment. Street tree planting should provide
a connection with the adjacent foothills with trees such as
oaks.
Policy LU-14.3: Gateway Concept
Buildings should be high-quality in keeping with the
gateway character of the area. Projects should provide or
contribute towards gateway signs and landscaping.
Policy LU-14.4: De Anza College Node
Buildings should be designed to fit into the surroundings
with pedestrian-orientation. Externalizing activities by
providing cafeterias, bookstores and plazas along the street
and near corners is encouraged.
Policy LU-14.5: Oaks Gateway Node
This is a gateway retail and shopping node. New residen-
tial and office uses, if allowed, should be designed on
the “mixed-use village” concept discussed earlier in this
Element.
Policy LU-14.6: Community Recreation Node
Contribute to the high-quality streetscape with trees,
sidewalks, building and site design, and active uses such as
main entries, lobbies or similar features along the street to
reinforce pedestrian orientation.
195
LU-51
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Crossroads Subarea
Policy LU-15.1: Crossroads Streetscape Plan
Create a streetscape plan for the Crossroads Subarea that
provides design standards and guidelines for an attractive,
walkable, vibrant shopping village, where commercial and
roadway design encourage pedestrian activity. The plan will
include the following elements:
1. Land use plan specifying the type, intensity and
arrangement of land uses to promote pedestrian and
business activity.
2. Streetscape plan that provides for an attractive pedes-
trian streetscape.
3. Design guidelines that foster pedestrian activity and a
sense of place.
Strategy LU-15.1.1: Uses. Include in this subarea pri-
mary uses such as retail, office and commercial. Ground
floor uses shall have active retail uses with storefronts.
Commercial office and office uses may be allowed on upper
levels. In the case of deep lots, buildings along the street
should provide retail and buildings in the back may be
developed with allowed uses. See Figure LU-1 for residen-
tial densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-15
CREATE AN ACTIVE, PEDESTRIAN-
ORIENTED SHOPPING DISTRICT WITH
VIBRANT RETAIL USES AND ENTRIES
ALONG THE STREET, OUTDOOR
DINING AND PLAZAS OR PUBLIC
GATHERING SPACES
196
LU-52
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-15.1.2: Streetscape. Primary ground-floor
entrances shall face the street. The streetscape shall consist
of wide pedestrians sidewalks with inviting street furniture,
street trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting with banners, small
plazas, art/water features, pedestrian crosswalks with special
paving, and other elements identified in the Crossroads
Streetscape Plan.
Strategy LU-15.1.3: Building form. Buildings should be
moderately-scaled with high-quality, pedestrian-oriented
scaled, active uses along the street. Buildings in the
North Crossroads node may have taller heights per the
Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1).
Strategy LU-15.1.4: Shared parking. Require shared park-
ing and access arrangements throughout the area, with
overall parking standards reflecting the shared parking.
Strategy LU-15.1.5: De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek
Boulevard landmark. Secure landscape easements from
properties at the intersection of De Anza Stevens Creek
Boulevards for construction of a future landmark. The
landmark may include open space, landscaping and other
design elements at the corners. Land at the southeast cor-
ner will remain a publicly accessible park.
197
LU-53
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
City Center Subarea
Policy LU-16.1: City Center Node
Establish the City Center Node as a moderately-scaled,
medium-density mixed-use office, hotel, retail and residen-
tial area, with an integrated network of streets and open
space.
Strategy LU-16.1.1: Uses. A mix of uses including, office,
hotel, retail, residential and civic uses. The ground floor
of buildings along the street should be activated with
pedestrian-oriented, active uses including retail, restaurants,
and entries. See Figure LU-1 for residential densities and
criteria.
Strategy LU-16.1.2: Connectivity. New development
should improve the connectivity within the block and
with surrounding streets, including connections to the
Crossroads Subarea.
Strategy LU-16.1.3: Building form. Buildings should be
moderately-scaled to transition from existing taller buildings
to the scale of the surrounding area. Additional heights may
be approved in specific areas by the City Council as part of
the Community Benefits Program and per heights allowed
in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1). Taller build-
ings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the
surrounding area.
GOAL LU-16
MAINTAIN A MIXED-USE AND CIVIC
DISTRICT THAT WILL ENHANCE
COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND ACTIVITY,
AND SUPPORT THE CROSSROADS
SUBAREA
198
LU-54
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-16.1.4: Gateway concept. Buildings should
be designed with high-quality architecture and landscaping
befitting the gateway character of the site.
Strategy LU-16.1.5: Open space. A publicly-accessible
park shall be retained at the southeast corner of Stevens
Creek and De Anza Boulevard and shall include public art,
seating areas and plazas for retail and restaurant uses along
the ground floor of adjacent buildings.
Policy LU-16.2: Civic Center Node
Create a civic heart for Cupertino that enables community
building by providing community facilities, meeting and
gathering spaces, public art, and space for recreation and
community events.
Central Stevens Creek Boulevard Subarea
Policy LU-17.1: Land Use
Allow a mix of uses including commercial, retail, com-
mercial office and limited residential uses. The ground
floor of buildings along the street should be activated with
pedestrian-oriented, active uses including retail, restaurants,
entries, etc. Neighborhood centers shall be remodeled
or redeveloped using the “neighborhood center” format
described earlier in this Element. See Figure LU-1 for resi-
dential densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-17
RETAIN AND ENHANCE AS A
WALKABLE, BIKEABLE, COMMERCIAL
MIXED-USE BOULEVARD WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, OFFICE
AND LIMITED RESIDENTIAL USES
199
LU-55
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
East Stevens Creek Boulevard Subarea
Policy LU-18.1: Land Use
Allow regional commercial with retail, commercial, office
and hotels as the primary uses, with residential mixed-use
as a supporting use. Retail, restaurant and other actives
uses are highly encouraged on the ground floor facing
the street. In case of office complexes, active uses such
as entries, lobbies or plazas should be provided on the
ground floor along the street. Neighborhood centers shall
be remodeled or redeveloped using the “neighborhood
center” format described earlier in this Element. See Figure
LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-18.2 South Vallco
Retain and enhance the South Vallco area as a mixed-use
retail, office and residential district with a pedestrian-
oriented, downtown atmosphere.
Strategy LU-18.2.1: Uses. Encourage a mix of retail,
commercial, office, residential and hotel uses. Provide
active retail uses on the ground floor facing the street or
outdoor pedestrian corridor with connections to adjacent
development. Office sites to the north of Vallco Parkway are
encouraged to provide retail uses. However, if retail is not
provided, office sites should provide entries and active uses
along the street frontage.
GOAL LU-18
CREATE A WALKABLE, BIKEABLE
MIXED-USE BOULEVARD WITH
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED REGIONAL
AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,
RETAIL, HOTEL AND OFFICE USES
200
LU-56
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-18.2.2: Vallco Parkway. Vallco Parkway is
envisioned as a parkway with bike lanes, wide sidewalks,
street-trees and on-street parking. The street will connect to
a future street grid in the Vallco Shopping District.
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the exist-
ing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town
center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the
community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become
a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the
Santa Clara Valley.
Policy LU-19.1: Specific Plan
Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan prior to any
development on the site that lays out the land uses, design
standards and guidelines, and infrastructure improvements
required. The Specific Plan will be based on the following
strategies:
Strategy LU-19.1.1: Master Developer. Redevelopment
will require a master developer in order remove the
obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the
highest levels of urban design.
Strategy LU-19.1.2: Parcel assembly. Parcel assembly and
a plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required
prior to adding residential and office uses. Parcelization is
highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevel-
opment in the future.
GOAL LU-19
CREATE A DISTINCT AND
MEMORABLE MIXED-USE “TOWN
CENTER” THAT IS A REGIONAL
DESTINATION AND A FOCAL POINT
FOR THE COMMUNITY
201
LU-57
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The
“town center” plan should be based on complete redevel-
opment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be
planned to carry out the community vision.
Strategy LU-19.1.4: Land use. The following uses are
allowed on the site (see Figure LU-1 for residential densi-
ties and criteria):
1. Retail: High-performing retail, restaurant and entertain-
ment uses. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 square feet
of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the
City. Entertainment uses may be included but shall con-
sist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses.
2. Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference
center and active uses including main entrances, lob-
bies, retail and restaurants on the ground floor.
3. Residential: Allow residential on upper floors with retail
and active uses on the ground floor. Encourage a mix
of units for young professionals, couples and/or active
seniors who like to live in an active “town center”
environment.
4. Office: Encourage high-quality office space arranged
in a pedestrian-oriented street grid with active uses on
the ground floor, publicly-accessible streets and plazas/
green space.
Strategy LU-19.1.5: “Town Center” layout. Create streets
and blocks laid out using “transect planning” (appropriate
street and building types for each area), which includes a
discernible center and edges, public space at center, high
quality public realm, and land uses appropriate to the street
and building typology.
Strategy LU-19.1.6: Connectivity. Provide a newly config-
ured complete street grid hierarchy of streets, boulevards
202
LU-58
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
and alleys that is pedestrian-oriented, connects to existing
streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings
and open space. It should also incorporate transit facilities,
provide connections to other transit nodes and coordinate
with the potential expansion of Wolfe Road bridge over
Interstate 280 to continue the walkable, bikeable boulevard
concept along Wolfe Road. The project should also con-
tribute towards a study and improvements to a potential
Interstate 280 trail along the drainage channel south of the
freeway and provide pedestrian and bicycle connections
from the project sites to the trail.
Strategy LU-19.1.7: Existing streets. Improve Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike and
pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street
trees, improved pedestrian intersections to accommodate
the connections to Rosebowl and Main Street.
Strategy LU-19.1.8: Open space. Open space in the form
of a central town square on the west and east sides of the
district interspersed with plazas and “greens” that create
community gathering spaces, locations for public art, and
event space for community events.
Strategy LU-19.1.9: Building form. Buildings should have
high-quality architecture, and an emphasis on aesthet-
ics, human scale, and create a sense of place. Additional
heights may be approved in specific areas by the City
Council as part of the Community Benefits Program and per
heights allowed in the Community Form Diagram (Figure
LU-1). Taller buildings should provide appropriate transi-
tions to fit into the surrounding area.
Strategy LU-19.1.10: Gateway character. High-quality
buildings with architecture and materials befitting the
gateway character of the site. The project should provide
gateway signage and treatment.
203
LU-59
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-19.1.11: Phasing plan. A phasing plan that
lays out the timing of infrastructure, open space and land
use improvements that ensures that elements desired by
the community are included in early phases.
Strategy LU-19.1.12: Parking. Parking in surface lots shall
be located to the side or rear of buildings. Underground
parking beneath buildings is preferred. Above grade
structures shall not be located along major street frontages.
In cases, where above-grade structures are allowed along
internal street frontages, they shall be lined with retail,
entries and active uses on the ground floor. All parking
structures should be designed to be architecturally compat-
ible with a high-quality “town center” environment.
Strategy LU-19.1.13: Trees. Retain trees along the
Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to
the extent feasible, when new development are proposed.
Strategy LU-19.1.14: Neighborhood buffers. Consider
buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or building tran-
sitions to buffer abutting single-family residential areas from
visual and noise impacts.
204
LU-60
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North Vallco Park Special Area
The North Vallco Park Special Area is envisioned to become
a sustainable, office and campus environment surrounded
by a mix of connected, high-quality, pedestrian-oriented
retail, hotels and residential uses. Taller buildings could be
built at gateway nodes close to Interstate 280.
Policy LU-20.1: Land Use
This area is a major employment node with office, and
research and development uses. Retail and hotel uses are
allowed on the west side of Wolfe Road. Redevelopment of
the retail site at the corner of Wolfe and Homestead Roads
should be based on the neighborhood center concept.
Retail uses are not required on the Hamptons site. See
Figure LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-20.2: Streetscape and Connectivity
Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road, Homestead
Road and Tantau Avenue should be coordinated with
planned improvements to improve pedestrian, bike and
transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance
the pedestrian environment with street trees, attractive
bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should
provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street.
Future improvements to the Wolfe Road bridge should be
coordinated to preserve the vision for this area.
GOAL LU-20
SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS
ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SERVED BY
A MIX OF PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED
RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL USES
IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT
205
LU-61
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-20.3: Building Form
Buildings in the retail and hotel area should provide active,
pedestrian-oriented uses along the street. Buildings should
transition to fit the scale of the surrounding area. Additional
heights may be approved in specific areas by the City
Council as part of the Community Benefits Program and per
heights allowed in the Community Form Diagram (Figure
LU-1). Taller buildings should provide appropriate transi-
tions to fit into the surrounding area. In addition to the
height limits established in the Community Form Diagram,
buildings abutting the campus shall incorporate appropriate
setbacks, landscaped buffering, and building height transi-
tions to minimize privacy and security impacts.
Policy LU-20.4: Community Amenities
Pedestrian-oriented retail and hotel development will
support a diverse population of workers and residents in
the area. Trail routes, and alternate trail routes to address
security and privacy concerns of major employers, shall be
developed to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections
to other destinations.
Policy LU-20.5: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high qual-
ity and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into
Cupertino from Interstate 280 and points north. The project
should provide gateway signage and treatment.
Policy LU-20.6: Neighborhood Buffers
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
206
LU-62
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North De Anza Special Area
The North De Anza Special Area is expected to remain
an employment node. Its designation as a Priority
Development Area (PDA) and the availability of restaurants
and services in the Heart of the City Special Area opens
opportunities to locate higher density office uses along the
corridor with connections to Stevens Creek Boulevard in a
pedestrian and bicycle-oriented format. The streets in this
area are envisioned to work as a walkable, bikeable grid
that enhance connections for school children and residents
from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson Middle
School and other services on the east side.
Policy LU-21.1: Conceptual Plan
Amend the North De Anza Conceptual Plan to create a
cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and
guidelines for the North De Anza area.
Policy LU-21.2: Land Use
Primarily office, and research and development uses supple-
mented with limited commercial and residential uses. See
Figure LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-21.3: Streetscape and Connectivity
North De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable bou-
levard with wide sidewalks with street trees and roadway
GOAL LU-21
MAINTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT NODE
SERVED BY A MIX OF PEDESTRIAN-
ORIENTED RETAIL, COMMERCIAL
AND HOTEL USES IN A WALKABLE
AND BIKEABLE ENVIRONMENT
207
LU-63
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedes-
trian crossings are also envisioned along other streets in this
area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements
will also improve school routes from the Garden Gate
neighborhood to Lawson school to the east and provide
access to transit routes.
Policy LU-21.4: Building Design
Locate buildings along the street with parking areas to the
rear. Break up massing of large office buildings along the
street with pedestrian scaled elements and locate building
entries and active uses along the street frontage to improve
the pedestrian character of the area. Mixed-use buildings
should include entries, active uses and gathering spaces
along the street.
Policy LU-21.5: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high qual-
ity and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into
Cupertino from Interstate 280 and points north.
Policy LU-21.6: Neighborhood Buffer
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
208
LU-64
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
South De Anza Special Area
The South De Anza Special Area will remain a predominant-
ly general commercial area with supporting existing mixed
residential uses with neighborhood centers providing ser-
vices to neighborhoods and nodes. The policies in this area
are intended to encourage parcel assembly to resolve the
fragmented and narrow lot pattern, promote active retail
and service uses, bike and pedestrian friendly improve-
ments, and connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods.
Policy LU-22-1: Conceptual Plan
Create a conceptual plan that combines the existing South
De Anza and Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Plans to cre-
ate a cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations
and guidelines for the South De Anza area.
Policy LU-22.2: Land Use
General commercial and retail uses with limited commercial
office, office and residential uses. Neighborhood centers
should be redeveloped in the “neighborhood center”
format discussed in this Element. See Figure LU-1 for resi-
dential densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-22
MAINTAIN A COMMERCIAL
BOULEVARD WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, COMMERCIAL OFFICE
AND RESIDENTIAL USES THAT
PROVIDE SERVICES AND GATHERING
SPACES FOR THE COMMUNITY
IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT
209
LU-65
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-22.3: Parcel Assembly
Highly encourage assembly of parcels to resolve the frag-
mented and narrow lot pattern and encourage high-quality
development with adequate buffers for neighborhoods.
Policy LU-22.4: Streetscape and Connectivity
South De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable boule-
vard with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements
for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Side streets are also
envisioned with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to
ensure walkable connections from adjacent neighborhoods.
Policy LU-22.5: Shared Access
Since South De Anza is a heavily traveled route, proper-
ties in the same block should be connected with auto and
pedestrian access through shared access easements to
reduce impacts on the corridor.
Policy LU-22.6: Building Design
Located buildings and commercial pads along the street
with parking areas to the side and rear. Provide pedestrian-
scaled elements and active uses including retail, restaurants,
and entries along the street. Outdoor plaza and activity
areas can be located along the street with sidewalk and
street trees to buffer them from through traffic.
Policy LU-22.7: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high qual-
ity and reflect the fact that this area has gateways from
Highway 85 and at the southern and eastern borders of
Cupertino.
210
LU-66
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-22.8: Neighborhood Buffer
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
Homestead Special Area
The Homestead Special Area will continue to be a predomi-
nantly mixed-use retail commercial area with residential
uses and neighborhood centers providing services to
local residents. Bike and pedestrian improvements to the
roadways in this area will provide better connections for
residents and workers to access services. Tree-lined streets
and sidewalks will provide an inviting environment and will
link existing and new uses.
Policy LU-23.1: Conceptual Plan
Create a conceptual plan for the Homestead cor-
ridor Special Area with a cohesive set of land use and
streetscape regulations and guidelines for the South De
Anza area.
GOAL LU-23
RETAIN A COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL BOULEVARD
THAT FORMS A GATEWAY INTO
CUPERTINO WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, COMMERCIAL OFFICE
AND RESIDENTIAL USES THAT
PROVIDE SERVICES AND GATHERING
SPACES FOR THE COMMUNITY
IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT
211
LU-67
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-23.2: Land Use
Primarily retail, commercial and residential uses, with some
limited quasi-public use. Redevelopment of neighborhood
centers should be based on the “neighborhood center”
concept discussed earlier in this element. See Figure LU-1
for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-23.3: Connectivity
Homestead Road is envisioned to become a boulevard with
bike and pedestrian improvements and new bicycle and
pedestrian crossings at De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue,
Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue. This will provide better
access for people moving east/west through the city north
of Interstate 280, linking neighborhoods in the western
part of the city with Homestead High School, Homestead
Square Shopping Center and Apple Campus 2 to the east.
Policy LU-23.4: Building Design
Buildings will be located closer to the street with parking
mostly to the side and rear. In the case of larger sites,
large buildings may be placed behind parking; however a
substantial portion of the front of the site should be lined
with active uses such as retail/restaurant pads, and plazas.
Buildings should include pedestrian-oriented elements with
entries, retail, lobbies, and active uses along the street.
Parking areas along the street will be screened with street
trees. Residential buildings will provide stoops and porches
along the street and side streets. Additional heights may
be approved in specific areas by the City Council as part of
the Community Benefits Program and per heights allowed
in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1). Taller build-
ings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the
surrounding area.
212
LU-68
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-23.5: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high quality
and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into the
northern part of Cupertino.
Policy LU-23.6: Neighborhood Buffer
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
Bubb Road Special Area
The Bubb Road Special Area is envisioned to become a
tree-lined avenue that is bike and pedestrian friendly with
an improved public and internal street grid, since it is a
well-traveled route by school children from the northern
and eastern sections of the city to the tri-school area to the
south, and increased foot traffic from workers in the area.
Policy LU-24.1: Land Use
Allowed uses in the Bubb Road Special Area will consist of
those described in the ML-RC ordinance with limited com-
mercial and residential uses.
GOAL LU-24
MAINTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT AREA
WITH LIGHT-INDUSTRIAL, AND
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
USES IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT THAT CONNECTS
TO SURROUNDING NODES AND
SERVICES
213
LU-69
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-24.2: Streetscape and Connectivity
Bubb Road is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable corridor
with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for
bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike
improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also
envisioned along other streets in this area to create an
interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve
routes from the northern and eastern neighborhood to
the tri-school area, parks and services and reduce impacts
caused by to school and employment traffic.
Policy LU-24.3: Building and Site Design
Locate buildings along the street with parking areas to the
rear. Break up massing of large office buildings along the
street with pedestrian-scaled elements and locate building
entries and active uses along the street frontage to improve
the pedestrian character of the area.
Policy LU-24.4: Compatibility of Use
The compatibility of non-industrial uses with industrial uses
must be considered when reviewing new development.
Policy LU-24.5: Neighborhood Buffers
New industrial uses should provide building transitions,
setbacks and landscaping to provide a buffer for adjoining
low-intensity residential uses.
214
LU-70
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Monta Vista Village
The Monta Vista Village Special Area is envisioned to be
retained as a small town, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
area within Cupertino. As incremental change occurs, the
City will identify opportunities to enhance the areas uses
that are consistent with the small town character.
Policy LU-25.1: Conceptual Plan
Continue to govern Monta Vista’s commercial area through
the Monta Vista Design Guidelines. The guidelines provide
direction for architecture, landscaping and public improve-
ments. Create a Monta Vista Village Conceptual Plan to
with a cohesive set of updated regulations and guidelines
for this area.
Policy LU-25.2: Land Use
Encourage the commercial district to serve as a neighbor-
hood commercial center for Monta Vista Village and its
adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed-use with residential is
encouraged. The industrial area should be retained to
provide small-scale light industrial and service industrial
opportunities, while remaining compatible with the sur-
rounding residential and commercial uses. See Figure LU-1
for residential densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-25
RETAIN AND ENHANCE MONTA VISTA
VILLAGE’S SMALL TOWN CHARACTER
AS A PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED, SMALL
SCALE, MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL AREA
215
LU-71
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-25.3: Building and Site Design
Encourage buildings to be designed in a way that promotes
the small-scale, older and mixed-use character of the
area. Buildings should be located along the street with
pedestrian-scale architecture and retail and active uses on
the ground floor. Parking should be located to the rear.
Strategy LU-25.3.1: Storefront appearance. Commercial
and office buildings shall include a storefront appearance to
the public street, and shall not be separated from the pub-
lic sidewalk by extensive landscaping or changes in eleva-
tion. Office buildings shall be designed to accommodate
future entrances from the sidewalk for future retail uses.
Strategy LU-25.3.2: Parking. Commercial properties
or commercial portions of properties may rely on public
parking on Pasadena and Imperial Avenues to meet their
off-site parking needs within the area bounded by Granada
Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Orange Avenue and the
Union Pacific right-of-way (see diagram to the right).
Policy LU-25.4: Street Design and Connectivity
Maintain Monta Vista Village as a walkable, bikeable mixed-
use neighborhood with sidewalks, street trees and roadway
improvements for bike lanes and sidewalks with routes to
the tri-school area. Automobile, pedestrian and bicycle
improvements are envisioned along other streets in this
area to create an interconnected grid and with new devel-
opment to remove street blockages and promote a network
of streets. On-street parking is encouraged. Roadway and
sidewalk improvements will also improve school routes from
the northern neighborhoods to the tri-school area.
Strategy LU-25.4.1: Interconnected access. Individual
properties shall have interconnected pedestrian and vehicle
access and shared parking.
CREEK BLVDSTEVENS
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
8
5
Area where property owners
can obtain credit for on-street
parking for commercial
activities.
GRANADA AVE
HERMOSA AVE
LOMITA AVE
ALMADEN AVE
SAN FERNANDO AVE
ALCAZAR AVE
B
U
B
B
R
D
PA
S
A
D
E
N
A
A
V
E
OR
AN
GE
AV
E
McCLELLAN RD
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
DOLORES AVE
DR
I
V
E
PH
A
R
L
A
P
MA
N
N
D
R
I
V
E
BY
R
N
E
A
V
E
216
LU-72
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-25.4.2. Residential streets. Residential street
improvements may have a semi-rural appearance based
on the Municipal Code requirements. Safe routes to school
streets, or any others designated by the City Council shall
be required to have sidewalks and street trees.
Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special
Areas
In addition to the major mixed-use corridors described
above, other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Areas are located
throughout the city. These include the following: west side
of Stevens Canyon Road across from McClellan Road; inter-
section of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard;
Homestead Road near Foothill Boulevard; northwest corner
of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue; and all other non-
residential properties not referenced in an identified Special
Area.
These areas are envisioned as neighborhood centers that
serve as shopping, services and gathering places for adja-
cent neighborhoods in a pedestrian-oriented environment
that encourages pedestrian and bicycle access.
Policy LU-26.1: Land Use
Retrofit or redevelop neighborhood centers using the
“neighborhood center” concept discussed earlier in this
GOAL LU-26
RETAIN COMMERCIAL AREAS
ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORHOODS
AND RETROFIT OR ENCOURAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AS
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS IN A
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED AND BIKE-
FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT
217
LU-73
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Element. Areas that are not designated as “neighborhood
centers” are encouraged to provide commercial uses with
active uses such as entries, lobbies, seating areas or retail
along the street. See Figure LU-1 for residential densities
and criteria.
Policy LU-26.2: Building and Site Design
Encourage buildings to be designed in a pedestrian-ori-
ented format. Buildings should be located along the street
with pedestrian-scale architecture and retail and active uses
on the ground floor. Parking should be located to the sides
or rear. Buildings may be one to two stories in height. In
some instances where taller heights are allowed, buildings
may be three stories in height.
Policy LU-26.3: Street Design and Connectivity
Create neighborhood centers that are walkable, bikeable
areas with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improve-
ments for bike lanes and sidewalks to provide connections
to the neighborhoods that they serve.
Policy LU-26.4: Neighborhood Buffers
Encourage projects to include building transitions, setbacks
and landscaping to provide a buffer for adjoining low-
intensity residential uses.
218
LU-74
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Neighborhoods
The City has many neighborhoods, each with its own
distinctive character and setting. These neighborhoods
play a vital role in supporting Cupertino’s great quality of
life. Neighborhood goals and policies help preserve and
enhance the quality of life by protecting neighborhood
character and improving walking and biking connections
to parks, schools and services. Neighborhoods typically
offer a variety of housing choices to meet a spectrum of
community needs. The following general goal, policies and
strategies apply to all neighborhoods in the city.
Policy LU-27.1: Compatibility
Ensure that new development within and adjacent to resi-
dential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood
character.
Strategy LU-27.1.1: Regulations. Maintain and update
design regulations and guidelines for single-family devel-
opment that address neighborhood compatibility and
visual and privacy impacts.
Strategy LU-27.1.2: Neighborhood Guidelines. Identify
neighborhoods that have a unique architectural style,
historical background or location and develop plans that
preserve and enhance their character. Support special zon-
ing or design guidelines (e.g., the Fairgrove Eichler neigh-
borhood) and single-story overlay zones in neighborhoods,
where there is strong neighborhood support.
GOAL LU-27
PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER AND ENHANCE
CONNECTIVITY TO NEARBY
SERVICES TO CREATE COMPLETE
NEIGHBORHOODS
219
LU-75
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy LU-27.1.3: Flexibility. When neighborhoods are
in transition, add flexibility for requirements for new devel-
opment that acknowledge the transition while continuing to
respect the existing neighborhood.
Strategy LU-27.1.4: Late Night Uses. Discourage late-
evening entertainment activities such as night-clubs in
commercial areas where parcels are especially narrow,
abut single-family residential development, and cannot
adequately provide visual and noise buffers.
Policy LU-27.2: Relationship to the Street
Ensure that new development in and adjacent to neighbor-
hoods improve the walkability of neighborhoods by provid-
ing inviting entries, stoops and porches along the street
frontage, compatible building design and reducing visual
impacts of garages.
Policies LU-27.3: Entries.
Define neighborhood entries through architecture, or land-
scaping appropriate to the character of the neighborhood.
Gates are discouraged because they isolate developments
from the community.
Policy LU-27.4: Connections.
Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements that
improve access with neighborhoods to parks, schools and
local retail, and between neighborhoods. Support traffic
calming measures rather than blocking the street to reduce
traffic impacts on neighborhoods.
Policy LU-27.5: Streets.
Determine appropriate street widths, bike lane, sidewalk
and streetlight design to define the unique character of
neighborhoods, where appropriate.
220
LU-76
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy LU-27.6. Multi-family Residential Design. Maintain
an attractive, livable environment for multi-family dwellings.
Strategy LU-27.6.1: Provide Active and Passive Outdoor
Areas in Multi-Family Residential Development. Allow
public access to the common outdoor areas wherever
possible.
Strategy LU-27.6.2: Ordinance Updates. Update the
Planned Development (residential) and R-3 ordinances to
achieve the policies and strategies applicable to multi-
family development in neighborhoods.
Policy LU-27.6: Compatibility of Lots
Ensure that zoning, subdivision and lot-line adjustment
requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need
to preserve neighborhood lot patterns.
Strategy LU-27.6.1: Lot Size. Ensure that subdivision and
lot-line adjustment requests respect the neighborhood lot
size patterns. Consider revisions to lot size requirements if
the neighborhood lot pattern is different from the zoning
requirements.
Strategy LU-27.6.2: Flag Lots. Allow flag lots only in cases
where they are the sole alternative to integrate subdivisions
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy LU-27.7: Protection
Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light
and visually intrusive effects from more intense develop-
ment with landscape buffers, site design, setbacks and
other appropriate measures.
Policy LU-27.8: Amenities and Services
Improve equitable distribution of community amenities
such as parks and access to shopping within walking and
bicycling distance of neighborhoods.
221
LU-77
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Inspiration Heights Neighborhood
The Inspiration Heights neighborhood will continue to be a
low-intensity and hillside residential area. Future develop-
ment should consider preservation of hillsides, riparian
corridors, and plant and animal wildlife habitat through sen-
sitive site and building design. This area has developments
that were annexed from the county. Legal, non-conforming
uses and buildings in such areas are granted additional
flexibility.
Policy LU-28.1: Connectivity
Improve bicycle and pedestrian environment along Foothill
Boulevard and Stevens Canyon Road to improve neighbor-
hood connectivity to services as well for hikers and bikers
accessing natural open space areas in the vicinity.
Policy LU-28.2: Merriman-Santa Lucia Neighborhood
Allow legal, non-conforming duplexes to remain in the area
bounded by Santa Lucia Road, Alcalde Road and Foothill
Boulevard.
GOAL LU-28
RETAIN INSPIRATION HEIGHTS AS A
LOW-INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA
IN A NATURAL, HILLSIDE SETTING
222
LU-78
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Oak Valley Neighborhood
Policy LU-29.1: Development Intensity
Require development intensity for the single-family Oak
Valley neighborhood to be consistent with the development
agreement that includes the use permit and other approv-
als. The development agreement describes development
areas, intensity and styles of development, public park
dedication, tree protection, access and historic preserva-
tion. The theme of the approvals is to balance development
with environmental protection by clustering development,
setting it back from sensitive environmental areas and pre-
serving large areas as permanent open space.
Policy LU-29.2: Design Elements
Require buildings to reflect the natural hillside setting
as required in residential hillside zones with traditional
architectural styles and natural materials and colors. Larger
building elements should be scaled to respect the existing
development in the surrounding area.
GOAL LU-29
RETAIN AND ENHANCE THE
OAK VALLEY AS A UNIQUE
NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDED
BY NATURAL HILLSIDE AREAS AND
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPACE
223
LU-79
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Fairgrove Neighborhood
Policy LU-30.1: Development Standards
Require all new construction to conform to the R1-e zoning
(Single-Family Residential–Eichler).
Policy LU-30.2: Design Guidelines
Encourage residents to incorporate the design guidelines
illustrated in the Eichler Design Guidelines.
GOAL LU-30
PRESERVE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER
OF THE EICHLER HOMES IN THE
FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
224
SECTION 4
Circulation and Mobility
MOBILITY ELEMENT
Chapter 5
5
225
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT CM-2 226
M-3
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTENTS
M-3 Introduction
M-4 Context
Regional Transportation
Planning
Link between Land Use
and Transportation
Complete Streets
Greenhouse Gases and
Transportation
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Performance
Measurement
Transportation Network
M-14 Looking Forward
M-16 Goals and Policies
Regional Coordination
Complete Streets
Walkability and Bikeability
Transit
Safe Routes to Schools
Vehicle Parking
Transportation Impact
Analysis
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Air Quality
Roadway System
Efficiency
Transportation
Infrastructure
INTRODUCTION
Cupertino’s transportation system is multi-faceted. It
integrates walkways, sidewalks, bicycle routes, bus transit
facilities, local streets, major roadways and freeways into
a single, integrated system that supports the city’s high
quality of life. At the local level, this includes facilities that
connect neighborhoods with pedestrian, bicycle and auto-
mobile routes. Longer distance connections include links
to major boulevards, expressways, commuter rail and the
regional freeway system.
This Element includes goals, policies and strategies that
the City will use in making decisions regarding transporta-
tion network improvements needed to accommodate
Cupertino’s anticipated growth. The purpose for this
Element is to implement strategies that make alternative
modes of transportation attractive choices. This will help
reduce strain on the automobile network and improve
health and quality of life for Cupertino residents and
businesses.
227
M-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTEXT
Cupertino’s circulation system was developed mostly in a
suburban and auto-oriented pattern during the 1950s and
1960s. Over the years, the City has enhanced its roadway
infrastructure with a system of bike lanes, trails, bridges,
better sidewalks and publicly accessible connections in
new development. Cupertino is also served by many
important regional transportation facilities such as Highway
85, Interstate 280, Lawrence Expressway, and bus transit
service provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA).
The community anticipates reductions in auto traffic
impacts, enhancements to the walking and biking environ-
ment, improvements to existing transit service, and con-
nections to key transit nodes including Caltrain. As such,
the goals in this Element respond to current conditions and
present policies to adequately address future change.
Regional Transportation Planning
Cupertino’s local transportation infrastructure is supple-
mented by regional facilities and services through agencies
such as the VTA, the local congestion-management agency,
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the
Bay Area’s regional transportation authority, and Caltrans,
the State Department of Transportation. Each agency has a
long-term plan consisting of policies and projects which are
connected to the operational success of Cupertino’s local
transportation network. Key projects for these agencies
include:
• Interchange Improvements at Interstate 280/Highway
85 (MTC–Plan Bay Area)
• Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit (MTC–Plan Bay Area)
228
M-5
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Regional transit service primarily includes bus lines oper-
ated by VTA that run along the city’s major corridors, includ-
ing Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe
Road, and portions of Homestead Road, Stelling Road
and Tantau Avenue. Regional facilities include a bus transit
station at De Anza College and within the Vallco Shopping
District. As new development projects are proposed, the
City will continue to identify opportunities for improve-
ments to bus stop facilities, such as the new Apple Campus
2 area at Wolfe Road, Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue
and the Main Street project at Tantau and Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
A relatively new trend in regional commute transportation
is the implementation of private bus and shuttle services
to connect workers and major employers throughout the
Bay Area. While currently this activity is not regulated or
organized among these employers, it is beneficial in the
regional effort to reduce the reliance on Single Occupancy
Vehicles (SOVs).
The One Bay Area Grant Program is a new funding
approach that better integrates the region’s federal
transportation program with California’s landmark climate
change law (Assembly Bill 32, 2006) and Sustainable
Communities Strategy program (Senate Bill 375, 2008).
Funding distribution to the counties considers progress
toward achieving local land use and housing policies by:
• Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for
the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments
in Priority Development Areas (PDAs); and
• Providing a higher proportion of funding to local agen-
cies and additional investment flexibility to invest in
bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and
roadway preservation and planning activities, while also
providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes
to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas.
229
M-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The goals and policies included in this Element and the
Land Use and Community Design Element seek to take
advantage of regional planning and funding efforts. They
implement strategies that encourage the location of future
growth in Cupertino’s Priority Development Areas area
along Stevens Creek Boulevard and portions of De Anza
Boulevard, and by advocating for improved service and
improvements to regional infrastructure.
Link Between Land Use and Transportation
In order to maintain and enhance the quality of life for
Cupertino residents and businesses, it is important to
ensure that future growth does not overwhelm the trans-
portation network, identify ways to limit greenhouse gas
emissions, and improve the health of our community. Land
use and mobility policies included in the General Plan
seek to do so by working together to focus future growth
along major mixed-use corridors and within PDAs. Mobility
policies also seek to improve the walking/biking environ-
ment and enhance transit to ensure that the transportation
network is accessible to people of all ages and abilities,
including school children, the disabled and the elderly.
These policies also promote connectivity between neigh-
borhoods and services, and between key nodes in order
to reduce reliance on the automobile as the sole mode of
transportation.
Complete Streets
The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the
planning, designing and building of “Complete Streets”
into the larger planning framework of the General Plan by
requiring jurisdictions to plan for multi-modal transportation
networks. Complete Streets are designed and operated to
enable safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicy-
clists, the disabled, motorists, seniors, users of public trans-
portation and movers of commercial goods. These networks
230
M-7
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
allow people to effectively travel to key destinations within
their community and the larger region. In addition, all trans-
portation projects should be evaluated as to their ability
to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers and
recognize pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes as integral
elements of their transportation system.
Cupertino has already begun the work of reviewing the
existing street network and looking for new opportunities
to improve alternative modes of transportation through
the construction of sidewalks, walking paths, bike lanes,
trails and bridges across pedestrian barriers, such as the
Don Burnett Bridge at Mary Avenue. The goals and poli-
cies in this Element seek to continue the work of making
enhancements to the transportation network to encourage
all modes of transportation.
Greenhouse Gases and Transportation
A major challenge of today is meeting the energy needs of
a growing population while also protecting air quality and
natural resources. The majority of greenhouse gas emis-
sions can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions from
the transportation sector. A 2010 inventory of Cupertino’s
community-wide emissions shows that transportation
accounts for almost 41 percent of community-wide emis-
sions. Therefore, reducing the number of automobile trips,
particularly from single-occupancy vehicles, can provide the
greatest benefit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
Cupertino.
The goals and policies in this Element work in tandem
with other General Plan policies to address issues of
231
M-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
sustainability, health and air quality by taking advantage
of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Low-carbon fuels, new and improved vehicle technologies,
and land use strategies and infrastructure improvements
to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled can reduce
transportation-related emissions significantly.
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Cupertino has made considerable strides improving walk-
ability and bikeability with new or improved bike lanes,
sidewalks and pedestrian connections. However, many
older commercial areas and neighborhoods continue to lack
a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment where students
can safely walk and bike to school, and families can walk
or bike to parks and nearby community facilities and shop-
ping. This was a consistent theme expressed by participants
during public workshops conducted as part of the General
Plan Amendment.
Areas are generally considered walkable if people can
safely walk to schools, parks and services within a half mile
(less than10-14 minutes) distance. A bike-friendly city pro-
vides a network of streets and paths where people can bike
safely and conveniently to community facilities, employment
and shopping. The goals and policies of this Element, along
with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian
Plan, seek to further improve and enhance the walking and
biking environment through capital improvement projects,
development review, and retrofitting existing facilities within
older commercial areas and neighborhoods. Figure M-1
identifies existing and planned improvements to bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in the city.
232
M-9
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Performance Measurement
Senate Bill 743 (2013) created a process to change the
way that transportation impacts are analyzed under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The process
helps achieve the State’s goals for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promotes
the development of a multi-modal transportation system,
and provides clean, efficient access to major destinations.
Specifically, the law requires an alternative to automobile
level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts.
Particularly within areas served by transit, alternative criteria
are required to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation
networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Like many cities, Cupertino has used LOS as a performance
measure to evaluate traffic impacts. Historically, this has led
cities to focus entirely on improvements to auto infrastruc-
ture, often to the detriment of other modes of transporta-
tion. Consistent with State law, this Element seeks to look at
performance measures that balance the needs of all modes
of transportation, including automobile, walking, biking
and transit. Such new measures can range from looking
at vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a measure of balancing
land uses to reviewing seconds of delay for all travel modes
as a measure of impacts to traffic. This will allow the City
to develop and maintain a Transportation Improvement
Plan that includes pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automo-
bile network enhancements, and Transportation System
Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management
(TDM) measures to improve efficiency of the network.
233
M-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure M-1
Current (2014) and Proposed Bicycle Network
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
TANTAU
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
* Note: see Complete Streets policy for implementation
Bike Lanes on Street
Bike Paths Off Street
Bike Route
Right of Way Public Access
N
234
M-11
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Transportation Network
Cupertino’s transportation network consists of a variety of
street types and pathways. The network determines not
only how various land uses are connected but also the
modes of transportation used by people to access them.
Table M-1 defines the various street types and paths in
terms of their character, adjoining current and future land
uses, modes of travel that they currently support, and
improvements needed to enhance access for all modes of
transportation.
Close alignment of the City’s Capital Improvement Program
with Community Vision 2040 prorities will allow the City to
strategically plan and direct resources to develop this multi-
modal transportation infrastructure. Figure M-2 shows the
geographical locations of the major roadways.
Transportation Systems
Management (TSM)
TSM is an approach to conges-
tion mitigation that identifies
improvements to enhance the
capacity of existing roadways
through better operations.
These techniques help improve
traffic flow, air quality and move-
ment of vehicles and goods, as
well as enhance system accessi-
bility and safety. TSM strategies
are low-cost and effective, and
typically include: intersection
and signal improvements; data
collection to monitor system
performance; and/or special
events management strategies.
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
TDM seeks to reduce travel
demand (specifically that of
single-occupancy car) by
encouraging other modes of
travel through requirements
and/or incentives. TDM strate-
gies typically include: commute
trip reduction programs; parking
policies; and/or incentives to
take transit or other modes of
transportation.
235
M-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE M-1
STREET TYPOLOGY
Type Mode(s) of
Transportation Guidelines
Freeway Limited access, part of a regional and/or State
network subject to State design standards.
Expressway Limited access, regional and part of a county
network subject to County design standards.
Boulevard (Arterial)Access and safe crossing for all modes of travel
along a regional transportation corridor. May
include medians to separate directional travel.
City or multi-jurisdictional design standards apply.
Main Street Balances all modes of transportation, includes
on-street parking and connects to highly pedestrian-
oriented uses. Vehicular performance measures may
be lowered to prioritize walking and biking.
Avenue
(Major and Minor
Collector)
Connector that distributes trips to commercial and
residential areas from boulevards, and provides
balanced levels of service for auto, bikes and
pedestrians.
Neighborhood Connector Primarily serves and connects neighborhoods and
neighborhood services, and facilitates safe walking
and biking. May contain elements of Avenues
including landscaped median or bus service.
Residential Street Provides access to low-intensity residential uses,
prioritizes walking and biking, and are typically
good candidates for traffic calming.
Regional Pedestrian/
Bike Pathway
Part of regional network providing high quality
pedestrian and bike paths to connect to other
regional destinations.
Local Pedestrian/Bike
Pathway
Connects to regional network but part of local
infrastructure, provides quality pedestrian and bike
paths connecting local destinations.
236
M-13
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTA
U
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
ALVES DR
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
LAZANZEO DR
RODRIGUE S A V E
PACIFICA DR
BARNHART AVE
KIRWIN LN
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
VI
S
T
A
D
R
MI
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
PH
A
R
L
A
P
A
V
E
VOSS AVE
PO
R
T
A
L
A
V
E
MA
N
N
D
R
COLUMBUS AVE
HYANNISPORT DR
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
Freeway
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Boulevards (Arterials)
Avenues (Major Collectors)
Neighborhood Connectors
N
Main Street
Avenues (Minor Collectors)
Figure M-2
Circulation Network
237
M-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LOOKING FORWARD
Maintaining Cupertino’s great quality of life – including
convenient access, clean air, and reduced traffic – requires
careful management of growth. The City will identify ways
to locate appropriate land uses along major mixed-use cor-
ridors, improving overall access and connectivity, enhancing
the attractiveness of non-vehicular transportation modes,
and reducing demand on the roadway network. The fol-
lowing are ways the City will address key challenges and
opportunities facing Cupertino:
1. Better Linking Land Use and Transportation. How we
use our land directly impacts our transportation facili-
ties, modes of travel and vice versa. A primary corner-
stone of Community Vision 2040 is to focus growth on
major mixed-use corridors; support alternate modes of
transportation including walking, biking and transit; and
encourage a mix of compatible and complementary
uses on key sites. These strategies will allow the City
to manage growth with reduced traffic, air quality and
greenhouse gas impacts.
2. Regional Coordination. The City should continue to
participate in regional projects and infrastructure plan-
ning to ensure consistency with local planning, and
pursue funding for City transportation projects.
3. Connectivity. A key objective of the City is to improve
connections through streetscape and pathway improve-
ments to ensure that the community enjoys easy
walking and biking access to services including parks,
schools and shopping. Other strategies seek to supple-
ment existing modes of transportation such as commu-
nity shuttles through partnerships and agreements and
providing links between key transportation nodes.
238
M-15
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
4. Demand Reduction. The strategies in this Element
seek to reduce demand on the City’s roadway infra-
structure through careful land use planning, encourage
alternative modes of transportation and utilize best
practices in Transportation Demand Management and
Transportation Systems Management.
239
M-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
GOALS AND POLICIES
Regional Coordination
Regional transportation and land use decisions affect the
operation of the transportation network in Cupertino. A key
consideration of the General Plan is for the City to partici-
pate in regional planning initiatives in order to coordinate
local improvements with regional initiatives, advocate for
Cupertino’s needs, and take advantage of programs that
can support Cupertino’s transportation infrastructure.
Policy M-1.1: Regional Transportation Planning
Participate in regional transportation planning processes to
develop programs consistent with the goals and policies
of Cupertino’s General Plan. Work with neighboring cities
to address regional transportation and land use issues of
mutual interest.
Policy M-1.2: Transportation Impact Analysis
Participate in the development of new multi-modal analysis
methods and impact thresholds as required by Senate Bill
743.
Policy M-1.3: Regional Trail Development
Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system
of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems,
GOAL M-1
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN REGIONAL
PLANNING PROCESSES TO
COORDINATE LOCAL PLANNING
AND TO ADVOCATE FOR DECISIONS
THAT MEET AND COMPLEMENT THE
NEEDS OF CUPERTINO
240
M-17
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge
Trail.
Complete Streets
Complete Streets policies encourage the design of streets
that respond to the needs of all members of the com-
munity, balance different modes of transportation, promote
the health and well-being of the community, and support
environmental sustainability.
Policy M-2.1: Street Design
Adopt and maintain street design standards to optimize
mobility for all transportation modes including automobiles,
walking, bicycling and transit.
Policy M-2.2: Adjacent Land Use
Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking
and bicycle lanes, and sidewalks to complement adjacent-
land uses to keep with the aesthetic vision of the Planning
Area. Improvement standards shall also consider the urban,
suburban and rural environments found within the city.
Strategy M-2.2.1: Rural Road Improvement Standards.
Consider candidate rural roads and develop specific street
improvement standards that preserve the rural character
of these streets. Rural roads would typically feature natural
landscaping, no sidewalks and narrow unpaved shoulders.
GOAL M-2
PROMOTE IMPROVEMENTS
TO CITY STREETS THAT
SAFELY ACCOMMODATE ALL
TRANSPORTATION MODES AND
PERSONS OF ALL ABILITIES
241
M-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy M-2.2.2: Semi-Rural Road Improvement
Standards. Consider candidate semi-rural roads where
curb and gutter improvements, and no sidewalks, are
appropriate.
Strategy M-2.2.3: Urban Road Improvement Standards.
Develop urban improvement standards for arterials such
as Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. In these areas,
standards may include wide sidewalks, tree wells, seating,
bike racks and appropriate street furniture.
Policy M-2.3: Connectivity
Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve
connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and
services, and foster a sense of community.
Policy M-2.4: Community Impacts
Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of
transportation in neighborhoods and around schools, parks
and community facilities rather than constructing barriers
to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a demon-
strated safety or over-whelming through traffic problem and
there are no acceptable alternatives since street closures
move the problem from one street to another.
Policy M-2.5: Public Accessibility
Ensure all new public and private streets are publicly acces-
sible to improve walkability and reduce impacts on existing
streets.
242
M-19
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Walkability and Bikeability
Walkability and bikeability policies encourage a livable,
healthy, sustainable and connected city with a safe and
comfortable pedestrian network among its various neigh-
borhoods, parks, trails, employment centers, community
facilities, neighborhood centers and commercial centers.
Policy M-3.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan,
which outlines policies and improvements to streets, exten-
sion of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people
of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis, and as shown
in Figure M-1.
Policy M-3.2: Development
Require new development and redevelopment to increase
connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections
to public amenities, neighborhoods, shopping and employ-
ment destinations throughout the city.
Policy M-3.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings
Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and pathways at
key locations across physical barriers such as creeks, high-
ways and road barriers.
Policy M-3.4: Street Widths
Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike connec-
tivity by limiting street widening purely for automobiles as a
means of improving traffic flow.
GOAL M-3
SUPPORT A SAFE PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE STREET NETWORK FOR
PEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES
243
M-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy M-3.5: Curb Cuts
Minimize the number and the width of driveway openings.
Strategy M-3.5.1: Shared Driveway Access. Encourage
property owners to use shared driveway access and inter-
connected roads within blocks, where feasible. Require
driveway access closures, consolidations or both when a
site is remodeled or redeveloped.
Strategy M-3.5.2: Direct Access from Secondary Streets.
Encourage property with frontages on major and second-
ary streets to provide direct access to driveways from the
secondary street.
Policy M-3.6: Safe Spaces for Pedestrians
Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for
pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances.
Policy M-3.7: Capital Improvement Program
Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and eliminate gaps along the network pedestrian and
bicycle as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Policy M-3.8: Bicycle Parking
Require new development to provide public and private
bicycle parking.
Policy M-3.9: Outreach
Actively engage the community in promoting walking and
bicycling through education, encouragement and outreach
on improvement projects and programs.
Policy M-3.10: Quarry Operations
Continue enforcement of truck traffic speeds from Stevens
Creek and the Lehigh Cement Plant on Stevens Canyon
Road, and Stevens Creek and Foothill Boulevards.
244
M-21
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Transit
Transit policies encourage planning and coordination of
regional and local transit services, both public and private,
to accommodate diverse community needs and to make
transit a safe, comfortable and efficient option.
Policy M-4.1: Transit Agencies
Coordinate with VTA and to improve transportation service,
infrastructure and access in the city, and to connect to
transportation facilities such as Caltrain and VTA light rail
stations.
Policy M-4.2: Local Transportation Services
Create or partner with transit providers, employers,
educational institutions, and major commercial entities to
minimize gaps within local transportation services.
Policy M-4.3: Connecting Major Special Areas
Identify and implement new or enhanced transit services
to connect major Special Areas including De Anza College,
North Vallco Park, North De Anza, South Vallco Park,
Crossroads, City Center and Civic Center.
Policy M-4.4: Transit Facilities with New
Development
Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all
new development projects include amenities to support
GOAL M-4
PROMOTE LOCAL AND REGIONAL
TRANSIT THAT IS EFFICIENT,
FREQUENT AND CONVENIENT AND
REDUCES TRAFFIC IMPACTS
245
M-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
public transit including bus stop shelters, space for transit
vehicles as appropriate and attractive amenities such as
trash receptacles, seating and lighting.
Policy M-4.5: Access to Transit Services
Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with
local transit goals to improve transit as a viable alternative
to driving.
Policy M-4.6: Bus and Shuttle Programs
Work with large regional employers and private commuter
bus/shuttle programs to provide safe pick-up, drop-off, and
park and rides in order to reduce single occupancy vehicle
trips.
Safe Routes to Schools
Safe routes to schools policies protect the safety of school
children and promote health, environmental sustainability
and social interaction. They leverage local, regional and
national Safe Routes to Schools Program resources to sup-
port increased walking and bicycling to schools.
246
M-23
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy M-5.1: Safe Routes to Schools
Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools
serving the city.
Strategy M-5.1.1. Coordination with School Districts.
Coordinate with the School Districts to develop plans and
programs that encourage car/van-pooling, stagger hours of
adjacent schools, establish drop-off locations, and encour-
age walking and bicycling to school.
Strategy M-5.1.2. Teen Commission. Encourage the Teen
Commission to work with schools to encourage year-round
programs to incentivize walking and biking to school.
Policy M-5.2: Prioritizing Projects
Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements
include projects to enhance safe accessibility to schools.
Policy M-5.3: Connections to Trails
Connect schools to the citywide trail system.
Policy M-5.4: Education
Support education programs that promote safe walking and
bicycling to schools.
GOAL M-5
ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS
TO SCHOOLS WHILE WORKING
TO REDUCE SCHOOL-RELATED
CONGESTION
247
M-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Vehicle Parking
Vehicle parking policies encourage efficient and adequate
parking, avoid negative effects on the pedestrian environ-
ment or surrounding neighborhoods, and support the City’s
goals for Complete Streets, walkability, bikeability and
effective transit.
Policy M-6.1: Parking Codes
Maintain efficient and updated parking standards to
ensure that development provides adequate parking, both
on-street and off-street depending on the characteristics
of the development, while also reducing reliance on the
automobile.
Policy M-6.2: Off-Street Parking
Ensure new off-street parking is properly designed and
efficiently used.
GOAL M-6
PROMOTE INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES
TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND
ADEQUATE VEHICLE PARKING
248
M-25
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Transportation Impact Analysis
Transportation Impact Analysis policies enable effective,
informed transportation planning by using a more balanced
system of indicators, data and monitoring to evaluate the
city’s multi-modal transportation system and optimize travel
by all transportation modes.
Policy M-7.1: Multi-Modal Transportation Impact
Analysis
Follow guidelines set by the VTA related to transportation
impact analyses, while conforming to State goals for multi-
modal performance targets.
Policy M-7.2: Protected Intersections
Consider adopting a Protected Intersection policy which
would identify intersections where improvements would not
be considered which would degrade levels of service for
non-vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations
include intersections in Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and other areas where non-vehicular transportation is a key
consideration.
GOAL M-7
REVIEW AND UPDATE TIA POLICIES
AND GUIDELINES THAT ALLOW FOR
ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION FOR
ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING AUTOMOBILES,
WALKING, BICYCLING AND TRANSIT
249
M-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality
Greenhouse gas emissions and air quality policies in this
Element work in tandem with other General Plan policies
to reduce municipal and community-wide greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air quality throughout Cupertino.
Policy M-8.1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Promote transportation policies that help to reduce green-
house gas emissions.
Policy M-8.2: Land Use
Support development and transportation improvements
that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per
capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Policy M-8.3: Transportation System Management
(TSM) Programs
Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the trans-
portation infrastructure including strategic right-of-way
improvements, intelligent transportation systems and opti-
mization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
GOAL M-8
PROMOTE POLICIES TO HELP
ACHIEVE STATE, REGIONAL
AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
REDUCTION TARGETS
250
M-27
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy M-8.4: Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Programs
Require large employers to develop and maintain TDM pro-
grams to reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees
and develop a tracking method to monitor results.
Policy M-8.5: Design of New Developments
Encourage new commercial developments to provide
shared office facilities, cafeterias, daycare facilities, lunch-
rooms, showers, bicycle parking, home offices, shuttle
buses to transit facilities and other amenities that encour-
age the use of transit, bicycling or walking as commute
modes to work. Provide pedestrian pathways and orient
buildings to the street to encourage pedestrian activity.
Policy M-8.6: Alternative Fuel Charging Stations
Develop a city-wide strategy to encourage the construction
of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle
charging/fueling stations.
251
M-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Roadway System Efficiency
Roadway system efficiency policies make effective use
of roadway capacity by encouraging strategic roadway
improvements and complementary policies promoting tran-
sit, walking, bicycling and complete streets.
Policy M-9.1: Efficient Automobile Infrastructure
Strive to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure by
locating appropriate land uses along roadways and retrofit-
ting streets to be accessible for all modes of transportation.
Policy M-9.2: Reduced Travel Demand
Synchronization of Traffic Signals. Enhance the synchroniza-
tion of traffic signals on major streets to improve traffic flow
and reduce congestion.
Policy M-9.3: Street Width
Except as required by environmental review for new devel-
opments, limit widening of streets as a means of improving
traffic efficiency and focus instead on operational improve-
ments to preserve community character.
Strategy M-9.3.1. Wolfe Road Overcrossing. Consider
alternate designs for the Wolfe Road/I-280 Interchange
(e.g., from partial cloverleaf design to diamond design)
when evaluating the need to widen the freeway
overcrossing.
GOAL M-9
PROMOTE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT
USE OF THE CITY’S TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK AND SERVICES
252
M-29
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy M-9.3.2. Streetscape Design. When reviewing
the widening of an existing street, consider the aesthetic
vision of the Planning Area and incorporate to the extent
feasible appropriate landscaping and pedestrian/bicycle
amenities.
Transportation Infrastructure
Transportation infrastructure policies promote safe, attrac-
tive and well-maintained facilities for walking, bicycling,
transit and automobiles.
Policy M-10.1: Transportation Improvement Plan
Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to
meet the City’s needs.
Policy M-10.2: Transportation Impact Fee
Ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation
Improvement Plan by enacting a transportation impact fee
for new development.
GOAL M-10
ENSURE THAT THE CITY’S
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
IS WELL-MAINTAINED FOR ALL
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THAT PROJECTS ARE PRIORITIZED ON
THEIR ABILITY TO MEET THE CITY’S
MOBILITY GOALS
253
M-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy M-10.3: Multi-Modal Improvements
Integrate the financing, design and construction of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities with street projects. Build
pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time as
improvements for vehicular circulation.
Policy M-10.4: Roadway Maintenance Funding
Identify and secure new funding sources to fund the on-
going routine maintenance of roadways.
254
SECTION 6
Environmental Resources
SECTION 5
Environmental Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND
SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT
Chapter 6
255
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT ES-2 256
ES-3
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTENTS
ES-3 Introduction
ES-4 Context
Climate Change
Air Quality
Energy
Buildings
Natural Resources
Mineral Resources
Water
ES-11 Looking Forward
ES-14 Goals and Policies
Planning and Regional
Coordination
Energy Sustainability
Sustainable Buildings
Air Quality
Urban and Rural
Ecosystems
Mineral Resources
Water
INTRODUCTION
Cupertino’s long-term environmental, economic and social
prosperity depends on ensuring that land use planning and
development recognizes the link between the built and
natural environments. Today, more than half the planet’s
population live in either a city or suburb, and it is projected
that by 2050 more than 80 percent of all people will live
within urban areas. Water and other natural resources
that support cities originates in natural areas, which have
become places of vast resource extraction to feed the
needs of a growing human population. As a result, once
“untouched” and pristine ecological systems have become
strained by the enormous impact of human activity.
To support these growing urban and suburban populations,
while seeking to mitigate their continued demands on our
landscape, cities need to identify and systemically prioritize
ways because human activity has such a large impact on
the environment, cities need to identify ways to protect
and restore natural ecosystems through land use decisions,
building designs and resource conservation. This entails
that community guardians and planners apply the princi-
pals of sustainability, only achieved by embedding social
equity, economic and the environmental considerations
throughout the development process, including mobility,
infrastructure, water and energy use, buildings, streetscape
and landscape, and land use planning.
This Element includes goals, policies and strategies that
help Cupertino think more holistically about sustainability,
and in doing so, improve the ecological health and the
quality of life for the community.
257
ES-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTEXT
Climate Change
In 2006, the California Legislature and Governor took sig-
nificant steps to address climate change concerns with the
passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). The
law set a target to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emis-
sions to 1990 levels by year 2020. In addition, the Governor
also signed Executive Order S-3-05 that required California
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 80 percent
below the 1990 levels by year 2050.
Many initiatives at the State, regional and local levels are
being implemented to help achieve these goals. These
include:
• The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
Act of 2008 (SB 375) supports the State’s climate
action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coor-
dinated transportation and land use planning. Each of
California’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations must
prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an
integral part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to
achieve these targets. For the nine-county Bay Area, the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have
prepared the One Bay Area Plan as its SCS. This plan
contains land use, housing and transportation strategies
that allow the region to meet its GHG reduction targets.
• The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program, which imple-
ments transportation funding in coordination with the
strategies in the One Bay Area Plan.
• The City is in the process of completing its Climate
Action Plan (CAP), which aims to address GHG reduc-
tions per the targets set in AB 32 and S-3-05. The CAP
258
ES-5
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
is based on 2040 growth projections for Cupertino. It
aims to capture the shortfall projected from State initia-
tives by identifying policies and strategies to reduce
GHG at a municipal and community-wide level.
Air Quality
Clean air is a basic need for human and environmental
health. Air pollution comes from both mobile sources (e.g.,
cars, trucks, airplanes) and stationary sources (e.g., agricul-
tural and industrial uses). Air quality standards are estab-
lished by both the State Air Resources Board and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) has the responsibility to
create strategies and monitor the targets set by State and
Federal standards for the Bay Area. Due to air quality plan-
ning efforts, regional air quality has improved significantly
over the past several decades, even though the population,
traffic and industrialization have increased.
BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan works in tandem with the
One Bay Area Plan and identifies strategies to address
four categories of pollutants including ground-level ozone,
particulate matter, air toxics and GHG. The City’s CAP aims
to capture the shortfall projected from State initiatives to
reduce GHG at a municipal and community-wide level.
While standards are a key component in improving air
quality, the City’s approach towards land use, mobility, infra-
structure and operations can have a huge impact.
Energy
Energy consumption in the United States and in Cupertino
is mainly fossil-fuel based (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas, etc.).
The continuously rising cost of energy production, together
with diminishing non-renewable fossil fuels, has necessi-
tated a change towards reduction and efficient use of fossil
fuels, and identifying and increasing the use of alternative,
renewable energy sources.
259
ES-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Energy providers are also looking to move their portfolio
towards alternative energy sources including wind turbine,
nuclear and solar generation. The diminishing cost of
installing smaller solar power generation systems is encour-
aging the increased use of such facilities by consumers.
Additionally, strides in automobile technology utilizing elec-
tric batteries and improvements to the network of charging
stations allows users confidence in the use of electric cars.
Finally, rising energy costs and Federal and State standards
on energy usage are encouraging more people to replace
existing appliances and other equipment with more energy
efficient equipment.
Cupertino has continued to express its commitment to con-
serving energy by improving municipal operations in order
to reduce energy use (e.g., retrofitting or replacing street
equipment, vehicles and facilities), and providing resources
and information to professionals, residents, businesses and
schools to achieve energy and associated cost savings.
Buildings
The 2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for
Cupertino indicates that buildings account for about 55
percent of GHG emissions in the city. This means that State
and local efforts towards energy conservation in buildings
can significantly affect the community’s air quality. While
green building strategies can effectively target GHG, they
also improve the health of occupants, preserve habitat and
natural landscapes, reduce water pollution and conserve
other natural resources. State and local efforts to encourage
green buildings include the following:
• The State routinely updates building code standards to
include new energy conservation and green building
concepts. The 2013 CalGreen Building Code outlines
mandatory and voluntary measures to encourage sus-
tainable practices in all aspects of construction such as
planning and design; energy and water efficiency and
260
ES-7
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
conservation; material conservation; resource efficiency;
and environmental quality.
• Cupertino has adopted a Green Building Ordinance that
ensures that new buildings and renovations exceed the
sustainability and ecological standards set by the State.
Natural Resources
Biodiversity
Biodiversity refers to the diversity, or variety, of plants
and animals in a particular ecosystem, area or region.
Cupertino’s commitment to sustainability includes sustain-
ing the diversity of species in each ecosystem as we plan
for human activities that affect the use of land and natural
resources. Cupertino’s ecosystem ranges from the urban
environment in the flatlands to semi-rural and rural environ-
ment in the western foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The City has always recognized the importance of sustain-
ing biodiversity in the foothills and along riparian corridors.
However, a commitment to sustainability will require a
different way of thinking about the urban ecosystem. The
City has already preserved an 18-acre site and restored
creek habitat right in the city to maintain biodiversity and
ecological integrity of our local natural systems. The City is
now looking at opportunities in the built and natural envi-
ronment to sustain and enhance biodiversity.
Urban Ecosystems
While an urban environment can be stressful for some spe-
cies due to pollution and habitat fragmentation, others may
thrive in this environment because humans create favorable
microhabitats or abundant resources for them. Modified
habitats including greenhouses, basements, compost piles
and green roofs can help certain plant and animal species
thrive better than in natural environments. As Cupertino
continues to change and grow, the City is committed
to enhancing the urban ecosystem in the form of urban
261
ES-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
forestry management, integration of green infrastructure,
treatment of parks and open space, landscape and building
requirements.
Rural Ecosystems
Cupertino’s rural plant and animal resources are located in
the relatively undeveloped western foothills and mountains,
near the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and
along Stevens Creek. Each ecosystem of vegetation pro-
vides food and shelter to support a variety of wildlife. The
diversity of plant and animal life supported in different eco-
systems is identified in Table ES-1 below and Figure ES-1.
TABLE ES-1
PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES
Ecosystem Location Plant Resources Animal Resources
Riparian
• Grows along stream
courses
• Valuable habitat for
wildlife due to presence
of water, lush vegetation
and high insect
populations
• Stevens Creek
• Permanente Creek
• Regnart Creek
• Heney Creek
• Calabazas Creek
• Willow
• California Buckeye
• Coast Live Oak
• Coyote Brush
• Poison Oak
• California blackberry
Relatively undisturbed riparian
areas support a wide variety of
wildlife species including:
• Amphibians
• Reptiles
• Birds
• Mammals
Grasslands
• Composed primarily of
non-native grasses
• Formerly used as pasture
• Occur on lower slopes of
western foothills
• Scattered locations on
higher elevations in
Montebello Ridge system
• Wild oat
• Clover
• Rye grass
• Vetch
• Spring wild flower
bloom (such as
California Poppy,
Plantago or Owl Clover)
Reptilian and mammal species
adapted to dry conditions includ-
ing:
• Western Fence Lizard
• Western Rattlesnake
• Common King Snake
• Burrowing rodents (such as
Meadow mice or California
ground squirrel
Brushlands
• Scrubby, dense
vegetation that
often integrates with
Woodlands
• Found on dry, rocky and
steep slopes
• Coyote brush
• Poison oak
• California sage
• Ceanothus
• Mule deer
• Brush rabbit
• Bobcat
• Coyote
Foothill Woodlands and
Forests
• Scattered Oak trees with
an undergrowth in some
areas of plants
• Large trees
• Foothills
• Higher elevations
• Oak trees
• Mixed Hardwood trees
• Evergreens including
redwoods
• Insect/seed eating birds and
mammals
• Raptors, including owls
• Large mammals including
deer, coyote
262
ES-9
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure ES-1
Vegetation
S
anta
Cr
u
z
C
ounty
S
anta
C
l
a
raCou
nt
y
Riparian
Intermitant
RiparianWet Soil
Grassland
Riparian
Flowing
RiparianFlowing
Grassland
Foothill
Woodland
Quarry
Quarry
Grass-land
Riparian
Intermitant
Deciduous Forest
Foothill
Woodland
Deciduous Forest / Chaparral
Grassland
Grassland
RiparianPermanent
Mixed
Evergreen Forest
Chaparral
Coniferous
Forest
Grassland
Quarry
Riparian
Intermitant
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT RD
85
280
TANTA
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Forest
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
N
263
ES-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Mineral Resources
The State of California, recognizing the value of preserv-
ing mineral deposits to achieve a more sustainable future,
enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)
in 1975. The objective of SMARA is to assist local govern-
ments in conserving mineral deposits for future use.
There are several mineral resource areas located both in
Cupertino’s sphere of influence and within the city limit.
These mineral resource areas are shown in Figure ES-2.
The figure identifies natural resource areas that will be
conserved for future extraction, which are outside of the city
limits.
Two quarries within the city’s sphere of influence, Hanson
Permanente and Stevens Creek, have been designated by
the State as having mineral deposits of regional or state
significance. These quarries are located in the unincorpo-
rated area outside city limits, and therefore, Santa Clara
County has regulatory jurisdiction. The County’s mineral
resource policies are directed toward preserving existing
resource areas and, where feasible, designating new areas
and expanding existing sites.
The McDonald-Dorsa quarry, which used to operate south
of the Deep Cliff Golf Course and Linda Vista Park, was
closed in the 1970s and is not a current source of minerals.
The site has since been designated as residential, while
the portion that is now Linda Vista Park is designated for
parks and open space. However, since it was closed prior
to SMARA, redevelopment in the area should address soils
stabilization and reclamation issues.
Water
Cupertino’s sustainable future is, in part, dependent
upon the supply and use of water as well as the effective
management of natural watershed resources. In recent
264
ES-11
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure ES-2
Mineral Resources
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Mineral Resource Areas
Urban / Low Density
Hillside BoundarySource: State of California
Resources Agency.
Department of Conservation.
Los Altos
MRZ-2 Areas where adequate
information indicates that
significant mineral deposits are
present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence
exists.
MRZ-3 Areas containing mineral
deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available
data.
2
3
Urban / Suburban
Developed -
Unsuitable
for
Extraction
Low Density
Hillside -
Incompatible
with
Extraction
Unincorporated
Area Outside the
Urban Service Area
is Appropriate
for Conservation
and Future
Extraction
3
3
2
3
3
Depleted2
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
N
265
ES-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
years, water resource management has moved away from
supply side efforts (e.g., creation of dams and reservoirs)
to managing how water is used. In particular, this includes
emphasizing conservation, stormwater treatment and effi-
ciency in infrastructure planning, design and construction
of buildings, and land use planning. The following is a list
of existing State, regional and local efforts towards water
conservation.
• The Santa Clara Valley Water District is the groundwater
management agency in Santa Clara County. The Santa
Clara Valley Groundwater sub-basin provides approxi-
mately half of the total county water demands. The
District works to maximize water supply, protect the
basins from contamination and ensure that groundwater
supply is sustained.
• The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board
(RWQWB) implements the Clean Water Act for the Bay
Area region including the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm Water
permit which regulates both point source and non-point
source pollutants to improve ground water resources
and reduce pollution in the bay. This program is dis-
cussed in detail in the Infrastructure Element.
• Senate Bill X7-7 was enacted in November 2009, requir-
ing all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency
and sets a goal of reducing per capita urban water use
by 20 percent by 2020. The bill includes a short-term
target of a 10 percent reduction in per capita urban
water use by 2015.
• The City of Cupertino has adopted a Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance and Green Building Ordinance
to ensure that the city can meet and State and regional
targets.
266
ES-13
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LOOKING FORWARD
Future growth and change in Cupertino provides both a
challenge and an opportunity for the City and community.
Cupertino is blessed with an abundance of natural and
urban ecosystems. In the past, the City has relied on
a limited toolkit of policies to ensure that growth and
development do not negatively impact natural resources.
Great strides have been made in the last decade to promote
sustainability, and community support for these initiatives
has been growing. In response, the City has created a suite
of services and policies, to ensure our community’s growth
and achievement of its development potential enhances, not
hinders, natural resources and bolsters, not impacts, human
health. The City now has a much larger array of resources
to manage growth, including sustainability practices,
new planning and development tools, and performance
measures to maintain or enhance natural resources and
overall environmental health.
1. Regional Cooperation. Federal, State and regional
agencies have been at the forefront of legislation related
to sustainability and environmental health. The City
should strive to exceed these requirements in areas that
are of priority to the community and strengthen regional
partnerships to bring in resources for implementing new
policies and programs.
2. Ecosystems. In recent years, cities have begun to realize
that urban and suburban areas can provide habitat
for many plant and animal species. The City will focus
policies on a citywide approach (urban and natural
environments) towards sustaining and improving urban
and suburban ecosystems
3. Sustainability Best Practices. The City will use
sustainability principles, striving always to balance social
equity with economic and environmental health, when
267
ES-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
evaluating all aspects of new development; mobility and
infrastructure improvements; building design and
operation; streetscapes and landscaping; and citywide
land use planning.
4. Community Involvement. The City will encourage
community participation in the planning and
implementation of sustainability-related programs.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Planning and Regional Coordination
The City seeks to coordinate its local sustainability and
greenhouse gas reduction planning efforts with Federal,
State and regional plans and programs to ensure a con-
sistent, integrated and efficient approach to a sustainable
future.
Policy ES-1.1: Principles of Sustainability
Incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s
planning, infrastructure and development process in order
to improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and meet the needs of the community without
compromising the needs of future generations.
Strategy ES-1.1.1: Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt,
implement and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain
greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law
and regional requirements. This qualified greenhouse gas
emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will
allow for future project CEQA streamlining and will identify
measures to:
GOAL ES-1
ENSURE A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
268
ES-15
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
• Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency;
• Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alterna-
tive transportation;
• Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable
energy resources;
• Increase citywide water conservation and recycled water
use;
• Accelerate Resource Recovery through expanded recy-
cling, composting, extended producer responsibility and
procurement practices; and
• Promote and incentivize each of those efforts to maxi-
mize community participation and impacts;
• Integrate multiple benefits of green infrastructure with
climate resiliency and adaptation.
Strategy ES-1.1.2: CAP and Sustainability Strategies
Implementation. Periodically review and report on the
effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the
strategies in this Element. Institutionalize sustainability by
developing a methodology to ensure all environmental,
social and lifecycle costs are considered in project, pro-
gram, policy and budget decisions.
Strategy ES-1.1.3: Climate Adaptation and Resiliency.
Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and set
preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human
health and community assets susceptible to the impacts
of a changing climate (i.e. increased drought, wildfires,
flooding). Incorporate these critical forecasting tools and
directives into all relevant Incorporate these into all relevant
plans, including the Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam Failure Plan, Climate Action
Plan, Watershed Protection Plan, and Energy Assuredness
Plan.
269
ES-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy ES-1.2: Regional Growth and Transportation
Coordination
Coordinate with local and regional agencies to prepare
updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including
the Regional Housing Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA),
One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Strategy ES-1.2.1: Local Plan Consistency with Regional
Plans. Update and maintain local plans and strategies so
they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for
State transportation and project CEQA streamlining.
Energy Sustainability
Since energy consumption is the largest contributor to GHG
emissions, the City seeks to conserve energy to reach state
and regional emissions targets.
Policy ES-2.1: Conservation and Efficient Use of
Energy Resources
Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient
use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new
and existing residences, businesses, industrial and public
uses.
Strategy ES-2.1.1: Coordination. Continue to evaluate,
and revise as necessary, applicable City plans, codes and
procedures for inclusion of Federal, State and regional
requirements and conservation targets.
Strategy ES-2.1.2: Comprehensive Energy Management.
Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy
GOAL ES-2
PROMOTE CONSERVATION OF
ENERGY RESOURCES
270
ES-17
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and
equipment to achieve the energy goals established in the
City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and
report findings as part of the Climate Action Plan reporting
schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally
Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are
achieved through all future procurement and construction
practices.
Strategy ES-2.1.3: Energy Efficient Replacements.
Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify City
assets for replacement with more energy efficient technol-
ogy. Utilize available tools to benchmark and showcase city
energy efficiency achievements (i.e. EPA Portfolio Manager,
statewide Green Business Program).
Strategy ES-2.1.4: Incentive Program. Consider incentive
programs for projects that exceed mandatory requirements
and promote incentives from state, county and federal gov-
ernments for improving energy efficiency and expanding
renewable energy installations.
Strategy ES-2.1.5: Urban Forest. Encourage the inclusion
of additional shade trees, vegetated stormwater treatment
and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in devel-
opment projects.
Strategy ES-2.1.6: Alternate Energy Sources. Promote
and increase the use of alternate and renewable energy
resources for the entire community through effective poli-
cies, programs and incentives.
Strategy ES-2.1.7: Energy Cogeneration Systems.
Encourage the use of energy cogeneration systems through
the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger
commercial and industrial users and public facilities.
271
ES-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy ES-2.1.8: Energy Audits and Financing. Continue
to offer and leverage regional partners’ programs to
conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for
homes, commercial, industrial and city facilities, and recom-
mend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings
opportunities for participants and encourage adoption of
alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits
to include emerging online and application-based energy
analytics and diagnostic tools. Share residential and com-
mercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing
tools through outreach events and civic media assets.
Strategy ES-2.1.9: Energy Efficient Transportation
Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient transportation
modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles,
public transit, car and van-pooling, community and regional
shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes
to schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle
paths through infrastructure investment, development
incentives, and community education.
Strategy ES-2.1.10: Community Choice Energy.
Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate feasibility for
development of a Community Choice Energy.
Sustainable Buildings
The City seeks to improve building efficiency from planning,
construction and operations to help improve indoor air
quality and conserve materials and natural resources.
GOAL ES-3
IMPROVE BUILDING EFFICIENCY
272
ES-19
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy ES -3.1: Green Building Design
Set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building.
Strategy ES-3.1.1: Green Building Program. Periodically
review and revise the City’s Green Building ordinance to
ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major
private and public projects that ensure reduction in energy
and water use for new development through site selection
and building design.
Strategy ES-3.1.2: Staff Training. Continue to train appro-
priate City staff in the design principles, costs and benefits
of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage
City staff to attend external trainings on these topics and
attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point
Rater, LEED Accredited Professional).
Strategy ES-3.1.3: Green Buildings Informational
Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green Building
informational seminars and workshops for members of the
design and construction industry, land development, real
estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design,
the building maintenance industry and prospective project
applicants.
Strategy ES-3.1.4: Green Building Demonstration.
Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects
that exceed CalGreen and achieve third-party certification
criteria (i.e. LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net
Energy) as a means of creating demonstration spaces for
developer and community enrichment.
273
ES-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Air Quality
The City seeks to identify ways to improve air quality in
order to reduce emissions and improve overall community
health.
Policy ES-4.1: New Development
Minimize the air quality impacts of new development proj-
ects and air quality impacts that affect new development.
Strategy ES-4.1.1: Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to
review projects for potential generation of toxic air contami-
nants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air
Quality Management District on controls needed if impacts
are uncertain.
Strategy ES-4.1.2: Dust Control. Continue to require water
application to non-polluting dust control measures during
demolition and the duration of the construction period.
Strategy ES-4.1.3: Planning. Ensure that land use and
transportation plans support air quality goals.
Policy ES-4.2: Existing Development
Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development.
Strategy ES-4.2.1: Public Education Program. Establish a
citywide public education program providing information
on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to
provide information about alternative commutes, carpool-
ing and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the
Air” high-emissions days.
GOAL ES-4
MAINTAIN HEALTHY AIR QUALITY
LEVELS
274
ES-21
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy ES-4.2.2: Home Occupations. Review and
consider expanding the allowable home occupations in resi-
dentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute
to work.
Strategy ES-4.2.3: Urban Forest. Review and enhance the
City’s tree planting and landscaping program and require-
ments for private development to reduce air pollution
levels.
Strategy ES-4.2.4: Fuel-efficient Vehicles and Use.
Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing use of
fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update
applicable policies and programs to require life cycle cost
analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review
and related funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use
Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to sup-
port fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet
fuel tracking. Pursue available grant funding to offset the
cost of implementing these programs.
Strategy ES-4.2.5: Point Sources of Emissions. Continue
to seek the cooperation of the BAAQMD to monitor
emissions from identified point sources that impact the
community. In addition, for sources not within the regula-
tory jurisdiction of the City, seek cooperation from the
applicable regulatory authority to encourage reduction of
emissions and dust from the point source.
Policy ES-4.3: Use of Open Fires and Fireplaces
Discourage high pollution fireplace use.
Strategy ES-4.3.1: Education. Continue to make BAAQMD
literature on reducing pollution from fireplace use available.
Strategy ES-4.3.2: Fireplaces. Continue to prohibit new
wood-burning fireplaces, except EPA certified wood stoves
as allowed by the Building Code.
275
ES-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Urban and Rural Ecosystems
Protecting Cupertino’s natural and urban ecosystems sup-
ports the City commitment to protect ecosystems and
improve sustainability.
Policy ES-5.1: Urban Ecosystem
Manage the public and private development to ensure the
protection and enhancement of its urban ecosystem.
Strategy ES-5.1.1: Urban Forest. Ensure that the City’s
tree planting, landscaping and open space policies enhance
the urban ecosystem by encouraging medians, pedestrian-
crossing curb-extensions planting that is native, drought-
tolerant, treats stormwater and enhances urban plant,
aquatic and animal resources.
Strategy ES-5.1.2: Built Environment. Ensure that sustain-
able landscaping design is incorporated in the develop-
ment of City facilities, parks and private projects with the
inclusion of measures such as tree protection, stormwater
treatment and planting of native, drought tolerant landscap-
ing that is beneficial to the environment.
Policy ES-5.2: Development near Sensitive Areas
Encourage the clustering of new development away from
sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat
and corridors, public open space preserves and ridgelines.
New developments in these areas must have a harmonious
landscaping plan approved prior to development.
GOAL ES-5
PROTECT THE CITY’S URBAN AND
RURAL ECOSYSTEMS
276
ES-23
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy ES-5.2.1: Riparian Corridor Protection. Require
the protection of riparian corridors through the develop-
ment approval process.
Policy ES-5.3: Landscaping in and near Natural
Vegetation
Preserve and enhance existing natural vegetation, land-
scape features and open space when new development
is proposed within existing natural areas. When develop-
ment is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the
landscaping to be consistent with the palate of vegetation
found in the natural vegetation.
Strategy ES-5.3.1: Native Plants. Continue to emphasize
the planting of native, drought tolerant, pest resistant,
non-invasive, climate appropriate plants and ground covers,
particularly for erosion control and to prevent disturbance
of the natural terrain
Strategy ES-5.3.2: Hillsides. Minimize lawn area in the
hillsides.
Policy ES-5.4: Hillside Wildlife Migration
Confine fencing on hillside property to the area around
a building, rather than around an entire site, to allow for
migration of wild animals.
Policy ES-5.5: Recreation and Natural Vegetation
Limit recreation in natural areas to activities compatible with
preserving natural vegetation, such as hiking, horseback
riding, mountain biking and camping.
277
ES-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy ES-5.6: Recreation and Wildlife
Provide open space linkages within and between properties
for both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically
for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or
designated as species of special concern.
Strategy ES-5.6.1: Creek and Water Course
Identification. Require identification of creeks and water
courses on site plans and require that they be protected
from adjacent development.
Strategy ES-5.6.2: Trail Easements. Consider requiring
easements for trail linkages if analysis determines that they
are needed.
Mineral Resources
The City seeks to minimize the impacts of mineral resource
operations on the community.
Policy ES-6.1: Mineral Resource Areas
Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County to ensure
that plans for restoration and mining operations at Lehigh
Hanson and Stevens Creek quarries consider environmental
impacts and mitigations.
Strategy ES-6.1.1: Public Participation. Encourage the
Santa Clara County to engage with the affected neighbor-
hoods when considering changes to restoration plans and
mineral extraction activity.
Strategy ES-6.1.2: Recreation in Depleted Mining Areas.
Consider designating abandoned quarries for passive recre-
ation to enhance plant and wildlife habitat and rehabilitate
the land.
GOAL ES-6
MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF AVAILABLE
MINERAL RESOURCES
278
ES-25
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Water
The City seeks to ensure that current and future water
supplies are adequate by reducing water demand and
protecting sources of water.
Policy ES-7.1: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage
Systems
In public and private development, use low impact
development (LID) principles to mimic natural hydrology,
minimize grading and protect or restore natural drainage
systems.
Strategy ES-7.1.1: Public and Private Development Plans.
Continue to require topographical information; identifica-
tion of creeks, streams and drainage areas; and grading
plans with development proposals.
Policy ES-7.2: Reduction of Impervious Surfaces
Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts resulting
from development and use low impact development (LID)
designs to treat stormwater or recharge groundwater
Strategy ES-7.2.1: Lot Coverage. Consider updating lot
coverage requirements to include paved surfaces such as
driveways and on-grade impervious patios to incentivize the
construction of pervious surfaces.
Strategy ES-7.2.2: Pervious Walkways and Driveways.
Encourage the use of pervious materials for walk-
ways and driveways. If used on public or quasi-public
GOAL ES-7
ENSURE PROTECTION AND EFFICIENT
USE OF WATER RESOURCES
279
ES-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
property, mobility and access for the disabled should take
precedence.
Strategy ES-7.2.3: Maximize Infiltration. Minimize imper-
vious surface areas, and maximize on-site filtration and the
use of on-site retention facilities.
Policy ES-7.3: Pollution and Flow Impacts
Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are
reduced through development review and volunteer efforts.
Strategy ES-7.3.1: Development Review. Require LID
designs such as vegetated stormwater treatment systems
and green infrastructure to mitigate pollutant loads and
flows.
Strategy ES-7.3.2: Creek Clean Up. Encourage volunteer
organizations to help clean creek beds to reduce pollution
and help return waterways to their natural state.
Policy ES-7.4: Watershed Based Planning
Review long-term plans and development projects to
ensure good stewardship of watersheds.
Strategy ES-7.4.1: Storm Drainage Master Plan. Develop
and maintain a Storm Drainage Master Plan which identifies
facilities needed to prevent “10-year” event street flood-
ing and “100-year” event structure flooding and integrate
green infrastructure to meet water quality protection needs
in a cost effective manner.
Strategy ES-7.4.2: Watershed Management Plans.
Work with other agencies to develop broader Watershed
Management Plans to model the City’s hydrology.
Strategy ES-7.4.3: Development. Review development
plans to ensure that projects are examined in the context of
impacts on the entire watershed.
280
ES-27
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy ES-7.5: Groundwater Recharge Sites
Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts to find
and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino
and provide public recreation where possible.
Policy ES-7.6: Other Water Sources
Encourage the research of other water sources, including
water reclamation.
Policy ES-7.7: Industrial Water Recycling
Encourage industrial projects, in cooperation with the
Cupertino Sanitary District, to have long-term conservation
measures, including recycling equipment for manufacturing
and water supplies in the plant.
Policy ES-7.8: Natural Water Courses
Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, water-
courses and associated vegetation in their natural state to
protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and assist
in groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or
dedication of such areas.
Strategy ES-7.8.1: Inter-Agency Coordination. Work with
the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other relevant
regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide
adequate flood control by use of flow increase mitigation
measures.
Policy ES-7.9: Inter-Agency Coordination for Water
Conservation
Continue to coordinate citywide water conservation and
regional water supply problem solving efforts with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), San Jose Water
Company and California Water Company.
281
ES-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy ES-7.9.1: Water Conservation Measures.
Implement the mandatory water conservation measures and
encourage the implementation of voluntary water conserva-
tion measures from the City’s water retailers and SCVWD, in
times of drought.
Policy ES-7.10: Public Education Regarding
Resource Conservation
Provide public information regarding resource conservation.
Strategy ES-7.10.1: Outreach. Continue to send edu-
cational information and notices to households and
businesses with water prohibitions, water allocations and
conservation tips. Continue to offer featured articles in the
Cupertino Scene and Cupertino Courier. Consider providing
Public Service Announcements on the City’s Channel and
Cupertino Radio.
Strategy ES-7.10.2: Demonstration Gardens. Consider
including water-wise demonstration gardens in some parks
where feasible as they are re-landscaped or improved using
drought tolerant native and non-invasive, and non-native
plants.
Policy ES-7.11: Water Conservation and Demand
Reduction Measures
Promote efficient use of water throughout the City in order
to meet State and regional water use reduction targets.
Strategy ES-7.11.1: Urban Water Management Plan.
Collaborate with water retailers serving the City in the
preparation of their Urban Water Management Plan, includ-
ing water conservation strategies and programs.
Strategy ES-7.11.2: Water Conservation Standards.
Comply with State water conservation standards by either
adopting the State standards or alternate standards that are
equally efficient.
282
ES-29
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy ES-7.11.3: Recycled Water System. Continue to
work with water retailers to promote and expand the avail-
ability of recycled water in the City for public and private
use.
Strategy ES-7.11.4: Recycled Water in Projects.
Encourage and promote the use of recycled water in public
and private buildings, open space and streetscape planting.
Strategy ES-7.11.5: On-site Recycled Water. Encourage
on-site water recycling including rainwater harvesting and
gray water use.
Strategy ES-7.11.6: Water Conservation Programs.
Benchmark and continue to track the City’s public and pri-
vate municipal water use to ensure ongoing accountability
and as a means of informing prioritization of future agency
water conservation projects.
Strategy ES-7.11.7: Green Business Certification and
Water Conservation. Continue to support the City’s Green
Business Certification goals of long-term water conservation
within City facilities, vegetated stormwater infiltration sys-
tems, parks and medians, including installation of low-flow
toilets and showers, parks, installation of automatic shut-off
valves in lavatories and sinks and water efficient outdoor
irrigation.
283
HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT
Chapter 7
284
285
HS-3
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTENTS
HS-3 Introduction
HS-4 Context
Emergency Preparedness
Fire Safety
Public Safety
Hazardous Materials
Electromagnetic Fields
Geologic and Seismic
Hazards
Flood Hazards
Noise
HS-26 Looking Forward
HS-27 Goals and Policies
Regional Coordination
Emergency Preparedness
Fire Safety
Public Safety
Hazardous Materials
Flooding
Noise
INTRODUCTION
Community health and public safety responsibilities have
to evolve to address the community’s growth and changing
needs. The City is committed to maintaining a high level of
preparedness to protect the community from risks to life,
property and the environment associated with both natural
and human-caused disasters and hazards. In the future,
more emphasis will be placed on sustainable approaches
to community health and safety, including crime and fire
prevention through design, improved use of technology,
management of hazardous materials and improved disaster
planning.
This Element includes goals, policies and strategies that
address the potential risks associated with these hazards,
actions the City can take to reduce these risks, and
ways the City and community can take more sustainable
approaches for preventing or minimizing injuries to life and
damages to property.
286
HS-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTEXT
Emergency Preparedness
Emergencies can severely impact the health of a com-
munity and a city or agency’s ability to provide needed
services. Emergencies can include natural disasters such as
earthquakes, floods and forest fires, or others events such
as infrastructure disruptions, security incidents or hazardous
spills. Emergency preparedness includes activities that are
undertaken before an emergency occurs so there is an
effective and coordinated response.
Emergency preparedness requires the integration of
the following elements into each of the City’s functions:
emergency planning, coordination, mitigation, training and
public education. The City, its contributing agencies, and
the community are partners in ensuring that emergency
planning is effectively implemented.
Cupertino Emergency Plan
State law requires cities to prepare an emergency plan in
order to effectively respond to natural or human-caused
disasters that threaten lives, the natural environment or
property. The Cupertino Emergency Plan establishes an
organizational framework to enable the City to manage
its emergency response activities and to coordinate with
County, State and Federal agencies. The Emergency Plan
was prepared in accordance with the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) and is used in conjunction
with the State Emergency Plan, the Santa Clara Operational
Disaster Response and Recovery Area Interim Agreement,
Santa Clara County Emergency Plan, as well as plans and
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of contract agen-
cies and special districts. Support personnel such as City
staff, special districts and volunteer groups are trained to
perform specific functions in the Emergency Operations
287
HS-5
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Center. The plan is reviewed annually and tested through
periodic emergency disaster drills.
Emergency Operations Center
The City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is located
on the first floor of City Hall, with an alternative location
in the Service Center on Mary Avenue. The EOC has the
ability to be fully functional within 30 minutes of activation.
Capabilities include emergency backup power, computer
network and internet access, and telephone and radio com-
munications to City and County sites. While the staffing and
duties are actively managed through the Emergency Plan,
there may be additional physical and seismic improvements
required to City Hall to ensure that it can continue to meet
the requirements of an EOC. Additional communication
support is provided by volunteers from Cupertino Amateur
Radio Emergency Service (CARES). CARES volunteers
coordinate extensive citywide communications capabilities,
including helping to connect neighbors, public safety offi-
cials, special districts, City and County Departments.
Disaster Service Workers
During emergencies, all City employees are designated
Disaster Service Workers under Section 3100 of the
California Government Code. They are required to remain
at work as long as they are needed, and receive specific
training in personal and home preparedness, First Aid, CPR,
NIMS and Terrorism Awareness.
Volunteer groups also play an important role in the City’s
Emergency Plan. The City is part of a countywide volunteer
services plan and is working with the Emergency Volunteer
Center, Blockleaders, and Neighborhood Watch to develop
a plan for coordinating and deploying volunteers. Citizen
Corps members (CARES, CERT and MRC) continue to
receive appropriate training and equipment to rapidly
288
HS-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
respond throughout the City and augment professional first
responders. Unregistered and untrained volunteers may be
utilized and trained, as needed during a disaster.
Fire Safety
Fire fighting and emergency medical services are provided
to the City by the Santa Clara County Fire Department
(SCCFD). SCCFD is a full service department that provides
similar services to seven other West Valley cities and
adjacent county areas. Mutual aid agreements with the
neighboring jurisdictions augment SCCFD’s fire response
capabilities. In addition to fire protection, SCCFD also con-
ducts fire prevention inspections and educational programs,
including those on Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) training, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and
first aid certification.
Due to Cupertino’s geographical location, it is exposed
to hazards from both wildland and urban fires. There are
approximately 16 square miles of hillsides included in
and around the boundary of the city. In 2009, based on
vegetation data, topography and potential fire behavior,
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CalFire) identified approximately three acres of the City to
be in the High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
The City adopted this area as its Wildand-Urban Interface
Fire Area (WUIFA). Properties in the WUIFA are subject to
building and property maintenance standards intended
to prevent and manage community safety due to brush
and forest fires (Figure HS-1). Planning for such areas also
requires attention to the availability of access roads and
water for firefighting and evacuation efforts.
Santa Clara County lists the Montebello Road/Stevens
Canyon area as the fourth highest risk in the county.
The road linking Montebello and the Palo Alto Sphere
of Influence to the bottom of Stevens Canyon has been
improved to acceptable standards for a fire access road. A
289
HS-7
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
fire trail extends from Skyline Boulevard on Charcoal Road
to Stevens Canyon. The City requires that all emergency
roads be constructed with an all weather surface. It also
requires a private emergency access connection between
public streets within Lindy Canyon and Regnart Canyon
areas. Presently, there are no water systems serving the
Montebello Road and upper Stevens Canyon area, with
the exception of Stevens Creek itself. Because there is no
water service to these areas, the County requires homes
to provide individual water tanks and fire sprinkler systems
(Figure HS-2).
The urbanized portions of Cupertino are not exposed to
a high risk of fire. The City is served by a well-managed
fire protection service as well as a fire prevention program.
Buildings in the City are relatively new and there is a strong
code enforcement program, an adequate water supply
and a well-maintained delivery system. State, regional and
local standards also ensure that new buildings and facilities
adequately address issues of fire safety, access, evacuation
and fire-fighting requirements.
Response time is one metric for measuring level of service
for fighting fire and emergency services. It is the policy
of SCCFD to respond to 90 percent of emergency calls
not requiring a paramedic in under seven minutes. For
situations where emergency medical services are required,
it is the policy that paramedics arrive in less than seven
minutes at least 90 percent of the time. An increase in calls
for fire service and traffic congestion may affect SCCFD’s
critical response time, and the District may need to adjust
or expand staff, and equipment in areas of high service
demand in the future. Figure HS-3 shows the location of
fire stations and their service areas in Cupertino.
State and Local Programs
The City regulates building construction and site planning
through the Uniform Fire Code and the California Building
290
HS-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
0 2,100 4,200 6,3001,050
Feet
Legend
UrbanWildlandInterface
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGERRD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TAN
T
AU
AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Santa Clara
SunnyvaleLos Altos
San Jose
Saratoga
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
Unincorporated Areas within
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Urban Wildland Interface
N
Figure HS-1
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA)
291
HS-9
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
San Jose Water Company
California WaterCupertino Municipal Water System
(Leased to San Jose Water Company)
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Water Company Service Areas
N
Figure HS-2
Water Service
292
HS-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Seven
Springs
Fire Station
Cupertino
Fire Station
Monta Vista
Fire Station
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
3/4 Mile Serivce Area
1-1/2 Miles Service Area
2 Miles Service Area
N
Figure HS-3
Fire Service
293
HS-11
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Code. The City and the SCCFD inspect commercial and
industrial buildings for compliance with the applicable
codes. In addition, the County Fire Marshal and the Fire
Department regulate activities, including weed abatement
and brush clearance, in the Wildland Urban Interface Fire
Area (WUFIA).
Public Safety
The City, and a number of surrounding jurisdictions, con-
tracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, West
Valley Division, for law enforcement services. Law enforce-
ment services include police patrols, criminal investigations,
traffic enforcement, accident investigation and tactical
teams. The City’s commitment to public safety encom-
passes two broad areas of responsibilities: (1) provide
public safety services and the planning necessary for the
prevention of crime; and (2) plan for a safe environment in
which the public is not exposed to unnecessary risks to life
and property.
Land use planning and site design can play a large role in
crime prevention. The City considers design techniques
that will minimize potential vandalism and crime when
reviewing plans for future developments, including parks,
public spaces, commercial, office, industrial and residential
uses. These techniques include Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) and “defensible space” con-
cepts. Implementation of “defensible space” principles that
maintain a balance between privacy needs in residential
neighborhoods and the need to ensure safety. The City’s
Neighborhood Watch Program also encourages neighbor-
hood cohesiveness and security by involving the community
in the public safety effort. For non-residential areas, design
techniques should be implemented that balance aesthetics,
function, community-building, access for patrol vehicles,
and adequate buffers for low-intensity residential uses.
294
HS-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are a part of our everyday life in
the form of batteries, light bulbs, and household chemi-
cals such as pesticides, motor oil, cleaners and paints.
They are also used in many commercial and industrial
operations. The use, storage and disposal of hazardous
materials, including management of contaminated soils
and groundwater, is regulated by Federal, State and local
laws. The City has adopted a Hazardous Materials Storage
Ordinance that regulates the storage of these materials
in solid and liquid form. The City’s Regulation of Facilities
Where Materials Which Are Or May Become Toxic Gases
Are Found Ordinance regulates the storage of hazardous
materials in gaseous form. Figure HS-4 identifies potential
sites within the city that may contain hazardous materials.
Since 1990, State law has required that hazardous waste
be properly disposed of in approved hazardous waste
treatment or disposal facilities. To accomplish this, new
treatment methods and facilities have been developed
and approved to pre-treat hazardous waste before its
final disposal. Under authority of the 1986 “Tanner” Bill
(AB 2948), Cupertino, along with 13 other cities, joined
the County to develop a comprehensive and coordinated
planning approach to hazardous waste disposal. In 1990, a
countywide Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program
was created. In order to supplement the County HHW
Program and make the collection of HHW more convenient
for residents, the City currently provides a door-to-door
hazardous waste retrieval service through its solid waste
franchise agreement.
Electromagnetic Fields
Electromagnetic fields are a physical field produced by
electrically charged objects, such has high transmission
power lines. The potential health effects of the very low
295
HS-13
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTA
U
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
SunnyvaleLos Altos
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Potential Sites
N
Figure HS-4
Potential Hazardous Sites
296
HS-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Horizontally
Shifted Block
Horizontal Offset
of the Ground Surface
A. San Andreas Fault B. Sargent - Berrocal Fault
Fault Type: R ight Lateral
(Strike-Slip) Fault
Displacement: Horizontal
Fault Type: T hrust (Dip-Slip) Fault
Displacement: V ertical
Vertically Elevated Block
Faults within the Cupertino planning area
are characterized by (A) Horizontal and (B)
Vertical displacements.
frequency EMFs surrounding power lines and electrical
devices are the subject of on-going research and a signifi-
cant amount of public debate. The US National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has issued some
cautionary advisories but stresses that the data is currently
too limited to draw good conclusions. Currently, electro-
magnetic fields from transmission lines, electrical and wire-
less facilities, and appliances are heavily regulated through
Federal and State requirements.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Cupertino is located in the seismically active San Francisco
Bay region, which has several active seismic faults. The San
Andreas fault, one of the longest and most active faults
in the world, is located west of Cupertino. Two additional
faults closely associated with the San Andreas fault, the
Sargent-Berrocal and Monta Vista-Shannon fault systems,
also cross the western portion of the city. Movement on the
San Andreas fault is predominantly right-lateral strike-slip,
where the earth ruptures in a horizontal fashion, with the
opposite sides of the fault moving to the right with respect
to each other. Movement on the Sargent-Berrocal and
Monta Vista-Shannon faults is more variable in style. Both of
these faults are characterized by “thrust” faulting, where a
significant amount of vertical “up-down” (so called dip-slip)
displacement occurs on an inclined plane, and one side of
the fault is elevated (i.e., thrust over) the other side.
297
HS-15
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE HS-1
EXPLANATIONS OF GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
Zone Description
(F)– Fault Rupture Area of potential surface fault rupture hazard within 300 feet east and 600 feet west of the Monta Vista and
Berrocal faults, and within 600 feet of the San Andreas fault.
(S)– Slope Instability
Area includes all recognized landslide deposits, and steep walls of Stevens Creek canyon, with a moderate
to high landslide potential under static or seismic conditions. Area also reflects the mapped zone of
potential earthquake-induced landsliding prepared by the California Geological Survey (2002).
(H)– Hillside Area contains moderate to steep slope conditions not included in the above categories, with an
undetermined potential for slope instability.
(L)– Liquefaction /
Inundation
Area where local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for liquifaction
under seismic conditions. Much of this area also has the potential for periodic flood inundation. The
Liquifaction/Inundation Zone is stippled where covered by an overlaying Fault Zone.
(V)– Valley Area includes all relatively level valley floor terrain not included in the above categories with relatively low
levels of geologic hazard risk.
TABLE HS-2
MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES AND RECURRENCE INTERVALS
Causative Faults
Distance from
De Anza/SCB
Intersection
Maximum
Historic Moment
Magnitude
Maximum
Probable Moment
Magnitude
Est. Recurrence
Interval of Max.
Prob. Earthquake
San Andreas
System
San Andreas 5.5 miles 7.9 7.9 220 years
Hayward (South)10 miles 7.0 7.0 236 years
Calveras (Central)14 miles 6.3 7.0 374 years
Sargent-Berrocal
System
Sargent-Berrocal 3.5 miles 3.7-5.0 6.8 330 years
Monta Vista-Shannon 2 miles 2.0-3.0 6.8 2400 years
298
HS-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT RD
85
280
TANTAU
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
S
a
n
t
a
C
lara County
S
a
n
t
a
C
r
uz County
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
Fault Rupture
Slope Instability
Hillside
Inundation / Liquefaction
Valley Floor
Known Fault
Inferred Fault
Concealed Fault
Urban Service Area Boundary
Boundary Agreement Line
F
a
u
l
t
Sa
n
A
n
d
r
e
a
s
F
a
u
l
t
B
e
r
r
o
c
a
l
Fault
M
o
n
t
a
V
i
s
t
a
F
F
F
F
F
F
H
L
L
L
LL
L
L
L
H
H
H
V
V
V
V
V
S
S
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
N
Figure HS-5
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
299
HS-17
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE HS-3
ACCEPTABLE EXPOSURE TO RISK RELATED TO VARIOUS LAND USES
Acceptable
Exposure to Risk Land Use Group Extra Project Cost to Reduce
Risk to Acceptable Level
Extremely Low
Group 1
VULNERABLE STRUCTURES (nuclear reactors,
large dams, plants manufacturing/ storing
hazardous materials)
As required for maximum attainable safety
Group 2
VITAL PUBLIC UTILITIES, (electrical transmission
interties/substantions, regional water pipelines,
treatment plants, gas mains)
Design as needed to remain functional after max. prob.
earthquake on local faults
Group 3
COMMUNICATION/TRANSPORTATION
(airports, telephones, bridges, freeways, evac.
routes)
5% to 25% of project cost
SMALL WATER RETENTION STRUCTURES
Design as needed to remain functional after max. prob
earthquake on local faults
EMERGENCY CENTERS (hospitals, fire/police
stations, post-earthquake aide stations, schools,
City Hall and Service Center, De Anza College)
Group 4
INVOLUNTARY OCCUPANCY FACILITIES
(schools, prisons, convalescent and nursing
homes)Design as needed to remain functional after max. prob.
earthquake on local faults
HIGH OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS (theaters,
hotels, large office/apartment bldgs.)
Moderately Low Group 5
PUBLIC UTILITIES, (electrical feeder routes, water
supply turnout lines, sewage lines)5% to 25% of project cost
FACILITIES IMPORTANT TO LOCAL ECONOMY
Design to minimize injury, loss of life during maximum
probable earthquake on local faults; need not design to
remain functional
Ordinary Risk
Level
Group 6
MINOR TRANSPORTATION (arterials and
parkways)
2% of project cost; to 10% project cost in extreme casesLOW-MODERATE OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS
(small apartment bldgs., single-fam. resid.,
motels, small commercial/office bldgs.)
Group 7
VERY LOW OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS Design to resist minor earthquakes (warehouses, farm
structures) w/o damage; resist mod. Earthquakes w/o
struc. damage,with some nonstruct. damage; resist
major earthquake (max. prob. on local faults w/o
collapse, allowing some struc. & non-struc. damage
OPEN SPACE & RECREATION AREAS (farm land,
landfills, wildlife areas)
300
HS-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE HS-4
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRED BASED
ON ACCEPTABLE RISK
Land Use Activity
Hazard Map Symbol
FSH LV
Evaluation Required Evaluation Required
Groups 1 to 4
UBC UBC
Soils Soils
Geology Seismic Hazard
Seismic Hazard
Groups 5 to 7
UBC UBC
Soils
Geology
Descriptions of Technical Evaluations:
UBC Current, adopted version of the California Building Code
Soils Soils and foundation investigation to determine ability
of local soil conditions to support structures
Geology Determine subsidence potential, faulting hazard, slope
stability (See Geologic Map for additional detail)
Seismic Detailed Soils/Structural evaluation to certify adequacy
Hazard of normal UBC earthquake regulations or to recommend
more stringent measures
Seismic Hazard Detailed Soils/Structural evaluation to certify adequacy
of normal UBC earthquake regulations or to recommend
more stringent measures
301
HS-19
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Primary geologic hazards in Cupertino are related to
landslides and seismic impacts. Seismically induced
ground shaking, surface fault rupture, and various forms of
earthquake-triggered ground failure are anticipated within
the city during large earthquakes. These geologic hazards
present potential impacts to property and public safety.
Tables HS-1 through HS-4 briefly explain seismic hazards,
magnitude and occurrence, acceptable exposure rise, and
technical investigations required based on acceptable risk.
Figure HS-6 identifies the areas in Cupertino susceptible
to the greatest risk. Also see Technical Appendix E for
additional information on geologic and seismic hazards and
risks.
Following the 1983 Coalinga and 1994 Northridge
earthquakes, scientists became increasingly aware of
earthquakes generated by faults not previously observed at
the earth’s surface. These types of faults are called “blind
faults,” and represent a type of thrust fault that does not
rupture completely to the surface. It is possible that one or
more “blind faults” are present in the Monta Vista-Shannon
fault system.
Flood Hazards
Floods are surface hydrological hazards that can have a
significant, and sometimes, long lasting effect on a com-
munity. Floods can originate from various sources including
heavy rainstorms, landslides and/or dam failure. Sediment
deposits also increase flood risks because they clog the
drainage system as well as the natural percolation function
of the streambeds.
Rain related floods are the most common type of floods,
and usually occur during periods of extended heavy rainfall.
Landslides can generate floods by creating water basins
where if the pressure being exerted on the blockage is not
relieved, it could collapse, releasing large volumes of water
302
HS-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Note: Flood inundation area for failure
of Stevens Creek Reservoir is based upon
maximum 3700 acre feet storage capacity.
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
0 +30 Min.
Voss Ave. Pond
8-10 Acre Feet
Cristo Rey Tank
2 Mil. Gal.
Mercedes Tanks
(2) 2 Mil. Gal.
12.2 Acre Feet
4 Mil. Gal.
Regnart Canyon Tank
0.16 Mil. Gal.
Regnart Heights Tank
0.14 Mil. Gal.
Rainbows End
Tank
0.30 Mil. Gal.
Regnart Tanks
20 Mil. Gal.
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
3700 Acre Feet
1 Bil. 200 Mil. Gal
0 +15 Min.
Mann Drive Tank
1 Mil. Gal.
Proposed Tank
61.3 Acre Feet
20 Mil. Gal.
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Flood Limit
Natural or Man-Made
Water Course
N
Figure HS-6
Facility Failure
303
HS-21
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure HS-7
100-Year Flood
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
SunnyvaleLos Altos
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Note: Detailed Maps of 100-Year Flood
Event Are Available at City Hall
Ca
l
a
b
a
z
a
s
Cre
e
k
Creek
Re
g
n
a
r
t
100-Year Flood
Contained In
Channel
100-Year Flood
Contained In Channel
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Flood Limit
Natural or Man-Made
Water Course
Highway
Major Road
N
304
HS-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
and potentially causing injuries to people and/or damaging
property. The largest body of water within the area is the
Stevens Creek Reservoir. Stevens Creek Dam meets current
dam safety standards and the probability of its failure is
minimal (Figure HS-6).
The watersheds in the Santa Cruz Mountain Range feed into
four major streambeds that traverse the City: Permanente
Creek, Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, and Calabazas Creek.
(Figure HS-7). Stevens Creek and its streamside are among
the natural elements that have the most influence on
Cupertino’s character. These creeks collect surface runoff
and channel it to the Bay. However, they also pose potential
flooding risks if water levels exceed the top of bank as a
result of heavy runoff.
The City and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are
actively involved in programs to minimize the risk of
flooding. The City developed an approach to land use for
the non-urbanized flood plain of Stevens Creek south of
Stevens Creek Boulevard in the Land Use Element. This
ensures the preservation of the 100-year flood plain and
the protection of the riparian corridor along this portion
of Stevens Creek. The City and the Water District also
developed a flood management program for the flood
plain of Stevens Creek between Interstate 280 and Stevens
Creek Boulevard while preserving the natural environment
of Stevens Creek. Structural improvements, while not
preferred, may be necessary, to protect properties from a
100-year flood.
Noise
The noise environment is an accumulation of many different
sources, ranging from human voices to major sources such
as freeway traffic. The degree to which noise becomes an
annoyance depends on a variety of factors including noise
level, time of day, background sounds, and surrounding
land use.
305
HS-23
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Community Noise Fundamentals
The three elements of community noise are noise level,
noise spectrum, and variation in noise level with time. Noise
level is measured in decibels (dB). Noise is composed of
various frequencies within a noise spectrum that define the
character of the noise. Since human hearing is more sensi-
tive to the higher speech frequencies, the A-weighted fre-
quency network is applied, in accordance with national and
international standards, to adjust the measured noise level
to more closely relate to human perception of loudness.
Noise environments have different characteristics that vary
with duration and time of day; for instance a freeway may
emit a fairly constant noise level for long periods while an
airport may emit many short-term high level noise events
punctuated by extended periods of quiet. To provide a
standard measure for community noise exposure that takes
into account the time-varying characteristics, the State of
California adopted the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) as the standard metric. The CNEL is a 24-hour
energy average metric that penalizes evening and nighttime
noise, and provides a uniform measure for time-varying
noise environments.
Noise Environment
The noise environment can generally be divided into two
categories: transportation-related and non-transportation
related noise. Traffic noise is the greatest contributor to
noise pollution in Cupertino and one of the most dif-
ficult to control through local effort. Two major freeways
(Interstate 280 and Highway 85) and four major corridors
(Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead
Road, and Foothill Boulevard ) cross Cupertino. These
roadways are utilized not only by local residents and
employees, but also by commuters to destinations beyond
Cupertino. Heavy-duty trucking operations to and from
the Hanson Permanente Cement Plant and Stevens Creek
306
HS-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Quarry located in the western foothills near Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard are also a significant
transportation-related noise contributor.
Cupertino receives some aircraft noise from facilities
within the region including San Jose International Airport,
Moffett Federal Airfield and Palo Alto Airport; however,
the Cupertino city limit does not fall within the identified
noise contours of any airport. One railroad line passes
through the Monta Vista neighborhood and connects with
the Hanson Permanente Cement Plant. This freight railway
operates at very low frequencies, with approximately three
train trips in each direction per week, usually during the
daytime or early evening.
Non-transportation noise varies from stationary equip-
ment (e.g., air conditioning units) to construction activity.
Regulation to minimize excessive noise from non-transpor-
tation sources includes compliance with the City’s noise
standards that limit certain noise-generating activity during
evening and early morning, when ambient noise levels tend
to be lower. Advancements in technology to muffle sound
also reduce noise from construction equipment and station-
ary equipment such as compressors and generators.
Land Use Compatibility
The Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 10, outlines the
maximum noise levels on receiving properties based upon
land use types (Figure HS-8). Land use decisions and the
development review process play a large role in minimizing
noise impacts on sensitive land uses. Noise compatibility
may be achieved by avoiding the location of conflicting
land uses adjacent to one another and incorporating buffers
and noise control techniques including setbacks, landscap-
ing, building transitions, site design, and building construc-
tion techniques. Selection of the appropriate noise control
technique will vary depending on the level of noise that
needs to be reduced as well as the location and intended
land use.
307
HS-25
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Community Noise ExposureLand Use Category
(Ldn or CNEL, dB)
556065707580
Residential - Multi Family
Transient Lodging
(Motels, Hotels)
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Commercial
and Professional Centers
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
Residential - Low Density
(Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes)
Normally Acceptable
Specified land use is satisfactory,
based upon the assumption that any
buildings involved are of normal
conventional construction, without
any special noise insulation
requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable
New construction or development
should be undertaken only after a
detailed analysis of the noise
reduction requirements is made and
needed noise reduction features
included in the design. Conventional
construction, but with closed windows
and fresh air supply systems or air
conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable
New construction or development
should generally be discouraged. If
new construction or development
does proceed, a detailed analysis of
the noise reduction requirements
must be made and needed noise
insulation features included in the
design.
Clearly Unacceptable
New construction or development
should generally not be undertaken.
Figure HS-8
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
r
308
HS-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LOOKING FORWARD
As Cupertino’s resident and employee population grows,
the City must identify ways to ensure public safety and
support the community’s high quality of life. Innovative site
design and construction techniques are needed to reduce
noise in developments near major corridors and where
uses are mixed to ensure compatibility. Fire protection
and public safety should be enhanced in a manner that
provides a high quality of service while continuing to be
fiscally responsible. The following are ways the City will
address key challenges and opportunities facing Cupertino:
1. Noise. As State, regional and local policies encourage
mixed-use development near corridors, the City should
look to ways to reduce noise impacts on residences
near and in such developments through site design,
landscaping and construction techniques. Additionally,
the City should review locations and site design for
sensitive uses including schools, childcare facilities
and hospitals to ensure that they are not negatively
impacted by noise.
2. Project Design and Operations. Measures such as
project and building design, emergency access, opera-
tions and maintenance of property, can help develop-
ments promote public and fire safety. Such measures
will also allow the providers to maintain a high service
level, while accommodating future growth.
3. Community Participation. The City and service provid-
ers should enhance community participation through
new and existing programs such as neighborhood
watch, emergency preparedness and school programs.
4. Shared Resources. The City can enhance emergency,
fire safety and public safety services by coordinating
programs with service providers and neighboring cities
through shared services, mutual aid and agreements.
309
HS-27
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
GOALS AND POLICIES
Regional Coordination
The City seeks to coordinate its local requirements and
emergency planning efforts with Federal, State and region-
al resources to ensure a consistent, integrated and efficient
approach to emergency planning.
Policy HS-1.1: Regional Hazard Risk Reduction
Planning
Coordinate with Santa Clara County and local agencies to
implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara County.
Strategy HS-1.1.1. Monitoring and Budgeting. Monitor
and evaluate the success of the LHMP, including local
strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex (Section 11).
Working with Santa Clara County, ensure that strategies
are prioritized and implemented through the Capital
Improvement Program and provide adequate budget for
on-going programs and department operations.
Strategy HS-1.1.2. Mitigation Incorporation. Ensure that
mitigation actions identified in the LHMP are being incor-
porated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where
appropriate.
Strategy HS-1.1.3. Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendments
and Updates. Support Santa Clara County in its role as the
lead agency that prepares and updates the Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
GOAL HS-1
REDUCE HAZARD RISKS THROUGH
REGIONAL COORDINATION AND
MITIGATION PLANNING
310
HS-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-1.2: Sea Level Rise Protection
Ensure all areas in Cupertino are adequately protected for
the anticipated effects of sea level rise.
Strategy HS-1.2.1. Monitor Rising Sea Level. Regularly
coordinate with regional, state, and federal agencies on ris-
ing sea levels in the San Francisco Bay and major tributaries
to determine if additional adaptation strategies should be
implemented to address flooding hazards. This includes
monitoring FEMA flood map updates to identify areas in
the city susceptible to sea level rise, addressing changes
to state and regional sea and bay level rise estimates, and
coordinating with adjacent municipalities on flood control
improvements as appropriate.
Strategy HS-1.2.2. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Provide
to the public, as available, up-to-date Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) that identify rising sea levels and changing
flood conditions.
Emergency Preparedness
The City seeks to focus on planning and education to
prepare and enlist the community in the management of
disasters and emergencies.
Policy HS-2.1: Promote Emergency Preparedness
Distribute multi-hazard emergency preparedness infor-
mation for all threats identified in the emergency plan.
Information will be provided through Cardiopulmonary
Resuscitation (CPR), First Aid and Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) training, lectures and seminars on
GOAL HS-2
ENSURE A HIGH LEVEL OF
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR
NATURAL AND HUMAN- CAUSED
DISASTERS
311
HS-29
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
emergency preparedness, publication of monthly safety
articles in the Cupertino Scene, posting of information on
the Emergency Preparedness website and coordination of
video and printed information at the library.
Policy HS-2.2: Emergency Operations and Training
Ensure ongoing training of identified City staff on their
functions/responsibilities in the EOC and in disaster pre-
paredness, first aid and CPR.
Strategy HS-2.2.1: Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
Review options to provide functional and seismic upgrades
to the EOC facility at City Hall or explore alternative loca-
tions for the EOC.
Strategy HS-2.2.2: Employee Training. Conduct regular
exercises and participate in regional exercises to ensure
that employees are adequately trained.
Policy HS-2.3: Volunteer Groups
Continue to encourage the ongoing use of volunteer
groups to augment emergency services, and clearly define
responsibilities during a local emergency.
Strategy HS-2.3.1: Cupertino Citizens Corps. Continue to
support the Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency Services
(CARES), Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
and Medical Reserve Corp (MRC) programs to ensure the
development of neighborhood based emergency prepared-
ness throughout the City. Encourage ongoing cooperation
with CERTs in other cities.
Strategy HS-2.3.2: Community Groups. Continue pre-
disaster agreements with appropriate community groups
to provide specified post-disaster assistance, through the
Emergency Services Coordinator and with the advice of the
City Attorney.
Strategy HS-2.3.3: American Red Cross. Continue to
implement the American Red Cross agreements under the
312
HS-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
direction of the Director of Emergency Services during a
disaster.
Strategy HS-2.3.4: Shelter Providers. Continue the agree-
ment with designated shelter sites to provide space for
emergency supply containers.
Strategy HS-2.3.5: Amateur Radio Operators. Continue
to support training and cooperation between the City and
Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency Service (CARES) to
prepare for emergency communications needs.
Policy HS-2.4: Emergency Public Information
Maintain an Emergency Public Information program to be
used during emergency situations.
Strategy HS-2.4.1: Communication Methods. Use the
local TV channel, Cupertino Alert System (CAS), the Internet
and other communication methods to transmit information
to the citizenry.
Strategy HS-2.4.2: Public Information Office. Activate
the Public Information in coordination with the Sheriff and
the Fire Department to provide accurate information to the
public as needed.
Policy HS-2.5: Disaster Medical Response
Continue to coordinate with the appropriate County agen-
cies and local emergency clinics to ensure preparedness
and provide disaster medical response. Coordinate with the
CERT members throughout the City to ensure that they are
prepared to provide emergency support and first aid at the
neighborhood level.
Strategy HS-2.5.1: Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU). Develop a MOU with local emergency clinics. The
County’s role and involvement in emergencies should be
considered in development of the MOU.
313
HS-31
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-2.6: Military Facilities and Readiness
Consider the impact of development on neighboring
military facilities and maintain military airspace to ensure
military readiness.
Fire Safety
The City seeks to provide direction to the Santa Clara
County Fire Department (SCCFD) on ways to better protect
the community from natural and human-made fire disasters,
and implement local policies to improve building and site
design.
Policy HS-3.1: Regional Coordination
Coordinate wildland fire prevention efforts with adjacent
jurisdictions. Encourage the County and the Midpeninsula
Open Space District to implement measures to reduce fire
hazards, including putting into effect the fire reduction poli-
cies of the County Public Safety Element, continuing efforts
in fuel management, and considering the use of “green”
fire break uses for open space lands.
Policy HS-3.2: Early Project Review
Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all
projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department
input and modifications as needed.
Policy HS-3.3: Emergency Access
Ensure adequate emergency access is provided for all new
hillside development.
GOAL HS-3
PROTECT THE COMMUNITY FROM
HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH
WILDLAND AND URBAN FIRES
314
HS-32
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy HS-3.3.1: Roadway Design. Create an all-weather
emergency road system to serve rural areas.
Strategy HS-3.3.2: Dead-End Street Access. Allow public
use of private roadways during an emergency for hillside
subdivisions that have dead-end public streets longer than
1,000 feet or find a secondary means of access.
Strategy HS-3.3.3: Hillside Access Routes. Require
new hillside development to have frequent grade breaks
in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire
personnel.
Strategy HS-3.3.4: Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new
hillside development to upgrade existing access roads to
meet Fire Code and City standards.
Policy HS-3.4: Private Residential Electronic Security
Gates
Discourage the use of private residential electronic security
gates that act as a barrier to emergency personnel.
Strategy HS-3.4.1: Location. Require a fence exception for
electronic security gates in certain areas.
Strategy HS-3.4.2: Access to Gates. Where electronic
security gates are allowed, require the installation of an
approved key switch to be accessed by the Fire District.
Policy HS-3.5: Commercial and Industrial Fire
Protection Guidelines
Coordinate with the Fire Department to develop new
guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial
land uses.
315
HS-33
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-3.6: Fire Prevention and Emergency
Preparedness
Promote fire prevention and emergency preparedness
through city-initiated public education programs, the gov-
ernment television channel, the Internet, and the Cupertino
Scene.
Policy HS-3.7: Multi-Story Buildings
Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design
of multi-story buildings and require on-site fire suppression
materials and equipment.
Policy HS-3.8: Extension of Water Service
Encourage the water companies to extend water service
into the hillside and canyon areas and encourage coop-
eration between water utility companies and the Fire
Department in order to keep water systems in pace with
growth and firefighting service needs.
Public Safety
The City seeks to support public safety through improved
police services and better site design.
Policy HS-4.1: Neighborhood Awareness Programs
Continue to support the Neighborhood Watch Program and
other similar programs intended to help neighborhoods
prevent crime through social interaction.
GOAL HS-4
ENSURE HIGH LEVEL OF COMMUNITY
SAFETY WITH POLICE SERVICES THAT
MEET THE COMMUNITY’S NEEDS
316
HS-34
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-4.2: Crime Prevention through Building
and Site Design
Consider appropriate design techniques to reduce crime
and vandalism when designing public spaces and reviewing
development proposals.
Strategy HS-4.2.1: Perimeter Roads for Parks. Encircle
neighborhood parks with a public road to provide visual
accessibility whenever possible.
Strategy HS-4.2.2: Development Review. Continue to
request County Sheriff review and comment on develop-
ment applications for security and public safety measures.
Policy HS-4.3: Fiscal Impacts
Recognize fiscal impacts to the County Sheriff and City of
Cupertino when approving various land use mixes.
Policy HS-5.1: Seismic and Geologic Review Process
Evaluate new development proposals within mapped
potential hazard zones using a formal seismic/geologic
review process. Use Table HS-3 of this Element to deter-
mine the level of review required.
Strategy HS-5.1.1: Geotechnical and Structural Analysis.
Require any site with a slope exceeding 10 percent to refer-
ence the Landslide Hazard Potential Zone maps of the State
of California for all required geotechnical and structural
analysis.
Strategy HS-5.1.2: Residential Upgrades. Require that
any residential facility, that is being increased more than
50 percent assessed value or physical size, conform to all
GOAL HS-5
REDUCE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
317
HS-35
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
provisions of the current building code throughout the
entire structure. Owners of residential buildings with known
structural defects, such as un-reinforced garage openings,
“soft first story” construction, unbolted foundations, or
inadequate sheer walls are encouraged to take steps to
remedy the problem and bring their buildings up to the
current building code.
Strategy HS-5.1.3: Geologic Review. Continue to imple-
ment geologic review procedures for Geologic Reports
required by the Municipal Code through the development
review process.
Policy HS-5.2: Public Education on Seismic Safety
Reinforce the existing public education programs to help
residents minimize hazards resulting from earthquakes.
Strategy HS-5.2.1: Covenant on Seismic Risk. Require
developers to record a covenant to tell future residents in
high-risk areas about the risk and inform them that more
information is in City Hall records. This is in addition to the
State requirement that information on the geological report
is recorded on the face of subdivision maps.
Strategy HS-5.2.2: Emergency Preparedness. Publish and
promote emergency preparedness activities and drills. Use
the City social media, and the website to provide safety
tips that may include identifying and correcting household
hazards, knowing how and when to turn off utilities, help-
ing family members protect themselves during and after
an earthquake, recommending neighborhood preparation
activities, and advising residents to maintain an emergency
supply kit containing first-aid supplies, food, drinking water
and battery operated radios and flashlights.
Strategy HS-5.2.3: Neighborhood Response Groups.
Encourage participation in Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) training. Train neighborhood groups
318
HS-36
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
to care for themselves during disasters. Actively assist in
neighborhood drills and safety exercises to increase partici-
pation and build community support.
Strategy HS-5.2.4: Dependent Populations. As part of
community-wide efforts, actively cooperate with State
agencies that oversee facilities for persons with disabilities
and those with access and functional needs, to ensure that
such facilities conform to all health and safety requirements,
including emergency planning, training, exercises and
employee education.
Strategy HS-5.2.5: Foreign Language Emergency
Information. Obtain translated emergency preparedness
materials and make them available to appropriate foreign
language populations.
Hazardous Materials
The City is committed to protecting its citizens from hazard-
ous materials through improved disposal practices, better
site design and more public education.
Policy HS-6.1: Hazardous Materials Storage and
Disposal
Require the proper storage and disposal of hazardous
materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fire or
the release of harmful fumes. Maintain information chan-
nels to the residential and business communities about the
illegality and danger of dumping hazardous material and
waste in the storm drain system or in creeks.
GOAL HS-6
PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY
FROM THE RISKS ASSOCIATED
WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND
EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS
319
HS-37
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-6.2: Proximity of Residents to Hazardous
Materials
Assess future residents’ exposure to hazardous materials
when new residential development or childcare facilities are
proposed in existing industrial and manufacturing areas.
Do not allow residential development or childcare facilities
if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an
acceptable level of risk.
Policy HS-6.3: Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
Ensure that projects meet Federal and State standards for
EMF emissions through development review.
Policy HS-6.4: Educational Programs
Continue to encourage residents and businesses to use
non- and less-hazardous products, especially less toxic pest
control products, to slow the generation of new reduce
hazardous waste requiring disposal through the county-wide
program.
Policy HS-6.5: Hazardous Waste Disposals
Continue to support and facilitate for residences and busi-
nesses a convenient opportunity to properly dispose of
hazardous waste.
Strategy HS-6.5.1: Partner on Hazardous Waste
Collection and Disposal. Continue to explore efficient, eco-
nomical and convenient ways to offer Household Hazardous
Waste collection for residents in partnership with the Solid
Waste contractor or the County.
Strategy HS-6.5.2: Educational Materials. Publish educa-
tional materials about the program in the Cupertino Scene,
City website, and brochures that are distributed throughout
the community.
320
HS-38
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Flooding
The City seeks to ensure community protection from floods
through the design of projects, municipal operations and
public education.
Policy HS-7.1: Evacuation Map
Prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the
flood hazard areas and distribute it to the general public.
Policy HS-7.2: Emergency Response to Dam Failure
Ensure that Cupertino is prepared to respond to a potential
dam failure.
Strategy HS-7.2.1: Emergency and Evacuation Plan.
Maintain and update a Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan,
including alert, warning and notification systems and appro-
priate signage.
Strategy HS-7.2.2: Inter-agency Cooperation. Continue to
coordinate dam-related evacuation plans and alert/notifica-
tion systems with the City of Sunnyvale and the County
to ensure that traffic management between the agencies
facilitates life safety. Also work with other neighboring cities
to enhance communication and coordination during a dam-
related emergency.
Policy HS-7.3: Existing Non-Residential Uses in the
Flood Plain
Allow commercial and recreational uses that are now exclu-
sively within the flood plain to remain in their present use or
to be used for agriculture, provided it doesn’t conflict with
Federal, State and regional requirements.
GOAL HS-7
PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY
FROM RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
FLOODS
321
HS-39
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-7.4: Construction in Flood Plains
Continue to implement land use, zoning and building code
regulations limiting new construction in the already urban-
ized flood hazard areas recognized by the Federal Flood
Insurance Administrator.
Strategy HS-7.4.1: Dwellings in Natural Flood Plain.
Discourage new residential development in natural flood
plains. Regulate all types of redevelopment in natural flood
plains. This includes prohibiting fill materials and obstruc-
tions that may increase flood potential or modify the natural
riparian corridors.
Strategy HS-7.4.2: Description of Flood Zone Regulation.
Continue to maintain and update a map of potential flood
hazard areas and a description of flood zone regulations on
the City’s website.
Strategy HS-7.4.3: National Flood Insurance Program
Community Rating System. Continue to participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating
System (CRS). The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that
recognizes and encourages community floodplain manage-
ment activities that exceed minimum NFIP requirements.
Flood insurance premium rates for property owners within
the city may be discounted to reflect the reduced flood
risk resulting from community actions meeting the three
goals of the CRS, which are to: (1) reduce flood damage to
insurable property; (2) strengthen and support the insurance
aspects of the NFIP; and (3) encourage a comprehensive
approach to floodplain management.
Policy HS-7.5: Hillside Grading
Restrict the extent and timing of hillside grading operations
to April through October except as otherwise allowed by
the City. Require performance bonds during the remain-
ing time to guarantee the repair of any erosion damage.
Require planting of graded slopes as soon as practical after
grading is complete.
322
HS-40
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-7.6: Stability of Existing Water Storage
Facilities
Assure the structural integrity of water storage facilities.
Strategy HS-7.6.1: Coordination with other Agencies.
Work closely with the San Jose Water Company and owners
of other water storage facilities to develop and implement
a program to monitor the stability of all existing water stor-
age facilities and related improvements, such as: distribu-
tion lines, connections and other system-components.
Noise
The City seeks to ensure that the community continues to
enjoy a high quality of life through reduce noise pollution,
effective project design and noise management operations.
Policy HS-8.1: Land Use Decision Evaluation
Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments chart and the City Municipal Code to evalu-
ate land use decisions.
Policy HS-8.2: Building and Site Design
Minimize noise impacts through appropriate building and
site design.
Strategy HS-8.2.1: Commercial Delivery Areas. Locate
delivery areas for new commercial and industrial develop-
ments away from existing or planned homes.
GOAL HS-8
MINIMIZE NOISE IMPACTS ON THE
COMMUNITY AND MAINTAIN A
COMPATIBLE NOISE ENVIRONMENT
FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND
USES
323
HS-41
CHAPTER 7
Health and Safety Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy HS-8.2.2: Noise Control Techniques. Require
analysis and implementation of techniques to control the
effects of noise from industrial equipment and processes for
projects near low-intensity residential uses.
Strategy HS-8.2.3: Sound Wall Requirements. Exercise
discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure that all other
measures of noise control have been explored and that
the sound wall blends with the neighborhood. Sound
walls should be designed and landscaped to fit into the
environment.
Policy HS-8.3: Construction and Maintenance
Activities
Regulate construction and maintenance activities. Establish
and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day,
during weekdays, weekends and holidays for construction
activities. Require construction contractors to use the best
available technology to minimize excessive noise and vibra-
tion from construction equipment such as pile drivers, jack
hammers, and vibratory rollers.
Policy HS-8.4: Freeway Design and Neighborhood
Noise
Ensure that roads and development along Highway 85 and
Interstate 280 are designed and improved in a way that
minimizes neighborhood noise.
Policy HS-8.5: Neighborhoods
Review residents’ needs for convenience and safety and
prioritize them over the convenient movement of commute
or through traffic where practical.
324
HS-42
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HS-8.6: Traffic Calming Solutions to Street
Noise
Evaluate solutions to discourage through traffic in neigh-
borhoods through enhanced paving and modified street
design.
Strategy HS-8.6.1: Local Improvement. Modify street
design to minimize noise impact to neighbors.
Policy HS-8.7: Reduction of Noise from Trucking
Operations
Work to carry out noise mitigation measures to diminish
noise along Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevards from the
quarry and cement plant trucking operations. These mea-
sures include regulation of truck speed, the volume of truck
activity, and trucking activity hours to avoid late evening
and early morning. Alternatives to truck transport, specifi-
cally rail, are strongly encouraged when feasible.
Strategy HS-8.7.1: Restrictions in the County’s Use
Permit. Coordinate with the County to restrict the number
of trucks, their speed and noise levels along Foothill and
Stevens Creek Boulevards, to the extent allowed in the Use
Permit. Ensure that restrictions are monitored and enforced
by the County.
Strategy HS-8.7.2: Road Improvements to Reduce Truck
Impacts. Consider road improvements such as medians,
landscaping, noise attenuating asphalt, and other methods
to reduce quarry truck impacts.
325
SECTION 7
Public Infrastructure, Facilities and Services
INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
Chapter 8
8
326
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT INF-2 327
INF-3
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTENTS
INF-3 Introduction
INF-4 Context
Water
Waste Water
Stormwater
Telecommunications
Solid Waste and Recycling
INF-9 Looking Forward
INF-11 Goals and Policies
Citywide Infrastructure
Rights-of-Way
Water
Stormwater
Waste Water
Telecommunications
Solid Waste
INTRODUCTION
Cupertino’s public infrastructure works in tandem with the
built and natural environments to contribute to the excep-
tional quality of life enjoyed by local residents, visitors and
workers. The city’s public and private infrastructure – water,
storm drains, telecommunications and solid waste – are
vital to supporting the community’s everyday activities.
This Element includes goals, policies and strategies for the
development and maintenance of an exceptional system of
high-quality and adequate infrastructure to support com-
munity needs and development anticipated in Community
Vision 2040. It also ensures that the City’s existing infra-
structure is maintained, upgraded, replaced and expanded
when needed. The City’s commitment to environmental
sustainability provides direction for innovative strategies to
help the City conserve water and energy use, reduce waste,
improve water and air quality, and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
328
INF-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTEXT
The City regularly prepares a Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) to identify capital projects and options for
financing them. It is the City’s primary mechanism for build-
ing and maintaining citywide infrastructure such as streets,
medians and stormwater systems, and City-owned facilities,
parks, trails and bridges.
Much of the City’s infrastructure was built between the
1950s and 1970s when it was first incorporated and devel-
oped. Other areas that were later annexed into the city
typically have older and/or outdated infrastructure. Planning
for replacement and upgrades to these facilities will be
important to ensure that all residents and businesses have
access to excellent services. Identifying sustainable fund-
ing sources is also important to ensure that infrastructure
improvements can be built in a timely manner and effec-
tively maintained to meet community needs. The following
is a summary of key infrastructure systems that currently
exist in Cupertino.
Water
Cupertino has two major water suppliers: the California
Water Company and the San Jose Water Company.
Both retailers purchase their water supply from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, which receives water from the
Rinconada Treatment Plant and wells fed by groundwater.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District, which is the ground-
water management agency in Santa Clara County, manages
groundwater recharge through percolation ponds and
in-stream recharge of creeks. The McClellan Pond recharge
facility (located in Cupertino) and the Stevens Creek
Reservoir (located outside the city on its southwest bound-
ary) also contribute to Cupertino’s water supply.
329
INF-5
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
In addition to the potable water supply, there is a potential
recycled water system planned for the North Vallco Park
Special Area as part of the Apple Campus 2. The City
anticipates that recycled water will be used for groundwater
recharge, irrigation, and will help to offset potable water
use in areas served. The recycled water system can be
potentially extended to serve other areas of the city in the
future as capacity and demand increases and new distribu-
tion lines can be built.
Wastewater
Wastewater collection and treatment are provided to
the City by the Cupertino Sanitary District and the City
of Sunnyvale. The majority of the City is served by the
Cupertino Sanitary District, while the City of Sunnyvale
serves only a small portion of the Cupertino Urban Service
area within the Rancho Rinconada area.
The Cupertino Sanitary District was formed in 1956 and is
currently in the process of updating its 1964 Master Plan.
The District collects and transports waste water collected
in Cupertino to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant located in North San Jose. The District
maintains approximately one million linear feet of sewer
lines and 500,000 linear feet of sewer laterals and 17 pump
stations. While the physical condition of the infrastructure
appears to be in relatively good condition, there are issues
with the carrying capacity of a number of lines in the
system. The lines serving the City Center development,
Stevens Creek Boulevard between Randy Lane and Wolfe
Road, Wolfe Road south of Interstate 280, Stelling Road
and Foothill Boulevard are running either at capacity or
over capacity. In order to accommodate future develop-
ment, lines would have to be upgraded. Any necessary
improvements are expected to be coordinated with devel-
opment review, with new projects bearing their share of
330
INF-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
the cost or partnering with the Sanitary District to provide
improvements needed to increase capacity.
The City of Sunnyvale provides wastewater treatment
service for Cupertino’s commercial properties along Stevens
Creek Boulevard, east of Finch Avenue, and a portion
of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood. While the City
of Sunnyvale has adequate capacity to serve anticipated
growth and can continue to provide treatment capacity for
future growth in its Cupertino service area, there may need
to be improvements to the distribution network to address
future growth on the east side. Any necessary improve-
ments are expected to be coordinated with development
review, with new projects bearing their share of the cost or
partnering with the City of Sunnyvale to provide improve-
ments needed to increase capacity.
Stormwater
Comprehensive stormwater management can reduce pol-
lution and erosion, prevent flooding, recharge aquifers with
clean water, and prevent Bay pollution. While efforts in
early years focused on expanding storm drain capacity and
wastewater treatment, the approach today is to reduce and
filter runoff through project design and management.
Cupertino’s storm drain system currently operates
adequately, with some targeted upgrades or improve-
ments likely over the next 25 years. There is only localized
flooding in the storm drain system, limited primarily to
unimproved streets. The City continues to update its
infrastructure planning to ensure that future improvements
include best practices for stormwater management.
The City, along with 76 other agencies throughout the Bay
Area, is regulated by the Municipal Regional Stormwater
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
331
INF-7
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
(MRP). The MRP, which is issued by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, requires the City to carry
out a comprehensive stormwater pollution prevention
program. In order to comply with these requirements,
the City joined with 15 other adjoining agencies to form
the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program (SCVURPP). SCVURPP works with the participating
agencies and the Regional Board to develop solutions to
control urban runoff quality. In addition, the City is required
to prepare a city-specific Urban Runoff Management Plan.
This plan identifies stormwater pollution control measures
such as design, construction and operation best practices,
inspections and water-quality monitoring. The regulations
are expected to evolve and become more stringent in the
future.
Telecommunications
Cupertino is located in Silicon Valley, which is home to the
world’s greatest technology companies, and is known for
its forward-thinking and innovation. In order to ensure that
the City can continue being an exceptional place to work
and live, efforts will be made to expand access to telecom-
munications services. The City does not directly supply
telecommunications utilities; however, it plays an important
role by coordinating with providers, allowing access to pub-
lic rights-of-way, and ensuring that proposed improvements
or changes in service meet community expectations and are
integrated in a compatible manner.
Solid Waste and Recycling
Nearly every human activity leaves behind some kind of
waste. Households create ordinary garbage while industrial
and manufacturing processes create solid and hazardous
waste. Waste uses up limited landfill space, releases toxins
and creates greenhouse gases that contribute to climate
332
INF-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
change. The City uses recycling, reuse and reducing con-
sumption as an effective way to manage solid waste.
The Air Resources Board, as a means to implement AB 32,
has identifies in its Scoping Plan mandatory commercial
recycling as one of the measures to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Subsequently, AB 341 set a goal of 75
percent residential and commercial recycling by 2020.
Recology currently provides garbage pickup and recycling
services in Cupertino. City residents and businesses served
by Recology have achieved a 69 percent diversion rate
in 2012. The City is currently working with Recology to
develop programs to boost that diversion rate even higher,
reduce contamination, and boost organics composting
by residents and businesses. With the proposed changes,
the City hopes to achieve the 75 percent diversion rate by
2015.
To meet its future solid waste disposal needs, the City also
executed a contract with Browning and Ferris to provide
landfill capacity at Newby Island in Milpitas. The term of the
agreement is 35 years and ends in 2023, or at the time the
specified tonnage in the contract is reached.
333
INF-9
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LOOKING FORWARD
As the City continues to grow and develop, it will have to
look at strategies for replacing and expanding the City’s
aging infrastructure to meet community needs. Whereas
strategies in the past focused on expansion of facilities,
the focus in the future will be looking for ways to reduce
demand on infrastructure through sustainable measures
and balancing modes of transportation. A key strategy
moving forward will be finding new ways to fund infra-
structure improvements and ongoing maintenance through
new development, partnerships or other methods. The
following are ways the City will address key challenges and
opportunities facing Cupertino:
1. Sustainable methods. The City will reduce the demand
on infrastructure and services by exploring ways to
expand water and energy conservation and waste
diversion efforts.
2. Access. The City will ensure that the entire community
has access to all services. This will include identifying
areas where access is not available and looking for
strategies to retrofit and partner in the construction of
necessary improvements.
3. Environmental health. The City will prioritize methods
that improve environmental and community health
when exploring strategies to reduce demand and con-
struct facilities.
4. New Technologies. The City will utilize technology to
deliver services efficiently and effectively. This includes
supporting emerging technologies in information ser-
vices and infrastructure to better serve the business and
resident community.
334
INF-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
5. Coordination. The City will work with service providers
to ensure that their infrastructure planning and mainte-
nance goals meet community needs.
6. Community involvement. The City will enlist the com-
munity in programs to achieve goals including recycling
and conservation programs.
7. Funding. The City will ensure a sustainable source of
funding for construction, operation and maintenance of
infrastructure.
335
INF-11
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
GOALS AND POLICIES
Citywide Infrastructure
The City seeks to coordinate its municipal services with
those of other service providers in order to build and main-
tain infrastructure that fully serves the current and future
needs of the Cupertino community.
Policy INF-1.1: Infrastructure Planning
Upgrade and enhance the City’s infrastructure through the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and requirements
for development.
Strategy INF-1.1.1: Capital Improvement Program. Ensure
that CIP projects reflect the goals and policies identified in
Community Vision 2040.
Strategy INF-1.1.2: Design Capacity. Ensure that public
infrastructure is designed to meet planned needs and to
avoid the need for future upsizing. Maintain a balance
between meeting future growth needs and over-sizing of
infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts or impacts to other
goals.
Strategy INF-1.1.3: Private Development. Require
new development to pay its fair share of, or to extend
or construct, improvements to the City’s infrastructure to
accommodate growth without impacting service levels.
GOAL INF-1
ENSURE THAT THE CITY’S
INFRASTRUCTURE IS ENHANCED AND
MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE
GROWTH IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE
MANNER
336
INF-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy INF-1.1.4: Coordination. Require coordination of
construction activity between various providers, particularly in
City facilities and rights-of-way, to ensure that the community
is not unnecessarily inconvenienced. Require that providers
maintain adequate space for all utilities when planning and
constructing their infrastructure.
Policy INF-1.2: Maintenance
Ensure that existing facilities are maintained to meet the
community’s needs.
Policy INF-1.3: Coordination
Coordinate with utility and service providers to ensure that
their planning and operations meet the City’s service stan-
dards and future growth.
Policy INF-1.4: Funding
Explore funding strategies for upgrades to existing infra-
structure and ongoing operations and maintenance.
Strategy INF-1.4.1: Development. Require developers
to expand or upgrade existing infrastructure to increase
capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.
Strategy INF-1.4.2: Economic Development. Prioritize
funding of infrastructure to stimulate economic
development and job creation in order to increase
opportunities for municipal revenue.
337
INF-13
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Rights-of-way
The City will ensure that public, City-owned rights-of-way
are protected in order to support future infrastructure needs
and enhanced with sustainable features when possible, and
that new infrastructure is placed underground as feasible.
Policy INF-2.1: Maintenance
Maintain the City’s right-of-way and traffic operations
systems.
Policy INF-2.2: Multimodal Systems
Ensure that City rights-of-way are planned for a variety of
transportation alternatives including pedestrian, bicycle,
automobile, as well as new technologies such as driverless
cars, etc.
Policy INF-2.3: Green Streets
Explore the development of a “green streets” program to
minimize stormwater runoff in City rights-of-way.
Policy INF-2.4: Undergrounding Utilities
Explore undergrounding of utilities through providers,
public projects, private development and agency funding
programs and grants.
GOAL INF-2
ENSURE THAT CITY RIGHTS-OF-
WAY ARE PROTECTED FROM
INCOMPATIBLE USES AND
ENHANCED WITH SUSTAINABLE
FEATURES WHEN POSSIBLE
338
INF-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy INF-2.4.1: Public and Provider generated
projects. Require undergrounding of all new infrastructure
projects constructed by public agencies and providers.
Work with providers to underground existing overhead
lines.
Strategy INF-2.4.2: Development. Require undergrounding
of all utility lines in new developments and highly
encourage undergrounding in remodels or redevelopment
of major projects.
Policy INF-2.5: Recycled Water Infrastructure
Plan for citywide access to recycled water and encourage its
use.
Strategy INF-2.5.1: Availability. Expand the availability of a
recycled water system through public infrastructure projects
and development review.
Strategy INF-2.5.2: Use. Encourage private and public
projects to incorporate the use of recycled water for
landscaping and other uses.
Strategy INF-2.5.3: City Facilities. Design and retrofit City
buildings, facilities and landscaping to use recycled water,
to the extent feasible.
339
INF-15
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Water
The City will seek to identify ways to improve water avail-
ability, access and quality in order to maintain the long-term
health of the Cupertino water system.
Policy INF-3.1: Coordination with Providers
Coordinate with water providers and agencies in their
planning and infrastructure process to ensure that the City
continues to have adequate supply for current needs and
future growth.
Strategy INF-3.1.1: Maintenance. Coordinate with
providers to ensure that water and recycled water delivery
systems are maintained in good condition.
Policy INF-3.2: Regional Coordination
Coordinate with State and regional agencies to ensure that
policies and programs related to water provision and con-
servation meet City goals.
Note: additional water conservation policies are discussed
in detail in the Sustainability Element.
GOAL INF-3
CREATE A COORDINATED STRATEGY
TO ENSURE A SUSTAINED SUPPLY
OF POTABLE WATER THROUGH
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION
340
INF-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Stormwater
The City will seek to implement best practices in stormwa-
ter management in order to reduce demand on the drain-
age system, and reduce sediment and pollutions impacts
on the Bay.
Policy INF-4.1: Planning and Management
Create plans and operational policies to develop and main-
tain an effective and efficient stormwater system.
Strategy INF-4.1.1: Management. Reduce the demand on
storm drain capacity through implementation of programs
that meet and even exceed on-site drainage requirements.
Strategy INF-4.1.2: Infrastructure. Develop a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) for the City’s storm drain
infrastructure that meets the current and future needs of the
community.
Strategy INF-4.1.3: Maintenance. Ensure that City’s storm
drain infrastructure is appropriately maintained to reduce
flood hazards through implementation of best practices.
GOAL INF-4
IMPLEMENT BEST PRACTICES IN
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
TO REDUCE DEMAND ON THE
STORMWATER NETWORK, REDUCE
SOIL EROSION, AND REDUCE
POLLUTION INTO RESERVOIRS AND
THE BAY
341
INF-17
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy INF-4.2: Funding
Develop permanent sources of funding storm water infra-
structure construction and maintenance.
Strategy INF-4.2.2: Ongoing Operations. Review other
funding strategies to pay for the ongoing operations and
maintenance of the storm drain system per State and
regional requirements.
Note: additional policies that meet State and regional run-
off reduction are described in the Sustainability Element.
Waste Water
The City will ensure that there is adequate and well-
maintained waste water capacity through infrastructure
enhancements and policies that reduce impact on sanitary
sewer system, and that pollution in reservoirs and the Bay is
minimized.
Policy INF-5.1: Infrastructure
Ensure that the infrastructure plans for Cupertino’s waste
water system providers continue to meet the City’s current
and future needs.
Strategy INF-5.1.1: Coordination. Coordinate with the
Cupertino Sanitary District on their Master Plan and the
Sunnyvale Treatment Plant to develop a comprehensive
capital improvement program to ensure adequate capacity
for future development anticipated with General Plan
buildout.
GOAL INF-5
ENSURE THAT THE CITY’S
WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONTINUES
TO MEET CURRENT AND FUTURE
NEEDS
342
INF-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy INF-5.1.2: Development. Require developers to
pay their fair share of costs for, or in some cases construct,
infrastructure upgrades to ensure that service levels are
met.
Policy INF-5.2: Demand
Look for ways to reduce demand on the City’s wastewater
system through implementation of water conservation
measures.
Telecommunications
The City will promote expansion of a citywide telecom-
munications system that provides excellent services to
businesses and residents, and encourages innovative tech-
nologies for the future.
Policy INF-6.1: Telecommunications Master Plan
Maintain and update a Telecommunications Master Plan
with regulations and guidelines for wireless and emerging
technologies.
Policy INF-6.2: Coordination
Coordinate with providers to improve access and delivery
of services to businesses and homes.
GOAL INF-6
ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES AND
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS THAT
PROVIDE EXCELLENT SERVICES TO
BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS
343
INF-19
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy INF-6.2.1: Facility Upgrades. When possible,
require service providers to upgrade existing facilities as
part of permit or lease renewals. Encourage use of newer
technologies that allow the facility components to be
reduced in size or improve screening or camouflaging.
Strategy INF-6.2.2: Improved Access. Work with providers
to expand service to areas that are not served by
telecommunications technologies.
Strategy INF-6.2.3: City Facilities. Encourage leasing
of City sites to expand access to telecommunications
services. Develop standards for the incorporation of
telecommunications systems and public use.
Strategy INF-6.2.4: Agency and Private Facilities.
Encourage the installation of communications infrastructure
in facilities owned by other public agencies and private
development.
Strategy INF-6.2.5: Communications Infrastructure.
Support the extension and access to telecommunications
infrastructure such as fiber optic cables.
Policy INF-6.3: Emerging Technologies
Encourage new and innovative technologies and partner
with providers to provide the community with access to
these services.
Strategy INF-6.3.1: Strategic Technology Plan. Create and
update a Strategic Technology Plan for the City to improve
service efficiency.
344
INF-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
0 2,100 4,200 6,3001,050
Feet
Legend
District CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT SUNNYVALE SANITARY DISTRICT
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
Unincorporated Areas within
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Sunnyvale Sanitary District
Cupertino Sanitary District
N
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGERRD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TAN
T
AU
AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Santa Clara
SunnyvaleLos Altos
San Jose
Saratoga
Solid Waste
The City seeks to reduce solid waste and demands on
landfills, reduce the release of toxins in the air (including
greenhouse gas emissions) and improve community health.
Policy INF-7.1: Providers
Coordinate with solid waste system providers to utilize the
latest technology and best practices to encourage waste
reduction and meet, and even, exceed State targets.
Policy INF-7.2: Facilities
Ensure that public and private developments build new and
on-site facilities and/or retrofit existing on-site facilities to
meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.
Policy INF-7.3: Operations
Encourage public agencies and private property owners to
design their operations to meet, and even, exceed regula-
tory waste diversion requirements.
Strategy INF-7.3.1: City Facilities and Events. Design new
City facilities and retrofit existing facilities and event venues
with recycling and trash collection bins to facilitate easy
disposal of recyclable and compostable waste by staff and
the public.
GOAL INF-7
ENSURE THAT THE CITY MEETS AND
EXCEEDS REGULATORY WASTE
DIVERSION GOALS BY WORKING
WITH PROVIDERS, BUSINESSES AND
RESIDENTS
345
INF-21
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
0 2,100 4,200 6,3001,050
Feet
Legend
District CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT SUNNYVALE SANITARY DISTRICT
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
Unincorporated Areas within
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Sunnyvale Sanitary District
Cupertino Sanitary District
N
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGERRD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TAN
T
AU
AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Santa Clara
SunnyvaleLos Altos
San Jose
Saratoga
Figure INF-1
Waste Water Service
346
INF-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy INF-7.3.2: Construction Waste. Encourage
recycling and reuse of building materials during demolition
and construction of City, agency and private projects.
Strategy INF-7.3.3: Recycled Materials. Encourage the use
of recycled materials and sustainably harvested materials in
City, agency and private projects.
Policy INF-7.4: Product Stewardship
Per the City’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy,
support statewide and regional EPR initiatives and legisla-
tion to reduce waste and toxins in products, processes and
packaging.
Policy INF-8.1: Reducing Waste
Meet or exceed Federal, State and regional requirements
for solid waste diversion through implementation of
programs.
Strategy INF-8.1.1: Outreach. Conduct and enhance
programs that promote waste reduction in schools,
businesses and homes through partnerships with schools,
the Chamber of Commerce and the City’s neighborhood
programs.
Strategy INF-8.1.2: Hazardous Waste. Work with providers
and businesses to provide convenient hazardous and
e-waste facilities for the community.
GOAL INF-8
DEVELOP AND ENHANCE PROGRAMS
THAT REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE
WASTE
347
INF-23
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy INF-8.1.3: Preferential Purchasing. Maintain and
update a City preferential purchasing policy to products
that reduce packaging waste, greenhouse gas emissions,
toxic contaminants and are reusable.
Strategy INF-8.1.4: Reuse. Encourage reuse of materials
and reusable products. Develop a program for reuse
of materials and reusable products in City facilities and
outreach programs for community-wide participation
by promoting community-wide garage sales and online
venues.
Strategy INF-8.1.5: Collaboration. Collaborate with
agencies and large businesses or projects to enhance
opportunities for community-wide recycling, reuse and
reduction programs.
348
SECTION 7
Public Infrastructure, Facilities and Services
RECREATION, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ELEMENT
Chapter 9
9
349
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT RPC-2 350
RPC-3
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTENTS
RPC-3 Introduction
RPC-4 Context
Parks and Open Space
Park Standards
Park Accessibility
Recreation Programs
Schools
Libraries
RPC-21 Looking Forward
RPC-23 Goals and Policies
Parks and Open Space
Trails
Recreation Programs and
Services
Community Services
INTRODUCTION
Cupertino’s parks, recreation programs and community ser-
vices complement the built and natural environments and
enhance the community. They enliven our Neighborhoods
and Special Areas and help promote health, interactions
and community-building.
This Element includes goals, policies and strategies for the
development and maintenance of an exceptional and inte-
grated system of high-quality parks, recreational amenities
and community services that support current and future
needs anticipated in Community Vision 2040. As Cupertino
grows over time, the city’s parks and recreation programs
will have to adapt to meet changing needs. This Element
ensures that the City will continue to provide high-quality
parks and recreation programs, improve the distribution
and access to these facilities, work with other community
service providers, and protect open space.
351
RPC-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CONTEXT
Parks and Open Space
Cupertino currently has approximately 165 acres of City-
owned public parks and open space areas. The City’s park
system is supplemented by a network of over 220 acres of
local and regional interconnected trails that stretch from
local open space preserves to the San Francisco Bay. In
addition, there are many acres of open space preserves
surrounding the city that are operated and maintained by
regional agencies and districts, including over 40 acres of
open space negotiated through public access agreements.
Figures RPC-1 and RPC-2 show the locations of open
space areas within and near Cupertino.
Local residents, visitors and employees also enjoy a wide
range of community services provided by the City and
other agencies and districts. Looking towards the future,
the City will have to manage its resources effectively and
coordinate with other agency providers to ensure that the
community’s growing and changing needs are met. The
following is a summary of the future direction for the City’s
approach to planning, designing and managing open
space to ensuring the community’s continued health and
quality of life.
Regional Resources
Several public agencies share the task of acquiring and
maintaining open space for the enjoyment within Cupertino
and neighboring cities. Cupertino’s land uses in and around
these areas typically include low-intensity residential uses,
which are consistent with protecting open space areas.
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
McCLELLAN RD
Stevens
Creek
County
Park
Linda Vista
City Park
McClellan
Ranch
Park
Deep
Cliff
Golf
Course
Figure RPC-1
Public Open Space in the
Stevens Creek Corridor
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
McCLELLAN RD
Stevens
Creek
County
Park
Linda Vista
City Park
McClellan
Ranch
Park
Deep
Cliff
Golf
Course
(Based on the September 23, 2002
Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study)
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1M ile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
Existing City/County Public
Open Space
Existing Private Open Space
Proposed Open Space Linkage
N
352
RPC-5
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Santa
Cr
u
z
Santa
Cl
ara
San Mateo
Santa Clara
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT
RD
85
280
TANTAU
Proposed
Stevens Creek
Trail Corridor
Upper
Stevens Creek
County Park
Monte Bello
Open Space
Preserve
Monte Bello
Open Space
Preserve
Picchetti
Ranch Area
Saratoga Gap
Open Space
Preserve
Long Ridge
Open Space
Preserve
Stevens Creek
County Park
Fremont Older
Open Space
Preserve
Rancho San Antonio
Open Space Preserve
Rancho
San Antonio
County Park
Linda Vista
City
Park
San Jose
Existing County Parks
Existing MidPeninsula Regional
Open Space Preserve
Proposed Expansion of
Regional Open Space Lands
Public Access to
Open Space Preserves
Proposed Open Space Linkages
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Los Altos
There are over 13,000 acres (over 20 square miles) of public open space
in Cupertino's boundary agreement area and contiguous jurisdictions.
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1M ile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
N
Figure RPC-2
Open Space
353
RPC-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was cre-
ated in 1972 and manages about 62,000 acres of mountain-
ous, foothill and bayland open space in 26 open space
preserves. Preserves adjacent to Cupertino are located to
the south and west around the foothills, and include Rancho
San Antonio, Pichetti Ranch and Fremont Older.
Santa Clara County Parks
The Santa Clara County park program was a voter-approved
measure to acquire and develop a regional park system.
County parks adjacent to Cupertino are located near the
southwestern boundary of the city. The County Park plan
emphasizes completing Upper Stevens Creek Park and
its connection to Stevens Creek near Cupertino. Because
the upper portions of Stevens Canyon are environmentally
important, the County Parks and Recreation Department
has made a commitment to purchase lands to connect
these two parks. In 1997, as part the development of a
portion of the San Jose Diocese’s St. Joseph’s Seminary
property, the County was able to acquire 133 acres of open
space to add to its original holdings in the Rancho San
Antonio County Park (which is now managed by the Mid-
Peninsula Open Space District).
Santa Clara Valley Water District Open Space Areas
Trails along creeks owned and managed by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District supplement Cupertino’s overall
open space and park system. The District coordinates
with the City to prepare its natural flood plain policy for
Stevens Creek between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the
Stevens Creek reservoir, and also helped with the acquisi-
tion of open space lands within McClellan Ranch Park. The
District has a plan to partner with cities and the county to
provide access to creekside trails and parks for recreational
354
RPC-7
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
opportunities. This plan, called the Clean, Safe Creeks
and Natural Flood Protection plan, requires the District to
incorporate trails, parks and recreational opportunities into
existing or new flood protection projects. Such projects
are also part of the District’s plan to manage flooding in
downstream locations by providing retention facilities in
upstream locations.
City Community and Neighborhood Parks
The City has an excellent system of community and neigh-
borhood parks that provide a place for community gather-
ing, recreation and healthy programs. All existing parks and
open space areas are shown in Figure RPC-3 and listed in
Table RPC-1.
Community parks include Memorial Park and the Stevens
Creek corridor area. Memorial Park is an urban park and
facility venue for festivals located in the Heart of the City
Special Area. The Sports Center, located at the intersection
of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road, provides
a gym and tennis facilities. The Sports Center also has a
small facility where teens can gather and play indoor sports.
A Senior Center is located at the intersection of Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue, which runs programs
for seniors in Cupertino. The Quinlan Community Center,
located on Stelling Road, runs the bulk of the art, dance,
music and other community programs. All of these facilities
are located around Memorial Park.
The Civic Center complex, located in the central part of the
city, provides an additional community venue for gathering
and programs. It consists of City Hall, Community Hall and
Library Field, which offers indoor and outdoor venues for
meetings, functions and outdoor recreation. The Cupertino
Library, a facility owned by the City but operated by the
County Library District, is also located in the Civic Center
complex.
355
RPC-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
A-1
A-2
B
C
N
E-1
E-2
G
O
K
MF-1
F-2
P-1
P-2
L-1
L-2
H-1
H-2 I-1 I-2
J-1
J-2
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
LFE
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Canyon Oak
Park
Varian
Park
Sommerset
Square Park
Little
Rancho
Park
Monta VistaPark
McClellan
Ranch Park
Blackberry
Farm
Linda Vista
Park
Kennedy
Jr. H.S.
Regnart Elem.
Jollyman
Park
Hoover
Park
3 Oaks
Park
Library
Field
Civic CenterPlaza
Cali Plaza
Eaton
Elem.Hyde Jr. HS
Faria Elem.
Memorial
Park
Garden Gate
Elem.Stevens
Creek
Elem.
Sports
Center
Wilson
Park
PortalPark
Creekside
Park
Lincoln Elem.
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
Franco Park
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Cupertino Neighborhood Parks
Community Park
Schools
Mini Parks
Main Street
Town Square
Easement
L.P. Collins
Elementary
Field
City Center Easement
Cupertino Hills
Swim & Racquet
Club
Private Recreation
Community Pool
Deep Cliff
Golf Course
N
Rancho
Rinconada
Recreation
& Park
Civic CenterPark
Main Street
Park Easement
Figure RPC-3
Park Areas
356
RPC-9
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE RPC-1
EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION ACREAGE BY AREA
Area Res Parks/ Open
Space Acre Neighborhood
Park AcreCommunity Park AcreSchoolAcre
A-1
A-2
Stocklmeir Ranch
Blesch Parcel
Stevens Creek
Trail
5.0
0.6
2.4
McClellan Ranch
McClellan Ranch West
(Simms Property)
Blackberry Farm Park
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
16.0
3.0
21.5
16.5
B
Cupertino
Hills Swim and
Racquet Club***
2.98 Linda Vista 11.0
Monta Vista HS
Kennedy Jr. HS
Lincoln Elem.
Regnant Elem.
10.0*
9.0
3.0
3.0
C
E-1 Varian Park 6.0 Stevens Ck.
Elem 3.0
E-2 Monta Vista 6.0
F-1 Forge Apts 0.5*Villa Serra 0.61 Franco Park 0.61 Homestead HS 10.0*
F-2 Memorial Park
Sports Center
20.0
6.2
Garden Gate
Elem.3.0
G Sommerset
Square 2.0 Mary Avenue Dog Park 0.5
H-1 Faria Elem. 3.0
H-2 Jollyman11.5
I-1 City Center
Amphitheater 1.39*Wilson Park
Library Field
8.0
3.0
Cali Mill Plaza Park**
Civic Center Park**
Library Plaza
Civic Center Plaza
1.0
0.71.0
0.5
Eaton Elem. 3.0
I-2 Creekside13.0
J-1 Cupertino HS 10.0*
J-2 Hyde Jr. HS
Sedgewick Elem.
6.0
4.0*
K
Rancho
Rinconada Swim
Rec Facility**
2.0 Sterling
Barnhart 0.6
L-1
L-2 Portal Park 4.0 Collins Elem.
Portal Elem.
3.0
1.71*
M Hampton Apt
Arioso Apts
0.5*Main Street Park Easement
Town Square Easement
.75
0.80.5*
N Oak Valley (2)
Canyon Oak Park
0.94
0.4 Little Rancho Park 0.34
O
P-1 Three Oaks 3.0
P-2 Hoover6.0
Total by Park Type 14.32 74.71 89.4 36
Total All Types 214.43
Notes: * Not included in park acreage, **Privately owned, public access, ***Privately owned
357
RPC-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The Stevens Creek Corridor, located in the Monta Vista
Planning Area, has a natural environment with trails,
swimming facilities, group picnic areas, historic orchard
(Stocklmeir), historic ranch (McClellan Ranch), a nine-hole
golf course (Blackberry Farm Golf Course) and related sup-
port facilities. Blackberry Farm Recreational area’s swimming
facilities, recreation programs and reserved picnic areas
are only available in the summer, although access to the
Stevens Creek Corridor trails is available year round. The
City is in the process of preparing a Stevens Creek Corridor
Master Plan to review the design and planning of facilities
and programs throughout the Stevens Creek corridor. City
objectives for the plan include accommodating year-around
use of the facilities in the corridor; reviewing and revising
the plans for the golf course, McClellan Ranch, Stocklmeir,
McClellan Ranch West (Simms) and Blesch properties;
incorporating the trail system; restoring Stevens Creek; and
addressing neighborhood issues.
In addition to these community facilities, the City also has
a system of neighborhood parks of varying sizes and types
that are located throughout Cupertino. Each neighborhood
park offers a variety of opportunities for passive and active
recreation for adjacent neighborhoods and recreational
programs for the community. Lastly, the City also has agree-
ments with the school districts to maintain school fields in
return for allowing the community to use the fields, when
they are not in use by the schools.
Private and Semi-Public Open Space Resources
There are several private, open space and recreational activ-
ity businesses in Cupertino that support the recreational
needs of the community. They include the Deep Cliff Golf
Course and the Cupertino Hills Swim and Racquet Club
in the Monta Vista Planning Area, as well as riding stables
in the foothills. The Rancho Rinconada Recreation Center,
358
RPC-11
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
a swim and recreational facility operated by a separate
District, is available publicly to residents of the Rancho
Rinconada Area. These facilities are valuable to the com-
munity because they often provide services that are not tra-
ditionally provided by the public sector on City or regional
parklands.
Several hillside and urban subdivisions, and apartment
complexes, offer both natural and built recreational facilities
for their residents. Private open spaces that are accessible
to the public include Cali Mill Plaza at the intersection of
Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards, Civic Park in the
Town Center development across from the Civic Center,
and the park at the Main Street development along Stevens
Creek Boulevard east of Wolfe Road. Lastly, utility power
line corridors in the city’s foothills provide public paths and
trails through open space areas.
Trails
Trails and paths connect people to each other, create
access to open space areas and parks, and provide an
alternative to driving from place to place. Promoting more
trails and connectivity along creeks, hillsides and through
neighborhoods is a major objective of the General Plan.
Providing access to open space and parks is not completely
dependent on trails. Sidewalks and streets can also connect
pedestrians to their destinations. However, occasional bar-
riers often pose an issue when they break the continuity.
Future plans for these areas should enhance connectivity to
neighborhoods and other parts of the city. Each major trail
corridor in Cupertino is discussed in greater detail below.
In addition to these trail corridors, the City also seeks to
expand access to other trails through grants and develop-
ment review. Figure RPC-4 identifies major trail linkages in
Cupertino.
359
RPC-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Existing or Proposed
Trail Linkages
Future Trail Linkages
Los Altos
Potential Trails
Potential Alternative Trail
Alignment
N
Calabazas
Creek
Trail
San Tomas
Aquino
Trail
San Tomas
Aquino
Trail
Linda
Vista
Park
Rancho
San Antonio
Park
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Figure RPC-4
Trails Linkage
360
RPC-13
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Stevens Creek
The 65 acre Stevens Creek corridor is Cupertino’s most
prominent urban open space/trail resource. The land is
designated for recreation, parklands and farming, and
provides flood plain area for the creek. Adjoining proper-
ties are zoned for low-density residential use. The Stevens
Creek Corridor Plan retains the open space character of
the Stevens Creek greenbelt between the Stevens Creek
reservoir and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and offers histori-
cal significance relating to the Juan Bautista De Anza Trail
designation.
The City is participating with adjacent cities including
Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Mountain View in a Four Cities
Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study to explore
connections for a trail following Stevens Creek, extending
to the San Francisco Bay. The study is currently in progress
and is expected to be completed in 2015. The City will
implement recommendations from the study endorsed by
the City Council. The City’s acquisition of Linda Vista Park,
McClellan Ranch, Blackberry Farm, and the McClellan Ranch
West (Simms), Stocklmeir properties, and more recently, the
Blesch property support these planning efforts.
The 2002 Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility study concluded
that it is feasible to construct 7.7 miles of separated
and on-street multi-use paths connecting to Rancho San
Antonio and Stevens Creek County parks. To complete the
trail, a public trail easement through the approximately 150
acre former quarry property south of Linda Vista Park will
be established when the property is proposed for develop-
ment. The former quarry haul road connects Linda Vista
Park to McClellan Road. It is under the same ownership as
the quarry and is necessary to link these properties. Full
build out of the Stevens Creek trail is expected to take
about 10 to 15 years.
361
RPC-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Calabazas Creek
There is an opportunity for a trail along Calabazas Creek
that would connect the South Vallco Planning Area to
Cupertino High School and Creekside Park. The Santa Clara
Valley Water District’s Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood
Protection Plan calls for identifying recreation opportunities
along the creek as part of the flood protection project.
San Tomas-Aquino/Saratoga Creek
Cupertino’s section of the 12 mile San Tomas-Aquino
Trail crosses into the city from Santa Clara on Pruneridge
Avenue, extends to bicycle lanes on Bollinger Road, and
further extends north-south along the city limit between San
Jose and Cupertino. The City has explored the potential to
create a linear Lawrence-Mitty Park along the creek with the
cooperation of Santa Clara County, neighboring jurisdic-
tions and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Union Pacific Railroad
The 8.7 mile proposed Union Pacific Rail Trail corridor
extends through the cities of Cupertino, Saratoga,
Campbell and the town of Los Gatos. The trail would link
to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, connecting the two most
heavily used parks in Santa Clara County: Rancho San
Antonio County Park and Vasona County Park. A feasibility
study found that this project is not feasible at this time.
Acquisition of right-of-way or easements is anticipated
when the Railroad goes out of service or is able to relin-
quish right-of-way. The corridor is designated as a proposed
trail on the Trail Linkages diagram. Should the railroad
corridor use change, provision for a continuous trail through
the corridor must be included as a project component.
362
RPC-15
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge
The Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge (formerly known
as the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge) links the Sunnyvale
and north side of I-280 to De Anza College, Memorial Park
and the Oaks Shopping Center. It was opened in 2009 and
is enjoyed by pedestrians, bicyclists and school children.
Its unique design creates a gateway into Cupertino and a
landmark for the area.
Interstate 280 Trail
This is a potential trail along the drainage channel on the
south side of I-280. The trail has the potential of connect-
ing several significant nodes in the city starting from the
Calabazas Creek connection across from the Main Street
development to Vallco Shopping District, and ending at De
Anza Boulevard. The trail could be potentially extended
west of De Anza Boulevard in a later phase. A number of
development projects have contributed to a study and
potential improvements to implement the trail. The tim-
ing of the study is expected to be coordinated with the
redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District and other
developments in the area. The City will have to coordinate
with the Santa Clara County Valley Water District on the
project since it owns the drainage channel.
Park Standards
A well-planned park program incorporates a variety of
facilities and programs to meet the community’s needs. The
program must also be flexible so that it can be updated
as the community grows and changes in the future. The
City is proposing a Parks and Recreation Master Plan that
responds to these issues. Key elements of such a master
plan will include parks performance standards, a classifica-
tion system of park type and a recreation program for the
community. The master plan will also identify locations
363
RPC-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
where additional capacity is needed to meet the current
and future needs of its residents and workers and strategies
to bridge the gaps.
The City is fortunate to have access to a multitude of trails
and regional park resources within Cupertino, which, along
with the City’s inventory of available parkland, provides
approximately 430 acres of park and recreation area for
city residents (or approximately 7.37 acres of parkland per
1,000 residents). The City’s inventory of available parkland,
which includes community and neighborhood parks as
well as publicly accessible parks through agreements, is
approximately 210 acres (or approximately 3.6 acres per
1,000 residents). If the amount of parkland accessible due
to agreements with the Cupertino Union School District is
excluded, the available parkland is 174 acres (or approxi-
mately 2.98 acres per 1,000 residents).
The City’s standard currently specifies three acres of park-
land per 1,000 residents. However, the City should continue
to explore raising the parkland standard to five acres per
1,000 residents for its parks acquisition program.
Park Accessibility
One of the City’s key objectives in planning for neighbor-
hoods is to distribute parks and open space within the
community so that all residents can safely walk or bike to
a recreation facility. This has the advantage of improving
neighborhood identity, social interactions and the overall
health of the community.
Figure RPC-5 shows the neighborhoods and the 1/2 mile
service area radius for neighborhood parks. The service
area map includes walking and biking impediments due
to physical barriers, such as freeways, railroad tracks or
stream beds. In addition, busy streets may discourage
some people, especially young children, from visiting
nearby parks. The Complete Streets policies in the Mobility
364
RPC-17
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
BL
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
BOLLINGER R
D
McCLELLAN ROAD
RAINBOWDRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT ROAD
85
280
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Canyon Oak Park
Varian
Park
Sommerset
Square Park
Little Rancho Park
Monta
Vista
Park
Jollyman
Park
Hoover
Park
3 Oaks
Park
Library
Field
Memorial
Park
Franco Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Wilson
Park
Portal
Park
Main Street
Town Square
Easement
Creekside
Park Sterling
Barnhart
ParkMcClellan
Park
Linda Vista
Park
Blackberry
Farm
Cali Plaza
Library
Plaza
CivicCenterPark
Civic CenterPlaza
City Center Easement
Main Street
Park Easement
Sports
Center
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1M ile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
1/2 Mile Access Range
From Park Sites
Existing Park Site
L.P. Collins
Elementary
Field
N
Figure RPC-5
Park Access
365
RPC-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Element will work in tandem with parks planning to ensure
that key intersections connecting neighborhoods to services
are improved for pedestrian and bicycle connections.
Table RPC-2 shows the park and open space acreage
proposed by area. Acquisition strategies will include agree-
ments to allowing community use of school sites, expand-
ing and making modifications to existing parks, leveraging
State and regional funding, and park dedication require-
ments for major new developments.
Recreation Programs
The City offers a variety of recreation programs for residents
ranging from pre-school age children to its seniors. These
include sports, arts, educational programs, teen programs,
senior programs and services, special festivals and events
and other activities. As the community profile changes,
these programs will have to evolve to address their specific
needs. The City is continuously working to refine and revise
its programs to serve its population, while ensuring that
the programs can be mostly maintained by fees charged.
Programs such as environmental education, health and
wellness, after school programs, art and cultural diversity
programs, science and math camps, and adventure pro-
grams are examples of programs that are growing in need
and popularity.
Schools
Cupertino is served by excellent institutions of public
education. Cupertino Union School District, Fremont Union
High School District and Foothill-De Anza Community
College District provide nationally acclaimed elementary,
secondary and post-secondary education. This group
of school districts is one of the primary attractions of
Cupertino for home buyers, particularly families with
366
RPC-19
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE RPC-2
PROPOSED PARK AND OPEN SPACE ACREAGE
ACQUISITION BY AREA
Area Existing
Park Acres
Potential Park Lands
DescriptionNeighborhood
Park
Community
Park
A-1
A-2 65 5.59
33.00
Reuse Blackberry Farm
for Community Park
B 28.98
C
E-1 9
E-2 6
F-1 1.22 3.5
F-2 29.2 Memorial Park contains
Neighborhood Facilities
G 2.5
H-1 3
H-2 11.5
I-1 17.2
I-2 13.0
J-1 Neighborhood Park
J-2 6
K 2.6 3.5 Neighborhood Park
L-1 Neighborhood Park
L-2 7
M 1.55 3.5 Neighborhood Park
N 1.68
O
P-1 3.0
P-2 6.0
Total Existing Park
Lands 214.43
Total Prop Parks Land49.0910.5 38.59
Total All Park Lands263.52
367
RPC-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
school-age children. While the City is not directly involved
in the provision of education, it does control growth and
development that can affect schools by increasing student
enrollment beyond the means of schools to service them.
In turn, it is crucial for the City to continue working directly
with the school districts to maintain their current high
quality.
In addition, the City should continue to coordinate with
schools to partner on open space and cultural opportunities
for community use. The City is already implementing, and
hopes to expand, the field maintenance agreements with
schools to allow community use when these facilities are
not in use by schools. The City will also explore partner-
ships with De Anza College and the school districts to make
available their theater, tennis courts and community meet-
ing spaces for use by community groups.
Library
The Cupertino Library, operated by the Santa Clara County
Library under the Joint Powers Authority Agreement, is
an important community resource. The City continues to
contribute to the library’s annual operating costs, which are
necessary to implement and enhance services provided by
the County Library. In addition, the City built a new 54,000
square foot library in 2004, which replaced an outdated
23,000 square foot library. This new facility was needed
to accommodate the needs of the growing community.
Cupertino Library is now a key community destination in
the Civic Center and runs a variety of reading programs and
other community activities. A Civic Center Master Plan is
currently being developed to meet the facility and parking
needs of the various site elements, including the Library,
Library Field, City Hall, Community Hall, and the plaza.
368
RPC-21
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LOOKING FORWARD
As the Cupertino community grows and changes in age,
diversity and ability, the City’s parks and recreation pro-
grams will have to adjust to meet those needs. In cases
where needed services are not provided by the City, the
City will partner with other providers to ensure that commu-
nity goals and expectations are met. The City will also have
to look for ways to expand and deliver services in a manner
that is fiscally-responsible by partnering with public agen-
cies, service providers and private development, and look-
ing for grants to supplement funding for projects. The City
will also have to continually update its portfolio of facilities
and recreation services to prioritize programs that are most
needed and can serve the community in an equitable man-
ner. The City should also explore ways to take advantage of
sustainable practices to reduce facility maintenance costs.
The following are ways the City will address key challenges
and opportunities facing Cupertino:
1. Expand Recreation Facilities. As the City realizes
added growth anticipated in Community Vision 2040 it
will have to look at expanding facilities and programs.
These can be achieved through careful master planning,
implementation of a Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), and partnering with agencies and private develop-
ers to increase park and open space.
2. Equitable Distribution and Access. In the future, the
City should look to balancing its recreation facilities
so that each neighborhood and special area has easy
access to parks and recreation services. Strategies to
achieve this include removing physical barriers and
improving pedestrian and bicycle paths to such facili-
ties, prioritizing areas that are deficient in park space,
retrofitting facilities and revising programs to meet com-
munity needs.
369
RPC-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
3. Collaboration. The City will rely heavily on partnerships
and collaboration with other service providers in sharing
facilities and services, and ensuring that City plans meet
the community’s current and future needs. This will allow
the City to deliver services in a manner that is efficient
and fiscally responsible.
4. Sustainability. The City should explore ways to rede-
velop, build and maintain facilities and parks in an
environmentally sustainable manner. Such practices will
allow the City to reduce maintenance costs for build-
ings and landscaping, while also improving community
health.
5. Funding. The City should continue to explore ways to
deliver services in a fiscally responsible manner by iden-
tifying new sources of funding through grants, working
with developers to expand facilities and services, shar-
ing facilities with other agencies and school districts,
and reviewing recreation programs to ensure that they
meet demand.
370
RPC-23
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals and policies in this section provide guidance on
how the City can continue to serve the needs of the com-
munity through the growth and change in the horizon of
Community Vision 2040.
Parks and Open Space
Parks and open space policies outline acquisition, develop-
ment, distribution, access and maintenance of parkland in
Cupertino in order to ensure that all residents enjoy easy
access to these areas.
Policy RPC-1.1: Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Prepare a citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan that
outlines policies and strategies to plan for the communities
open space and recreational needs.
Strategy RPC-1.1.1: Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan.
Prepare a master plan for the park and open space corridor
along Stevens Creek including McClellan Ranch, McClellan
Ranch West, Blackberry Farm, the Blackberry Farm golf
course, Stocklmeir and Blesch properties and the Nathan
Hall Tank House area. The plan should address a fiscally
sustainable strategy that allows year-round community
use of the park system, while preserving the areas natural
resources and addressing neighborhood issues including
connectivity and buffers.
Strategy RPC-1.1.2: Civic Center Master Plan. Prepare a
master plan that addresses the needs of the elements in
GOAL RPC-1
CREATE A FULL RANGE OF PARK AND
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES AND
PRESERVE NATURAL RESOURCES
371
RPC-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
the Civic Center area including City Hall, Community Hall,
Library Field, Library programming, function and meeting
space and community gathering space and parking needs.
Policy RPC-1.2: Parkland Standards.
Continue to implement a parkland acquisition and
implementation program that provides a minimum of three
acres per 1,000 residents.
Strategy RPC-1.2.1: Park Size. Require target for parks
based on function and activity supported as part of the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. While the preferred
size for most neighborhood parks is about 3.5 acres for
flexibility of use, smaller size parks may be considered
based on opportunities and circumstances.
Strategy RPC-1.2.2: Amend Parkland Standard. Explore
increasing the parkland standard to five acres per 1,000
residents as part of the citywide Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
Policy RPC-1.3: Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Ensure that CIP projects reflect the goals and policies iden-
tified in Community Vision 2040, establishing a criteria for
ranking CIP proposals for the highest and best selection of
community projects.
372
RPC-25
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy RPC-2.1: Parkland Acquisition
The City’s parkland acquisition strategy should be based
upon three broad objectives:
• Distributing parks equitably throughout the City;
• Connecting and providing access by providing paths,
improved pedestrian and bike connectivity and signage;
and
• Retaining and restoring creeks and other natural open
space areas.
Strategy RPC-2.1.1: Dedication of Parkland. New
developments, in areas where parkland deficiencies have
been identified, should be required to dedicate parkland
rather than paying in-lieu fees.
Strategy RPC-2.1.2: Public Use of School Sites. Zone all
public school sites for public use to allow for the public
to use sites, when not in use by schools, through shared
arrangements.
Strategy RPC-2.1.3: Acquisition of Surplus Properties.
Explore acquisition of surplus school and agency properties
for parkland. Take advantage of the Naylor Act to purchase
surplus school sites.
GOAL RPC-2
DISTRIBUTE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY
AND PROVIDE SERVICES, AND
SAFE AND EASY ACCESS, TO ALL
RESIDENTS AND WORKERS
373
RPC-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy RPC-2.2: Private Open Space and Recreation
Facilities
Encourage the continued existence and profitability of pri-
vate open space and recreation facilities through incentives
and development controls.
Strategy RPC-2.2.1: Existing Facilities. Encourage the
continued existence of private recreational facilities through
land use zoning and incentives.
Strategy RPC-2.2.2: New Facilities. Require major
developments to incorporate private open space and
recreational facilities, and seek their cooperation in making
the spaces publicly-accessible.
• Where feasible, ensure park space is publicly-accessible
(as opposed to private space).
• Encourage active areas to serve community needs.
However, a combination of active and passive areas can
be provided based on the setting.
• Integrate park facilities into the surroundings.
• If public parkland is not dedicated, require park fees
based on a formula that considers the extent to which
the publicly-accessible facilities meet community need.
Policy RPC-2.3: Parkland Distribution
Strive for an equitable distribution of parks and recreational
facilities throughout the city. Park acquisition should be
based on the following priority list. Accessibility to parks
should be a component of the acquisition plan.
• High Priority: Parks in neighborhoods or areas that
have few or no park and recreational areas.
• Medium Priority: Parks in neighborhoods that have
other agency facilities such as school fields and district
facilities, but no City parks.
374
RPC-27
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
• Low Priority: Neighborhoods and areas that have park
and recreational areas which may be slightly less than
the adopted City’s parkland standard.
• Private Development: Consider pocket parks in new
and renovated projects to provide opportunities for
publicly-accessible park areas.
Policy RPC-2.4: Connectivity and Access
Ensure that each home is within a half-mile walk of a
neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood
facilities; ensure that walking and biking routes are reason-
ably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy
traffic; provide pedestrian links between parks, wherever
possible; and provide adequate directional and site signage
to identify public parks.
Strategy RPC-2.4.1: Pedestrian and Bike Planning.
Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plans to link employment and special areas, and
neighborhood to services including parks, schools and
neighborhood shopping.
Strategy RPC-2.4.2: Signage. Adopt and maintain a master
signage plan for all public parks to ensure adequate and
consistent signage is provided to identify public recreational
areas.
Policy RPC-2.5: Range of Park Amenities
Provide parks and recreational facilities for a variety of rec-
reational activities.
Strategy RPC-2.5.1: Special Needs. Extend recreational
opportunities for special needs groups (seniors, disabled,
visually-challenged, etc.) by making improvements to
existing facilities and trails.
375
RPC-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy RPC-2.5.2: Recreational Facilities. Explore the
possibility of providing additional access to existing facilities
such as gymnasiums, swimming pools and tennis courts.
Policy RPC-3.1: Preservation of Natural Areas
Design parks to utilize natural features and the topography
of the site in order to protect natural features and keep
maintenance costs low.
Strategy RPC-3.1.1: Native Planting. Maximize the use of
native plants and drought-tolerant planting.
Strategy RPC-3.1.2: Natural Habitat. Where possible,
restore and provide access to creeks and riparian habitat.
Strategy RPC-3.1.3: Nature Play Areas. Where
appropriate, consider establishing Nature Play Areas in lieu
of the more conventional play equipment.
Policy RPC-4.1: Recreational Intensity
Design parks appropriately to address the facility and rec-
reational programming required by each special area and
neighborhood based on current and future plans for the
areas.
GOAL RPC-3
PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ACCESS
TO PARKS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT
NATURAL RESOURCES
GOAL RPC-4
INTEGRATE PARKS AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS
AND AREAS
376
RPC-29
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy RPC-4.2: Park Safety
Design parks to enhance public safety by providing visibility
to the street and access for public safety responders.
Trails
Trails policies encourage the provision of a system of linear
connections along creeks, utility rights-of-way and other
corridors in order to provide recreational opportunities,
improve pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the city,
improve safety, and preserve natural resources.
Policy RPC-5.1: Open Space and Trail Linkages
Dedicate or acquire open space land along creeks and
utility through regional cooperation, grants and private
development review.
Strategy RPC-5.1.1: Pedestrian and Bike Planning.
Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan that link trails and open space to neighborhoods and
special areas.
Strategy RPC-5.1.2: Trail Projects. Implement trail projects
described in this Element; evaluate any safety, security
and privacy impacts and mitigations associated with trail
development; and work with affected neighbors in locating
trails to ensure that their concerns are appropriately
addressed.
GOAL RPC-5
CREATE AN INTERCONNECTED
SYSTEM OF MULTI-USE TRAILS AND
PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE ACCESS THROUGH THE
CITY AND CONNECTIONS TO LOCAL
NODES AND DESTINATIONS
377
RPC-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy RPC-5.1.3: Dedicated Trail Easements. Require
dedication or easements for trails, as well as their
implementation, as part of the development review process,
where appropriate.
Strategy RPC-5.1.4: Joint Use Agreement. Establish a
Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District that allows cooperation on implementing the trail
program with set standards and implementation measures
for creek trails.
Policy RPC-5.2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths
Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways to connect employment centers, shopping areas
and neighborhoods to services including parks, schools and
neighborhood centers.
Recreation Programs and Services
Recreation programs and services policies provide guidance
for the implementation of programs that serve the changing
and growing needs of the community in order to ensure an
exceptional quality of life.
Policy RPC-6.1: Diverse Programs
Ensure that the City continues to offer a wide range of pro-
grams to serve diverse populations of all ages and abilities.
GOAL RPC-6
CREATE AND MAINTAIN A BROAD
RANGE OF RECREATION PROGRAMS
AND SERVICES THAT MEET THE
NEEDS OF A DIVERSE POPULATION
378
RPC-31
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy RPC-6.2: Partnerships
Enhance the city’s recreational programs through partner-
ships with other agencies and non-profit organizations.
Policy RPC-6.3: Art and Culture
Utilize parks as locations of art and culture and to educate
the community about the city’s history, and explore the
potential to use art in facilities and utilities when located in
parks.
Policy RPC-7.1: Sustainable Design
Ensure that City facilities are sustainably designed to mini-
mize impacts on the environment.
Policy RPC-7.2: Flexibility
Design facilities to be flexible to address changing com-
munity needs.
Policy RPC-7.3: Maintenance
Design facilities to reduce maintenance, and ensure that
facilities are maintained and upgraded adequately.
GOAL RPC-7
PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY,
FLEXIBLE AND WELL-MAINTAINED
COMMUNITY FACILITIES THAT MEET
THE CHANGING NEEDS OF THE
COMMUNITY AND ARE A SOURCE OF
COMMUNITY IDENTITY
379
RPC-32
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Community Services
Community services policies seek to enhance the quality of
community services through partnerships and information
sharing with providers.
Policy RPC-8.1: School Districts
Partner with school districts to allow community use of their
sports fields and facilities.
Strategy RPC-8.1.1: Shared Facilities. Maintain and
enhance arrangements with schools for the use of sports
fields, theaters, meeting spaces and other facilities through
maintenance agreements and other partnerships.
Strategy RPC-8.1.2: School Expansion. Encourage schools
to meet their expansion needs without reducing the size of
their sports fields.
Strategy RPC-8.1.3: School Facility Needs. Collaborate
with schools on their facility needs through sharing of
development information and partnerships through major
development projects.
GOAL RPC-8
COOPERATE WITH SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO SHARE FACILITIES AND
MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS
380
SECTION 3
Housing
LAND USE DEFINITIONS
Appendix A
A
381
A-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 382
Appendix A
Land Use Definitions
A-3REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
The Land Use Map (Figure A-1) of Community Vision 2040
illustrates the policies in this element and in other elements
that play a major role in guiding urban development. The
map cannot be used alone because it illustrates the text,
which should be used along with it.
The Land Use Map illustrates the general form of Cupertino
in terms of land use patterns and intensity of land use
activities. In contrast, the Municipal Zoning Map divides
the city into very precisely drawn land use categories.
Zoning districts have precisely written standards governing
permitted activities and development forms. A series of
policy statements accompany the planning text to guide
the public and government officials in establishing precise
zoning boundaries and pinpoint permitted activities.
California law requires that the zoning map and zoning
regulations be consistent with the Land Use Map and text.
The zoning map and regulations must be brought into
conformity with Community Vision 2040 within a reasonable
period after it is adopted.
CONTENTS
A-3 Introduction
A-4 Land Use Categories
Residential
Commercial/Residential
Neighborhood
Commercial/Residential
Office
Commercial/Office/
Residential
Industrial/Residential
Office/Industrial/
Commercial/Residential
Quasi-Public/Institutional
Parks and Open Space
Riparian Corridor
Public Facilities
Transportation
Monta Vista
Neighborhood Land Use
Designation
383
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
A-4 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
LAND USE CATEGORIES
Patterns and symbols, defined on the map legend, are
used on the Land Use Map to identify land use categories,
the road system, major land features and significant public
and private facilities. The following is a description of each
land use category:
Residential
Areas suitable for dwellings, divided into five sub-
categories based on dwelling unit density and expressed as
the number of dwellings permitted on each acre. Maximum
residential yield is calculated by multiplying the maximum
dwelling unit density by the size of the lot in acres,
excluding any public rights-of-way. Community Vision 2040
does not define whether the dwellings are to be owned
or rented by their inhabitants or whether they are to be
attached or detached.
Very Low Density: Intensity is based on applying one of
four slope-density formula—Foothill Modified, Foothill
Modified l/2 Acre, Semi-Rural 5 acre or Foothill 5-20 acre.
This classification is intended to protect environmentally
sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect
human life from hazards related to flood, fire and unstable
terrain.
Low Density: 1-5 and 1-6 units on each acre. This category
is intended to promote a suburban lifestyle of detached
single-family homes. Planned residential communities can
be incorporated into this category if the development form
is compatible with adjoining residential development.
Low/Medium Density: 5-10 units per acre. This
category accommodates more intensive forms of
residential development while still being compatible
with the predominant single-family detached residential
384
Appendix A
Land Use Definitions
A-5REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
neighborhood. This development can be successfully
incorporated into a single-family environment.
Medium Density: 10-20 units per acre. This category
provides greater opportunity for multiple-family residential
developments in a planned environment. This range
usually results in traffic volumes and buildings that are not
compatible with single-family residential neighborhoods.
These developments should be located on the edges of
single-family residential communities where utility services
and street networks are adequate to serve increased
densities.
Medium-High Density: 20-35 units per acre. This
promotes a wide range of housing choices in multiple-
family dwellings. The intensity requires that the category
be used in corridors with access to services and transit.
The development may result in structures with three or
four levels and underground parking. This category offers
opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who
want a more urban environment.
High Density: 20-35 units per acre. This promotes a wide
range of housing choices in multiple-family dwellings.
The intensity requires that the category be used only at
locations with adequate utility services or transit or both.
The development may result in structures with three or
four levels and underground parking. This category offers
maximum opportunity for housing choice, especially for
people who want a city environment.
Commercial/Residential
This designation allows primarily commercial uses and
secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination
385
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
A-6 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
of the two. Commercial use means retail sales, businesses,
limited professional offices, and service establishments with
direct contact with customers. This applies to commercial
activities ranging from neighborhood convenience stores to
regionally oriented specialty stores. Retail stores that would
be a nuisance for adjoining neighborhoods or harmful
to the community identity would be regulated by the
commercial zoning ordinance and use permit procedure.
Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas may
be needed to provide local neighborhood serving retail;
otherwise they may be redeveloped at residential densities
compatible with the surroundings. Residential development
is subject to the numerical caps and other policies
described in the development priorities tables.
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Neighborhood Commercial is a subset of the Commercial
land use designation. This category includes retail activities,
personal services and limited commercial offices that
serve primarily the residents of adjacent neighborhoods.
Residential living units may only be allowed as upper floor
uses.
Office
This designation encompasses all office uses referenced
in the City’s Administrative and Professional Office Zone
including administrative, professional and research and
development activities.
Prototype research and development is permitted if it is
conducted along with the office functions of a business.
Prototype R&D is defined as research and development
activities that lead to the development of a new product
or a new manufacturing and assembly process. Products
386
Appendix A
Land Use Definitions
A-7REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
developed, manufactured or assembled here are not
intended to be mass-produced for sale at this location.
Guidelines for Prototype Research and Development:
The type, use and storage of hazardous material for
prototype R&D or assembly is regulated by the Uniform
Building Code, the Uniform Fire Code and any new
ordinance or other regulation that controls hazardous
materials.
The building must not present the appearance that a
prototype R&D or assembly process is in place. There will
be no exterior storage and receiving facilities will be small.
Generally, no more than 25 percent of the total space
occupied by the firm will be devoted to this activity.
Commercial/Office/Residential
This designation applies to the mixed-use areas that are
predominantly commercial and office uses. Supporting
residential uses may be allowed to offset job growth, better
balance the citywide jobs to housing ratio and when they
are compatible with the primarily non-residential character
of the area. Residential development is subject to the
numerical caps and other policies (described in the Land
Use and Community Design element).
Industrial/Residential
This designation allows primarily industrial uses and
secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination
of the two. Industrial use refers to manufacturing, assembly
and research and development. Administrative offices that
support manufacturing and wholesaling are included.
Housing may be allowed to offset job growth and better
balance citywide jobs to housing ratio. Residential
development is subject to the numerical caps and other
387
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
A-8 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
policies (described in the Land Use and Community Design
Element).
Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential
This designation applies to areas that are primarily office
uses and industrial uses. Commercial uses should be
ancillary and supportive of the office and industrial base
with the exception of larger parcels, which may be used
for regionally oriented stores. Residential development is
subject to the numerical caps and other policies (described
in the Land Use and Community Design Element).
Quasi-Public/Institutional
This designation is applied to privately owned land
involving activities such as a private utility, a profit or non-
profit facility giving continuous patient care, an educational
facility or a religious facility.
Parks and Open Space
This designation is applied to land owned by the public
and used for recreation. It is also applied to private open
space and recreational lands.
Riparian Corridor
This designation is applied to creek corridors if they are not
part of a larger park or residential property.
Public Facilities
This designation is applied to land used or planned to be
used by a governmental entity for a public purpose.
Transportation
This designation is applied to streets, highways and rail
corridors.
388
Appendix A
Land Use Definitions
A-9REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Monta Vista Neighborhood Land Use Designation
Residential: The Monta Vista neighborhood has three density
ranges, which allow single family, duplex and multi-family
housing types.
Non-residential: The non-residential designations are the same
as the rest of Cupertino.
389
LAND USE
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 3
Housing
AIR QUALITY
Appendix C
390
C-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 391
Appendix C
Air Quality
C-3REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
PRINCIPAL POLLUTANTS OF THE
AIR BASIN
A substance in the air that can cause harm to humans and
the environment is known as an air pollutant. Pollutants can
be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases.
In addition, they may be natural or man-made. Pollutants
can be classified as primary or secondary. Usually, primary
pollutants are directly emitted from a process, such as ash
from a volcanic eruption, carbon monoxide gas from a motor
vehicle exhaust, or sulfur dioxide released from factories.
Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather, they
form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and
mobile sources are regulated by Federal and State law. Air
pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary
pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from
sources, and include carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable
particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Of these, CO, SO2,
NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which
means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been
established for them. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant
precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through
chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal
secondary pollutants.
The following is a description of each of the primary and
secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health
effects.
CONTENTS
C-1 Principal Pollutants of
the Air Basin
392
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
C-4 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas
produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances,
such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO concentrations tend
to be the highest during winter mornings with little or no
wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant
at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from
internal combustion engines, motor vehicles operating
at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Air
Basin. Emissions are highest during cold starts, hard
acceleration, stop-and-go driving, and when a vehicle
is moving at low speeds. New findings indicate that CO
emissions per mile are lowest at about 45 miles per hour
(mph) for the average light-duty motor vehicle and begin
to increase again at higher speeds. When inhaled at high
concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood
and reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in
reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body
tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with
cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia,
as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high
CO concentrations can experience headaches, dizziness,
fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death. The Air Basin
is designated under the California and National AAQS as
being in attainment of CO criteria levels.
Reactive Organic Gases
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds composed
primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal
combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major
source of ROGs. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative
emissions from paints and solvents, the application of
asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer
393
Appendix C
Air Quality
C-5REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health
are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of
ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O3. There are
no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they
contribute to the formation of O3, BAAQMD has established
a significance threshold for this pollutant.
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a by-product of fuel combustion
and contribute to the formation of O3, PM10, and PM2.5.
The two major components of NOx are nitric oxide (NO)
and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The principal component of
NOx produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with
oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and
NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant
and in equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At
atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially
irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between
NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in
bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also
been observed at concentrations below 0.3 ppm. NO2
absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to
the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless,
odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen
when combustion takes place under high temperature and/
or high pressure. The Air Basin is designated an attainment
area for NO2 under the National AAQS and California
AAQS.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas
formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters
the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content
fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical
plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very
394
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
C-6 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities
of SO2. When SO2 forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere,
together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides
(SOx). As a result, SO2 is both a primary and secondary
criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations,
SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower
concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2
may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. The Air Basin is
designated an attainment area for SO2 under the California
and National AAQS
Suspended Particulate Matter
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of
finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols,
fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now
recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or
PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or
0.0004-inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have
an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e., 2.5
millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch).
Some particulate matter, such as pollen, occurs naturally.
In the Air Basin most particulate matter is caused by
combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition,
agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Extended exposure
to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic
respiratory disease.
PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more
easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) scientific
review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more deeply
into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health
effects—at concentrations well below current PM10 standards.
These health effects include premature death in people
395
Appendix C
Air Quality
C-7REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular
heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function,
increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the
airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are
currently responsible for about half of particulates in the Air
Basin. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large
source of fine particulates.
Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human
respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally
sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. These health
effects include premature death and increased hospital
admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly
and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased
respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individual
with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and
in respiratory tract defense mechanisms.
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified a carcinogen by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Air Basin is
designated nonattainment under the California AAQS for
PM10 and nonattainment under both the California and
National AAQS for PM2.5.
Ozone
Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas
that is formed when ROGs and NOx, both by-products of
internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical
reactions in the presence of sunlight. O3 is a secondary
criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest
during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds,
and warm temperatures create favorable conditions to
the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to
those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well
as to healthy people. O3 levels usually build up during the
day and peak in the afternoon hours. Short-term exposure
can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways.
396
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
C-8 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate
existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and
emphysema. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can
permanently damage lung tissue. O3 can also damage plants
and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics. The Air
Basin is designated nonattainment of the 1-hour California
AAQS and 8-hour California and National AAQS for O3.
Lead
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as
well as in manufactured products. The major sources of
lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial
sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline,
metal processing is currently the primary source of lead
emissions. The highest levels of lead in air are generally
found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste
incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.
Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor
to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early
1970s, the EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce
the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline
was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic
converters. The EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in
highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the EPA’s
regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions
of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in
the air decreased dramatically. The Air Basin is designated in
attainment of the California and National AAQS for lead.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health
issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted
a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to
reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public
health. The California Health and Safety Code define a TAC
397
Appendix C
Air Quality
C-9REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose
a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance
that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section
112(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S. Code Section
7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting
through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a
TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present
or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807
(Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot”
Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air
Toxics Act sets up a formal procedure for CARB to designate
substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts
an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit
designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance
(i.e. a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control
measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If
there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate
toxics best available control technology to minimize
emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control
measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe
threshold.
Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in
California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and
Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions
from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by
the air quality management district or air pollution control
district. High priority facilities are required to perform a
health risk assessment (HRA), and if specific thresholds are
exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the
public through notices and public meetings.
398
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
C-10 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
At the time of the last update to the TAC list in December
1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs.
Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for
a number of compounds that pose high risks and show
potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated
health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few
compounds, the most important being particulate matter
from diesel-fueled engines.
In 1998, CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM)
as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds
in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel
exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because
of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled
and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions
of the lungs.
399
SECTION 3
Housing
COMMUNITY NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Appendix D
400
C-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 401
Appendix D
Community Noise Fundamentals
D-3REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
BACKGROUND
Three aspects of community noise are important in
determining subjective response:
Level (i.e., magnitude or loudness) of the sound;
The frequency composition or spectrum of the sound;
and
The variation in sound level with time.
Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure and
local air velocity. Sound levels are measured and expressed
in decibels (dB) with 0 dB roughly equal to the threshold of
hearing.
The frequency of a sound is a measure of the pressure
fluctuations per second measured in units of hertz (Hz).
Most sounds do not consist of a single frequency, but are
comprised of a broad band of frequencies differing in level.
The characterization of sound level magnitude with respect
to frequency is the sound spectrum. A sound spectrum is
often described in octave bands that divide the audible
human frequency range (i.e., from 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten
segments.
FREQUENCY WEIGHTING
Many rating methods exist to analyze sound of different
spectra. The simplest method is generally used so that
measurements may be made and noise impacts readily
assessed using basic acoustical instrumentation. This
method evaluates all frequencies by using a single
weighting filter that progressively de-emphasizes frequency
components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This
frequency weighting reflects the relative decreased
human sensitivity to low frequencies and to extreme high
frequencies. This weighting is called A-weighting and is
CONTENTS
D-3 Background
D-3 Frequency Weighing
D-4 Noise Exposure
D-5 Subjective Response to
Noise
D-6 Noise Monitoring
Summary
D-10 Principle Noise Sources In
Cupertino
402
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
D-4 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
applied by an electrical filter in all U.S. and international
standard sound level meters.
NOISE EXPOSURE
Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time,
whereas noise level is a single value at an instant in time.
Although a single sound level may adequately describe
community noise at any instant in time, community noise
levels vary continuously. Most community noise is produced
by many distant noise sources that produce a relatively
steady background noise having no identifiable source.
These distant sources change gradually throughout the
day and include traffic, wind in trees, and distant industrial
activities. Superimposed on this slowly varying background
is a succession of identifiable noise events of brief duration.
These include nearby activities such as single vehicle
passbys or aircraft flyovers, which cause the community
noise level to vary from instant to instant.
A single number called the equivalent sound level or Leq is
used to describe noise varying over a period of time. The
Leq is the average noise exposure level over a period of
time (i.e., the total sound energy divided by the duration).
It is the constant sound level, which would contain the
same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during
the same time period. The Leq is useful in describing noise
over a period of time with a single numerical value.
In determining the daily measure of community noise, it is
important to account for the difference in human response
to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime,
exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in
the daytime. Most household noise also decreases at night,
and exterior noise intrusions become more noticeable.
People are more sensitive to noise at night than during
other periods of the day.
403
Appendix D
Community Noise Fundamentals
D-5REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise, the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the adopted
standard in California. CNEL values are typically computed
by energy summation of hourly noise level values, with
the proper adjustment applied for the period of evening
or night. The CNEL is computed by assessing a 5-dB
penalty for evening (i.e., 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) noise and
a 10-dB penalty for nighttime (i.e., 10:00 pm to 7:00 am)
noise. Noise exposure measures such as Leq and CNEL are
A-weighted, with units expressed in decibels (i.e., dB).
SUBJECTIVE RESPONSE TO NOISE
The effects of noise on people can be classified into three
general categories:
1. Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction.
2. Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and
learning.
3. Physiological effects such as anxiety or hearing loss.
The sound levels associated with community noise
usually produce effects only in the first two categories.
No universal measure for the subjective effects of noise
has been developed, nor does a measure exist for the
corresponding human reactions from noise annoyance. This
is primarily due to the wide variation in individual attitude
regarding the noise source(s).
An important factor in assessing a person’s subjective
reaction is to compare the new noise environment to
the existing noise environment. In general, the more a
new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable it
is. Therefore, a new noise source will be judged more
annoying in a quiet area than it would be in a noisier
location.
404
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
D-6 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Knowledge of the following relationships is helpful in
understanding how changes in noise and noise exposure
are perceived.
Except under special conditions, a change in sound level
of 1 dB cannot be perceived.
Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dB change is con sidered a
just-noticeable difference.
A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any
noticeable change in community response would be
expected.
A 10-dB change is subjectively heard as an approx imate
doubling in loudness and almost always causes an
adverse community response.
NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Existing ambient noise levels were measured at 15 sites
around Cupertino to document representative noise levels
at a variety of locations. These locations are shown on
Figure D-1. Short-term noise level measurements were
taken at 13 locations for a minimum period of 15 minutes
during the daytime on Tuesday, April 22 and Wednesday,
April 23, 2014, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m. Short-term noise measurements serve as a snapshot
of noise levels at a particular time and location, offering
a sense of how other, similar locations might experience
noise during comparable times of day. Long-term noise
level measurements were taken at two locations for a
period of 24 hours between April 22 and 23, 2014.
Long-term noise level measurements serve to provide a
broader picture of how noise levels vary over the course
of a full day, helping to put the short-term measurements
in a broader temporal context. Both long- and short-term
405
Appendix D
Community Noise Fundamentals
D-7REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
measurements serve to indicate where excessive noise may
be an existing or future issue for existing or new land uses.
As shown in Table D-1, noise levels at the short-term
measurement locations ranged from a minimum of 58.4
dBA Leq at Location 4 to a maximum of 71.4 dBA Leq
at Location 3, with an average Leq of 66.2 dBA, and
the majority locations falling between 65 and 70 dBA
Leq. Noise levels tended to be higher adjacent to major
roadways and freeway, where high volumes of traffic were
the dominant source of noise.
Noise levels were measured using a Larson-Davis
Model 820 sound level meter, which satisfies the
American National Standards Institute for Type 1 general
environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The
sound level meter and microphone were mounted on
a tripod 5 feet above the ground and equipped with a
windscreen during all short-term measurements. For long-
term measurements, the microphone and windscreen were
attached to available objects, at a height between four and
six feet, as dictated by conditions in the field.
The sound level meters were programmed to record noise
levels with the “slow” time constant and using the “A”
weighting filter network. Meteorological conditions during
the measurement periods were favorable and were noted
to be representative of typical conditions for the season.
Generally, conditions included clear to partly cloudy skies,
daytime temperatures of approximately 57 to 78 degrees
Fahrenheit, and less than 5 to 10 mile-per-hour winds, with
occasional higher gusts noted at certain sites. The short-
and longterm noise measurement locations are described
below. Table D-1 summarizes the results of both the short-
and long-term noise monitoring.
406
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
D-8 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE D-1
NOISE MONITORING SUMMARY
Location Duration Noise Level
ST-1 15 minutes 68.9 dBA Leq
ST-2 15 minutes 68.8 dBA Leq
ST-3 15 minutes 71.4 dBA Leq
ST-4 15 minutes 58.4 dBA Leq
ST-5 15 minutes 67.4 dBA Leq
ST-6 15 minutes 61.6 dBA Leq
ST-7 15 minutes 67.9 dBA Leq
ST-8 15 minutes 68.0 dBA Leq
ST-9 15 minutes 67.6 dBA Leq
ST-10 15 minutes 58.5 dBA Leq
ST-11 15 minutes 70.9 dBA Leq
ST-12 15 minutes 64.2 dBA Leq
ST-13 15 minutes 67.3 dBA Leq
LT-1 24 hours 69.1 dBA Ldn
LT-2 24 hours 72.3 dBA Ldn
Notes: Noise measurement results printouts included in Appendix E, Noise Data, of
this Draft EIR Noise Measurements taken by PlaceWorks on April 22 and 23, 2014.
407
Appendix D
Community Noise Fundamentals
D-9REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
GF GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
Santa
Clara
County
Monta Vista
Recreation
Center/Park
Linda
Vista Park
Deep Cliff
Golf Course
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve
Blackberry
Farm Park
Somerset
Square
Park
Varian
Park Memorial
Park
Three
Oaks
Park
Hoover
Park
Jollyman
Park
Cali
Mill
Plaza
Library
Field
Wilson
Park
Creekside
Park
Portal
Park
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
Franco
Park
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
BOL LINGER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
FOOTHILL
BLV
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PR U N ERIDGE AVE
MI
LL
E
R
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
PROSP E CT RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
LT-2
LT-1ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-7ST-8
ST-9
ST-10ST-11
ST-12
ST-13
GF Long-term Noise Monitoring Location
GF Short-term Noise Monitoring Location
Parks
City Boundary
00.510.25
Miles
Figure D-1
Noise Monitoring Locations
408
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
D-10 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The sound level meters were programmed to record noise
levels with the “slow” time constant and using the “A”
weighting filter network. Meteorological conditions during
the measurement periods were favorable and were noted
to be representative of typical conditions for the season.
Generally, conditions included clear to partly cloudy skies,
daytime temperatures of approximately 57 to 78 degrees
Fahrenheit, and less than 5 to 10 mile-per-hour winds, with
occasional higher gusts noted at certain sites. The short-
and longterm noise measurement locations are described
below.
PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCES IN
CUPERTINO
On-Road Vehicles
Freeways that traverse Cupertino include I-280, which runs
along and near the City’s northern boundary, and SR 85,
which roughly bisects the geographic area of Cupertino,
running from northwest to southeast. In addition to these
highways, major roadways running north to south through
or adjacent to Cupertino include Foothill Boulevard, Bubb
Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue,
Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue, and the Lawrence Expressway,
just beyond the eastern edge of the City. Major east-west
roadways include Stevens Creek Boulevard, McClellan
Road, Bollinger Road, Rainbow Drive, and lastly,
Homestead Road and Prospect Road, which run along the
northern and southern boundaries of the city, respectively.
Together, these highways and streets comprise the major
roads in the City of Cupertino.
409
Appendix D
Community Noise Fundamentals
D-11REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Train Noise
Cupertino does not host any passenger rail lines and has
only one, seldom-used freight railway. This freight right-
of-way is a Union Pacific rail line, which now exclusively
serves the Hanson Permanente quarry and cement plant.
As described in the General Plan for the City of Cupertino,
this railway presently operates at very low frequencies, with
approximately three train trips in each direction per week,
usually during the daytime or early evening. Therefore,
this railway contributes only very minimally to the noise
environment of Cupertino.
Heliports
There are no heliports located within the City of Cupertino
listed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The
nearest heliport is located approximately 3.4 miles to the
east of Cupertino at the County Medical Center in San
Jose. Another nearby heliport is located at McCandless
Towers in Sunnyvale, 3.6 miles to the northeast of
Cupertino. There are no additional heliports within five
miles of Cupertino.
Aircraft Noise
There are no public or private airports or airstrips in
Cupertino. At the nearest points within city boundaries,
Cupertino is located approximately 4.0 miles to the
southwest of the San Jose International Airport. The Santa
Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has
adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for areas
surrounding San Jose International Airport.
The city is not located within any protected airspace zones
defined by the ALUC. Cupertino is located approximately
4.4 miles to the south of Moffett Federal Airfield, 8.4
miles to the southeast of the Palo Alto Airport, 24 miles
to the southeast of San Francisco International Airport,
410
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
D-12 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
and 27 miles to the southeast of Oakland International
Airport.5Additional small airports in the vicinity include the
San Carlos Airport, 17 miles to the northwest, Hayward
Executive Airport, 23 miles to the north-northwest, and the
Half Moon Bay airport, 26 miles to the northwest.
Although Cupertino does receive some noise from aircraft
using these facilities, the Cupertino City Boundary does
not fall within the airport land use planning areas/airport
influence areas, runway protection zones, or the identified
noise contours of any airport.
Stationary Source Noise
Stationary sources of noise may occur from all types of
land uses. Cupertino is mostly developed with residential,
commercial, mixed-use, institutional, and some light
industrial/research and development uses. Commercial
uses can generate noise from HVAC systems, loading
docks, trash compactors, and other sources. Industrial
uses may generate noise from HVAC systems, loading
docks, and machinery required for manufacturing or other
industrial processes. Noise generated by commercial uses
is generally short and intermittent. Industrial uses may
generate noise on a more continual basis, or intermittently,
depending on the processes and types of machinery
involved. In addition to on-site mechanical equipment,
which generates stationary noise, warehousing and
industrial land uses generate substantial truck traffic that
results in additional sources of noise on local roadways in
the vicinity of industrial operations.
For Cupertino, the city’s limited industrial areas are
primarily located in four areas of the city, the Monta
Vista Special Center, the Bubb Road Special Center, the
North De Anza Special Center, and the North Vallco Park
Special Center (as referenced in the existing General
Plan). These industrial areas are characterized by a mix
411
Appendix D
Community Noise Fundamentals
D-13REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
of light industrial, office, and research and development
uses; with the exception of the Monta Vista Special Center
and the North De Anza Special Center, these areas are
usually separated from sensitive uses, such as residences,
by either major roads or some degree of buffering. These
uses have the potential to generate noise impacts upon
nearby sensitive receptors located at the edges of these
areas. Such impacts would vary depending on the specific
uses, with truck deliveries, HVAC, and other mechanical
equipment being the primary sources of noise. The
separation of residences by streets or other buffering
serves to decrease the noise perceived by these receptors
and, in the case of major roads, the noise from the roads
was generally observed to exceed that from the industrial
uses. Residential neighborhoods in Cupertino with a
notable potential to receive substantial industrial noise
include portions of the Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
(primarily in the vicinity of the area surrounding Bubb
Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan
Road), as well as residential areas bordering the North De
Anza Special Center. It should be noted, however, that
although these areas allow for light industrial uses, offices
and research and development comprise the majority of
existing land uses in these areas.
Hanson Permanente Quarry
The Hanson Permanente Quarry and cement plant are
located to the west of Cupertino, outside of the city
boundary. The quarry and cement plant are owned and
operated by Lehigh Hanson and are under the jurisdiction
of the County of Santa Clara. The nearest sensitive
receptors to the quarry and cement plant (within the city
boundary) are residences located one-third mile to the
east of the closest portion of quarry and plant operations;
however, the bulk of quarry/plant equipment and structures
are located approximately two-thirds mile from the nearest
412
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
D-14 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
residence. Given this distance and the presence of
intervening hills that rise 100–200 feet above the elevation
of the nearest residences, even the nearest residences
would not be anticipated to experience excessive noise
from quarry and plant operations.
Construction Noise
Construction activity also contributes to the noise
environment of Cupertino; however, such activities are
typically temporary, occurring in any one location for only a
limited period of time. Larger or multi-phase construction
projects may contribute to the noise environment of a
particular location for a more extended period of time.
Public infrastructure that requires ongoing maintenance
may also result in ongoing noise impacts, though usually
not at a constant location. For example, different sections
of road may be repaved at different times, meaning that
noise impacts from associated construction activities would,
at any given time, only occur along and near the section of
roadway undergoing such maintenance.
Public Facility Noise
Outdoor activities that occur on school campuses and
in parks throughout the city generate noticeable levels
of noise. Noise generated on both the weekdays (from
physical education classes and sports programs) and
weekends (from use of the fields and stadiums) can elevate
community noise levels.
413
SECTION 3
Housing
GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
Appendix E
E
414
E-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 415
Appendix E
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
E-3
The following definitions provide a more comprehensive
discussion of the hazards that are described in the main
body of the text of Chapter 7: Health and Safety Element.
FAULT RUPTURE
Surface fault rupture is the breaking of the ground along
a fault trace usually during a large magnitude earthquake.
Although the risk of damage associated with surface fault
rupture is high, it can be avoided by not placing structures
across active fault traces. Thus, an important element in
community planning involves knowing the locations of
active fault traces. The State of California has produced
maps depicting the general locations of known active fault
traces. These maps, referred to in the past as the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones Maps and more recently as
Earthquake Fault Maps, provide a location information
about the most widely known active faults. Such as the San
Andreas fault. However, the scale and resolution of these
maps are not sufficient to accurately identify the location
of faults with respect to individual properties and building
sites. In addition, other significant local faults, such as
the Monta Vista-Shannon and Sargent-Berrocal faults, are
not covered by the State maps. The City has updated its
Geology Map and Geologic Hazards Map to reflect the
most recent data concerning local fault trace alignments.
Within the City Fault Rupture “Zone F”, as illustrated on
Figure HS-5: Geologic and Seismic Hazards, property own-
ers must retain professional geologic consultants to deter-
mine whether or not specific fault traces impact proposed
building sites for habitable or critical structures.
CONTENTS
E-3 Fault Rupture
E-4 Ground Shaking
E-6 Seismic Ground
Deformation
E-7 Liquifi cation
E-7 Seismically Induces
Landslide
E-8 Landslide Hazard
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 416
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
E-4
GROUND SHAKING
Buildings and other structures located in seismically active
regions such as the San Francisco Bay area are exposed to
the hazard of severe ground shaking during earthquakes.
Ground shaking is the vibration caused by rupture of a fault
segment during an earthquake, and it can be felt over a
wide area when the magnitude of the earthquake is very
strong. The shaking intensity also is stronger in the area
close to the earthquake epicenter and weaker in areas
further away from the earthquake. In addition, the level
of ground shaking is influenced by underlying rock for-
mations, soil conditions and the depth to groundwater. A
widely used shaking intensity scale is the Modified Mercalli
Intensity Scale (Table E-1), which describes the amount of
damage occurring at any geographical location in response
to seismic shaking.
The intensity of an earthquake ground shaking is related
to the size or magnitude of the earthquake. Each magni-
tude represents 10 times the amount of ground motion
and approximately 31 times the amount of energy as the
next lower numeral. Thus, an earthquake of magnitude 8
releases about 1,000 times more energy (31 x 31) than a
magnitude 6 earthquake. A large-magnitude earthquake
on nearby faults could cause considerable local damage,
depending on the distance from the epicenter and char-
acteristics of the ground. In general, structures on less
well-consolidated bedrock and soil will experience greater
shaking intensities than structures situated on hard rock.
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 417
Appendix E
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
E-5
TABLE E-1: GENERAL COMPARISON BETWEEN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE
AND THE EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS DUE TO GROUND SHAKING
Earthquake
Category
Richter
Mag.
Modifi ed Mercalli Intensity Scale
(After Huser, 1970)Damage to Structure
Minor2.00 I Detected only by sensitive instru-
ments No Damage
II Felt by few persons at rest, esp. on
upper floors; delicate suspended
3.00
III Felt noticeably indoors, but not
always recognized as an earthquake;
standing cars rock slightly, vibration
like passing trucks
IV Felt indoors by many, outdoors by a
few; at night some awaken; dishes,
windows, doors disturbed;
4.00
V Felt by most people; some breakage
of dishes, windows and plaster; dis-
turbance to tall objects
Architectural Damage
VI Felt by all; many are frightened and
run outdoors; Falling plaster and
chimneys; damage small
5.00
5.3
VII Everybody runs outdoors. Damage
to buildings varies depending on
quality of construction; noticed by
driver of cars
Moderate 6.00 VIII Chimneys fall; sand and mud ejected;
drivers of cars disturbed Structural Damage
6.9
X Building shifted off foundations,
cracked, thrown out
plumb; ground cracked, underground
pipes broken; serious damage
to reservoirs/embankments
Major7.00
X Most masonry and frame structures
destroyed; ground cracked;
rails bent slightly; landslides
7.7
XI Few structures remain standing;
bridges destroyed; fissures in
ground;
pipes broken; land slides; rails bent
* Subjective measure of ground shaking; not engineering measure of ground
acceleration
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 418
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
E-6
The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) incorporates new
seismic design parameters that take into account various
types of faults, soil profile types and near-source accel-
eration factors. The majority of the City located west of
Highway 85 is located within 2 kilometers of known seismic
sources (per California Division of Mines and Geology
Near-Source Zones Map E-19). Proposed new development
located within two kilometers of a known seismic source
receives the most stringent near-source design factor,
which is required for use with 1997 UBC structural design
calculations. Figure E-1 generally depicts the location of
the various faults and hazard zones within the Cupertino
planning area.
SEISMIC GROUND DEFORMATION
Ground located in relatively close proximity to active fault
traces may experience some level of ground deformation
beyond the primary surface fault rupture zones. The distri-
bution of this anticipated deformation is illustrated by the
updated City Geologic Hazard Map – “Zone D”. Ground
deformation away from the primary rupture zones may
include broad bowing or warping of the surface, ground
cracking and secondary ground fissuring. The general mag-
nitudes of such deformation could be up to several inches,
whereas ground impacted by primary surface fault rupture
could experience offsets of several feet.
Adjacent to local thrust faults (Berrocal and Monta Vista
faults), relatively broad zones of ground deformation should
be anticipated immediately west of the mapped fault trace
alignments. These zones of deformation are anticipated to
result from seismic displacement at depth along inclined
fault planes descending to the west. The potential for such
ground deformation should be considered during design of
new structures near active fault traces.
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 419
Appendix E
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
E-7
LIQUEFACTION
Soil liquefaction is the phenomenon in which certain
water-saturated soils lose their strength and flow as a
fluid when subjected to intense shaking. With loss of soil
strength, lateral spreading or sliding of soil toward a stream
embankment can occur. Liquefaction can also result in
the formation of sand boils, which represent conduits of
pressure release from within the liquefied layer (at depth)
to the ground surface. Liquefaction can also lead to local
settlement of the ground surface and a reduction of bear-
ing support for building foundations. The potential exists
for tilting or collapse of structures due to liquefaction of
underlying earth materials.
Currently identified lands subject to a moderate or higher
level of risk for liquefaction are essentially coincident with
areas of potential flood inundation adjacent to local creek
channels. Relatively deep, unconsolidated granular soil
materials potentially prone to liquefaction may occur in
these areas. The combined liquefaction and flood inun-
dation hazard is depicted by Hazard “Zone I” on the City
Geotechnical Hazards Map.
SEISMICALLY INDUCED LANDSLIDING
Reactivation of existing landslides or generation of new
slope failures (as discussed in the following section on
landslides) may be initiated under intense seismic ground
shaking conditions. As a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, many large pre-existing landslides demon-
strated lurching or other signs of movement and partial
reactivation within the local Santa Cruz Mountains to the
southwest of the City. Intense seismic ground shaking from
a nearby earthquake could trigger new slope failures or
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 420
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
E-8
movement of pre-existing landslides. Steep to precipitous
banks adjacent to the flood plane of Stevens Creek may be
particularly susceptible to seismically induced land sliding.
These areas, and other mapped landslides within the City,
are included within “Zone L” on the City Geotechnical
Hazard Map.
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS
Landslides present the greatest geologic hazards to the
foothills and low mountains in the planning area. The slid-
ing of a slope is the normal geologic process that widens
valleys and flattens slopes. The rate ranges from rapid
rock fails to very slow soil and bedrock creep. Landslides
are caused by inter-related natural factors, such as weak
soil and rock over hillsides made steeper by rapid stream
erosion, adverse geologic structure, groundwater levels and
high rainfall rates. Landslides can be caused by improper
grading, excessive irrigation, removal of natural vegetation
and altering surface and subsurface drainage.
Figure E-1 on page 5 shows mapped landslide deposits
within Cupertino. Geologic mapping in the hillsides shows
that landslide deposits cover as much as 20 to 30 percent
of the hillsides in the planning area. Landslides range from
small, shallow deposits made up of soil and weak bedrock
materials to large, deep landslides involving a large amount
of bedrock.
Extensive geologic characterization and engineering anal-
yses are necessary to determine the long-term stability of
a landslide deposit. Old deposits are the most difficult to
judge. Experience shows that old landslide deposits are
far more likely to move again than areas that have not had
landslides before.
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 421
Appendix E
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
E-9
Areas in these old landslides that are next to steep, new
stream channels are more likely to have new landslides than
areas further from the new channels. This would be espe-
cially true with severe shaking during a major earthquake
on any of the three faults in Cupertino. The historic account
of the 1906 earthquake shows many landslides occurred
throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains. Some of these were
catastrophic, causing loss of life, personal injury and severe
damage to buildings.
Landslides are expected along the high, steep embank-
ments that bound the Stevens Creek flood plane, confined
to local sites along the stream channel alignment extending
from the front the hillsides across the valley floor. This
hazard can be reduced significantly by restrictive building
at the base and top of the embankments.
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 422
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
E-10
Figure E-1
Cupertino Geology
Santa
Cr
u
z
C
o
unty
Santa
C
l
a
ra
Cou
n
t
y
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGERRD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT
ROAD
85
280
TA
NTAU
AV
E
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Qal–Valley Floor Alluvium
QTsc– Santa Clara Formation
Tus,Tm,vq–Tertiary
Sedimentary Rocks
KJr– Franciscan Assemblage
Landslides (Schematic)
Fault
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Legend
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
01000
0500
3000
00.51Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Los Altos
Fa
u
l
t
Sa
n
A
n
d
r
e
a
s
F
a
u
l
t
B
e
r
r
o
c
a
l
Fault
Mo
n
t
a
V
i
s
t
a
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
QTsc
QTsc
QTsc
QTsc
KJr
KJr
KJr
Tvq
Tvq
Tus,
Tm
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT 423
SECTION 3
Housing
SLOPE DENSITY
Appendix E
E
424
C-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 425
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-3REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This appendix has been prepared with the intent of
acquainting the general reader with the slope‑density
approach the City uses for determining the intensity of
residential development. The slope‑density approach
was incorporated in the hillside plan in order to develop
an equitable means of assigning dwelling unit credit to
property owners. In addition to offering the advantage of
equal treatment for property owners, the slope‑density
formula can also be designed to reflect property owners,
the slope‑density formula can also be designed to reflect
judgments regarding aesthetics and other factors into a
mathematical model which determines the number of
units per acre on a given piece of property based upon
the average steepness of the land. Generally speaking, the
steeper the average slope of the property, the fewer the
number of units which will be permitted.
Although the slope‑density formula can be used as an
effective means to control development intensity, the formula
itself cannot determine the ideal development pattern. The
formula determines only the total number of dwelling units,
allowable on the property, based upon the average slope;
it does not determine the optimum location of those units
on the property. Exogenous factors not regulated by the
slope‑density formula such as grading, tree removal, or other
environmental factors would be regulated by other means.
The slope‑density formulas do not represent by themselves
a complete safeguard against development detrimental
to the environment; but, together with other conservation
measures, they are considered a valuable planning device.
CONTENTS
F-3 Statement of Purpose
F-4 Discussion of “Slope”
F-5 Description of Slope
Density
F-8 How to Conduct a Slope
Density Analysis
426
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-4 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
DISCUSSION OF “SLOPE”
Steepness of terrain can be defined in several ways: (1)
as the relationship between the sides of the triangle
representing a vertical section of a hill, or (2) as the angle
between the terrain and the horizontal plain. Unfortunately,
the definitions of the terms “slope,” “grade,” “gradient,”
“batter,” and of the expression “the slope is 1 to...” are not
well known or uniformly applied, causing confusion. For
purposes of this discussion, the concept of steepness of
terrain will be defined and discussed as a “percentage of
slope.”
“Percent of slope” is defined as a measurement of steepness
of slope which is the ratio between vertical and horizontal
distances expressed in percent. As illustrated in Figures F-1,
50 percent slope is one which rises vertically 5 feet in a 10
foot horizontal distance.
10'-00"
5'-00"
50% Average Slope
Figure F‑1
Example of 50% Average Slope
427
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-5REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
One of the most common confusions of terminology
relative to terrain steepness is the synonymous usage of
“percent of grade” and “degree of grade.” However,
as Figure F-2 indicates, as percent of grade increases,
land becomes steeper at a decreasing rate. The present
slope‑density formulas specified by the City of Cupertino
require more land for development as the rate of percent
of grade increases. As a result, the relationship between
percent of grade and degree of grade is inverse rather than
corresponding.
To more accurately assess the impact of steepness of
terrain on the feasibility of residential development, it might
be helpful to examine some of phenomena commonly
associated with increasing percentages of slope steepness.
DESCRIPTION OF SLOPE-DENSITY
The “Foothill Modified” Slope Density
The “Foothill Modified” slope density is designed for
application to those properties in the “Fringe” of the Hillside
study area with average slopes less than 10 percent. The
formula assumes availability of municipal services. Beginning
at credit of 3.5 dwelling units/acre, the formula follows a
cosine curve of decreasing density credit with increase of
slope, achieving a constant above 43 percent average slope.
428
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-6 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
r
a
d
e
De
g
r
e
e
o
f
G
r
a
d
e
Degree of Change
for 10%
Grade Increase
6
15
17
22
27
31
35
39
42
45
48
50.5
52.5
54.5
56.5
0 6
51/2
51/2
5
5
4
4
4
3 3 3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
21/2 222
Figure F‑2
Degree of Grade
429
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-7REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The “Foothill Modified 1/2 Acre” slope density
This slope density is applied in the Urban Service Area
to those properties where a full range of municipal utility
services; are available. The formula begins at density of 1/2
acre per dwelling unit which holds constant at 22 percent
average slope. From 22 percent to 43 percent average
slope, the formula follows a cosine curve of decreasing
density credit with increasing slope. The density credit above
43 percent average slope remains constant at 0.20 dwelling
units/acre.
The “5-20” slope density
This slope density is applied to properties that lie west of
the urban/suburban fringe.
TABLE F-1
SLOPE CHARACTERISTICS
Percent of
Slope Description of Slope Problems
0‑5%Relatively level land. Little or no development problems due to steepness of slope.
5‑15%
Minimum slope problems increasing to significant slope problems at 15%. 15% is the
maximum grade often considered desirable on subdivision streets. Above 15%, roads
must run diagonally to, rather than at right angles to contours increasing the amount of
cut and fill. For example, the lower segment of San Juan Road in the Cupertino foothills
averages 20% in grade.
15‑30%
Slope becomes a very significant factor in development at this steepness. Development
of level building sites requires extensive cut and fill in this slope category and the design
of individual houses to fit terrain becomes important.
30‑50%
Slope is extremely critical in this range. Allowable steepness of cut and rill slopes
approach or coincide with natural slopes resulting in very large cuts and fills under con‑
ventional development. In some cases, fill will not hold on these slopes unless special
retaining devices are used. Because of the grading problems associated with this cate‑
gory, individual homes should be placed on natural building sites where they occur, or
buildings should be designed to fit the particular site.
50%+Almost any development can result in extreme disturbances in this slope category. Except in
the most stable native material special retaining devices may be needed.
430
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-8 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
HOW TO CONDUCT A SLOPE-DENSITY
ANALYSIS (MAP WHEEL METHOD)
The computation of density using a slope‑density formula
is relatively simple once the basic concepts are understood.
The section of Appendix A (Land Use Designations)
describes the basic concepts in order to enable individuals
to determine density. The City Planning staff will provide
technical assistance; however, it is the responsibility of the
owner or potential developer to provide accurate map
materials used in the slope‑density investigation for a
specific property.
The City has map material which is accurate enough to
provide an approximate slope‑density evaluation. Accurate
information needed to evaluate a specific development
proposal must be provided by the owner or developer.
Step 1: Selection of Map Material
To begin any slope‑density investigation, it is important
to select the proper mapping material. Maps on which
measurements are made must be no small in scale than
1”=200’ (1:2400). All maps must be of the topographical
type with contour intervals not less than 10 feet.
If the map wheel method is used for measuring contours,
or if a polar planimeter is used for measurement of an area,
maps on which such measurements are made must not
be smaller in scale than 1”=50’ (1:600); these maps may
be enlarged from maps in a scale not less than 1”=200’.
Enlargement of maps in smaller scale than 1”=200’, or
interpolation of contours is not permitted.
431
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-9REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Property Line
Composite Grid "Cell"
Standard Grid "Cell"
1
5 0
5 0
4 0
6 0
6
0
6 0
6 0
7 0
7 0
8 0
8 0
3 5
2 4 6
7
County
Grid Line "A"
County
Grid Line "B"
Intersection
At "Q"
Figure F‑2
Site Analysis
Step 2: Layout of Standard Grid
The property for which area and slope are to be measured
is divided into a network of “cells” constructed from a
grid system spaced at 200 ft. intervals. In order to ensure
a common reference point and to prevent the practice of
“gerrymandering’ the grid system to distort the average
slope of the property, the grid system must be oriented
parallel to the grid system utilized by Santa Clara County’s
1”=500’ scale map series.
Figure F-2 illustrates a hypothetical property divided
into cells by a 200 ft. grid network. It is perhaps easiest
432
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-10 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
to construct the 200’ x 200’ cells by beginning at an
intersection point of perpendicular County grid lines (“Q”
in Figure F‑2) and then measuring 200 ft. intervals along the
two County grid lines until the entire property is covered
with a network. After the grid lines have been laid out, it is
helpful to number each 200 ft. square cell or part thereof.
Whenever the grid lines divide the property into parts
less than approximately 20,000 sq. ft., such areas shall be
combined with each other or with other areas so that a
number of parts are formed with the areas approximately
between 20,000 and 60,000 sq. ft. Cells formed by
combining several subareas should be given a single
number and should be shown on the map with ‘hooks’ to
indicate grouping (see Area 2 on Figure F-2). At this point,
the investigator should obtain a copy of the “Slope‑Density
Grid Method Worksheet,” Figure F-3 of this document.
Under Column A (land unit), each line should be numbered
down the page to correspond with the total number of cells
on the property.
Step 3: Measurement of Area and Contour
Length
With the map material property prepared in Steps One
and Two, we can now begin the actual mechanics of the
slope‑density analysis. The first task is to ascertain the
acreage of the subject property. This acreage figure is
obtained by measuring the area of each numbered cell
divided by the 200 ft. grid, and then summing the results of
the individual measurements. Since the standard grid cell
measures 200’ x 200,’ it is only necessary to measure the
area of any non‑standard size cell. Referring once again to
the worksheet, as each cell is calculated for area, the results
433
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-11REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
should be entered in Column B ( and Column C optional).
Irregularly shaped cells may be measured for area quickly
and accurately by means of a polar planimeter. This device
is an analog instrument which traces the perimeter of an
area to be measured and gives the size in actual square
inches. This measurement is then multiplied by the square
of the scale of the map being used. For example, 1” ‑ 200’,
the square of 200 ft. means 1” equals 40,000 sq. ft. The
total square footage of each cell can then be converted
to acreage by dividing by 43,560 sq. ft. More detailed
instruction in the use of the planimeter may be obtained
from the City Planning Department.
Areas of irregular shape can also be measured by dividing
each part into triangles, for which areas are determined
by the formula A ‑ base x height + 2, if a planimeter is not
available.
Having now determined the area of each cell, one must
now proceed to measure the contour lengths of the
property. Contour length and interval are both vital factors
in calculating the average slope of the land. Each contour
of a specified interval is measured separately within each
standard cell or other numbered zone for which the area has
been calculated. The map wheel is set at “zero” and is then
run along the entire length of a contour within the boundary
of the cell, lifted and placed on the next contour (without
reseting the wheel to zero) and so forth until the total length
of contours of the specified interval within the individual cell
is determined. The map wheel will display a figure in linear
inches traveled. This figure shown on the dial should then be
multiplied by the map scale. (Example: map wheel reads –
14‑1/2 inches, map scale is 1” ‑ 50’. Contour length ‑ 14.5 x
50 ‑ 750’). The results should then be entered on the proper
line of Column D (Figure F‑3).
434
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-12 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Step 4: Calculation of Average Slope
Knowing the total length of contours, the contour interval,
and the area of each numbered cell, one may now
calculate the average slope of the land. Either of the two
formulas below may be used to calculate average slope:
S= 0.0023 1 L
A
S = average slope of ground in percent
I = contour interval in feet
L = combined length in feet of all contours on parcel
A = area of parcel in acres
The value 0.0023 is 1 sq. ft. expressed as a percent
of an acre:
1 sq. ft. = 0.0023 ac.
43,560
S=I x L x 100
A
S = average slope of ground in percent
I = contour intervaling feet
L = combined length in feet of all contours on parcel
A = area of parcel and square feet
The results should be entered on the appropriate line of
Column E of the worksheet.
435
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-13REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Step 5: Determination of Dwelling Unit Credit
With the average slope of the cell now determined, one
can calculate the dwelling unit credit per cell by obtaining
a factor from the appropriate slope‑density table (see
Tables F-2 through F-4) then multiplying that factor by
the area of the cell in acres. The formula factor is found by
first reading the table column “s” (slope) until reaching the
figure corresponding to the average slope of the cell being
studied; next, one reads horizontally to the “d” column
(density dwelling unit/acre). This factor should be entered
in Column F of the worksheet. The factor in Column F is
now multiplied by the acreage in Column B and the result
entered under the appropriate slope‑density formula title
(Column G, H, I or 1).
Step 6: Summation of Results
When all cells in the parcel have been analyzed in
the manner previously described, the total for various
components of the data may be derived and entered into
the two bottom rows of the worksheet. Columns B, C (if
used), and D should be summed at the bottom of the sheet.
A mathematical average may be calculated for Column E.
Columns G through J should be summed at the bottom
of the page. The totals shown at the bottom of columns
G through J represent the total number of dwelling units
permitted on that property, based on the average slope.
These totals should be carried out to a minimum of two
decimal places.
436
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-14 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:DWELLING UNIT CREDIT FROM SLOPE/DENSITY TA BLES
LAND UNIT FOOTHILL MOD SEMI-RURAL COUNTYFOOTHILL MOD
1/2 ac.
TOTALS
BY GRID
METHOD
TOTA L
BY SINGLE
AREA
AREA(acres)(sq. ft.)CONTOURAv. SLOPE FACTOR
EXAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.14
1.18
0.92
1.17
0.86
0.92
0.56
49600
51300
40000
51000
37600
40100
24300
750
680
320
490
470
190
210
15.3
13.3
8.0
9.6
12.6
4.8
8.6
0.545
0.572
0.625
0.606
0.572
0.660
0.616
0.621
0.675
0.575
0.709
0.492
0.607
0.345
4.0210.331102933666.75
Compos.
Compos.
Std.
Compos.
Compos.
ABCDEF GH IJK
Slope Density "Grid-Method" Wo rk Sheet
Figure F‑3
Grid Method Worksheet
437
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-15REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
“Rounding” of Dwelling Unit Credit Results
The City Council, during its meeting of March 7, 1977,
adopted the following policy regarding the rounding up of a
numerical dwelling unit yield resulting from application of a
slope‑density formula:
“The rounding up of the numerical yield resulting from
application of a slope‑density formula may be permitted
in cases where the incremental increase in density from
the actual yield to the rounded yield will not result in a
10% increase of the actual yield. In no case, shall an actual
yield be rounded up to the net whole number unless the
fractional number is .5 or greater.”
438
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-16 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE F-2
SLOPE DENSITY FORMULA: “ FOOTHILL MODIFIED”
Slope %
Density
D.U. per
ac.
Acres per D.U.Average lot
area sq.ft Slope%Density D.U.
per ac.
acres
per
D.U.
Average lot
area sq.ft.
s d 1/d43560/ds d1/d43560/d
53.5000.28612,446271.4060.71130,975
63.4940.28612,466281.2750.78434,169
73.4770.28812,528291.1470.87137,962
83.4480.29012,633301.0250.97642,498
93.4080.29312,781310.9081.10147,957
103.3570.29812,975320.7981.25354,569
113.2960.30313,216330.6961.43862,626
123.2240.31013,510340.6011.66472,484
133.1430.31813,859350.5151.94184,562
143.0530.32814,269360.4392.28099,305
152.9540.33914,746370.3722.688117,073
162.8480.35115,297380.3163.166137,905
172.7340.36615,932390.2703.698161,081
182.6140.38216,661400.2364.236184,532
192.4890.40217,498410.2134.695204,497
202.3600.42418,459420.2014.964216,235
212.2270.44919,562430.2014.964216,235
222.0910.47820,832
231.9540.51222,297
241.8150.55123,994
251.6780.59625,967
261.5410.64928,271
Notes:
(a) d = 1.85 + 1.65 cos { (s‑5) x 4.8}
(b) 5<s<44
439
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-17REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Foothill Modified
Slope (%)
5101520
0.29 0.30
0.34 0.42
0.60
0.98
1.94
4.24
4.96
2530354043
Ac
r
e
s
(
p
e
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
)
Figure F‑4
Foothill Modified
440
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-18 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE F-3
SLOPE DENSITY FORMULA: “ FOOTHILL
MODIFIED 1/2 ACRE”
Slope %Density D.U.
per ac. Acres per D.U.
Average lot
area sq.ft
s d 1/d 43560/d
22 2.091 0.478 20,832
23 1.954 0.512 22,297
24 1.815 0.551 23,994
25 1.678 0.596 25,967
26 1.541 0.649 28,271
27 1.406 0.711 30,975
28 1.275 0.784 34,169
29 1.147 0.871 37,962
30 1.025 0.976 42,498
31 0.908 1.101 47,957
32 0.798 1.253 54,569
33 0.696 1.438 62,626
34 0.601 1.664 72,484
35 0.515 1.941 84,562
36 0.439 2.280 99,305
37 0.372 2.688 117,073
38 0.316 3.166137,905
39 0.270 3.698161,081
40 0.236 4.236184,532
41 0.213 4.695204,497
42 0.201 4.964216,235
43 0.201 4.964216,235
Note:
(a) d = 1.85 + 1.60’ cos {(s‑5) x 4.8}
(b) 5<s<44
441
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-19REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE F-3
SLOPE DENSITY FORMULA: “ FOOTHILL
MODIFIED 1/2 ACRE”
Slope %Density D.U.
per ac. Acres per D.U.
Average lot
area sq.ft
sd1/d43560/d
222.0910.47820,832
231.9540.51222,297
241.8150.55123,994
251.6780.59625,967
261.5410.64928,271
271.4060.71130,975
281.2750.78434,169
291.1470.87137,962
301.0250.97642,498
310.9081.10147,957
320.7981.25354,569
330.6961.43862,626
340.6011.66472,484
350.5151.94184,562
360.4392.28099,305
370.3722.688117,073
380.3163.166137,905
390.2703.698161,081
400.2364.236184,532
410.2134.695204,497
420.2014.964216,235
430.2014.964216,235
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Foothill Modified - 1/2 Acre
Slope (%)
222530
0.48
0.60 0.98
1.94
4.24
4.96
354043
Ac
r
e
s
(
p
e
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
)
Figure F‑5
Foothill Modified 1/2 Acre
442
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
F-20 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE F-4
5-20 ACRE SLOPE DENSITY
Slope %Density
D.U. per ac.
Acres per
D.U.
Average lot
area sq.ft
Slope%Density
D.U. per ac.
acres per
D.U.
Average lot
area sq.ft.
s d 1/d43560/ds d 1/d43560/d
100.205.00217,800310.109.92431,964
110.205.07220,786320.1010.32449,722
120.195.15224,518330.0910.75468,121
130.195.26228,992340.0911.18487,154
140.195.38234,204350.0911.63506,814
150.185.51240,153360.0812.10527,093
160.185.67246,835370.0812.58547,982
170.175.84254,245380.0813.07569,475
180.176.02262,381390.0713.58591,563
190.166.23271,238400.0714.10614,238
200.166.45280,811410.0714.63637,491
210.156.63291,096420.0715.18661,313
220.146.94302,089430.0615.74685,696
230.147.20313,784440.0616.31710,630
240.137.49326,176450.0616.90736,106
250.137.79339,260460.0617.50762,115
260.128.10353,030470.0618.10788,648
270.128.44367,481480.0518.73815,694
280.118.78382,606490.0519.36843,244
290.119.15398,399500.0520.00871,288
300.119.52414,85450>
443
Appendix F
Slope Density
F-21REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
5 – 20 Acre Slope Density
Slope (%)
222530
5.005.00
5.51
6.45 7.79
9.52
14.10
11.63
16.90
20.00
354043
Ac
r
e
s
(
p
e
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
)
444
Regional
Shopping /
Office / Res
EXHIBIT GPA-2
445
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-212
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF THE
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) FOR REVIEW AND USE OF THE
PRIORITIZED LIST OF POTENTIAL HOUSING ELEMENT SITES, IF NEEDED
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPA-2013-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to replenish, reallocate and
increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development
activity while keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives and to consolidate
development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, under a
comprehensive community vision, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Housing Law, the City Council has directed staff to update the
Housing Element of the General Plan and make associated zoning amendments to comply with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Council’s consideration of this Housing Element draft,
and following the Commission’s recommendation, the Council adopted Resolution No. 211,
adopting a General Plan Amendment covering the properties which are the subject of this
Housing Element draft; and
WHEREAS, the draft Housing Element will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use
map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the consideration of the Draft Housing Element is part of the General Plan
Amendment, Housing Element Update and Associate Rezoning, all as fully described and
analyzed in the June 2014 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No.
2014032007), as amended by text revisions in the August 2014 General Plan Amendment,
Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning Project EIR Response to Comments
Document (“Response to Comments Document”) and Supplemental Text Revisions dated
October 8, 2014 (together, the “Final EIR”);
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014 at a
Planning Commission Study Session; and
446
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council on October 7, 2014 at a City
Council Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held public hearings on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014 to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on October 20, 2014 the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City,
adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the
mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City
that are identified in Findings (Resolution no. 6760); and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0-1 (Takahashi
absent) vote that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01)
(Resolution no. 6761); authorize staff to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for review (GPA-2013-02); approve the
prioritized list of potential Housing Element sites in the event amendments are needed to the
proposed Housing Element sites upon HCD review (Resolution no. 6762); approve the Zoning
Map Amendments, Z-2014-0X, in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented
(Resolution no. 6763); approve the Municipal Code Amendments to make changes to conform
to the General Plan and Housing Element and other clean up text edits (MCA-2014-01)
(Resolution no. 6764); approve the Specific Plan Amendments, SPA-2014-01, in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6765); and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one
public hearing to consider the draft Housing Element and prioritization of the potential sites;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this
Resolution;
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the
public hearing on November 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-210
certifying the EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting
Mitigation Measures, and adopting of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the EIR finds that scope of
this draft Housing Element falls within the previously certified EIR; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
After careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted
in this matter, the City Council authorizes:
447
1. Submittal of the draft housing element and technical appendix to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development for review (Application No. GPA-2013-01) as
shown in Exhibit HE-1; and
2. Use of the prioritized list of potential housing element sites in the event amendments are
needed to the proposed housing element sites upon HCD review, as shown in Exhibit HE-2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November 2014, at a Meeting of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong,
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
448
SECTION 3
Housing
HOUSING ELEMENT
Chapter 4
4
449
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT HE-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 450
HE-3
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
Cupertino is a community with a high quality of life, a
renowned school system, and a robust high-technology
economy. The long term vitality of Cupertino and the
local economy depend upon the availability of all types of
housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs.
As Cupertino looks towards the future, increasing the range
and diversity of housing options will be integral to the
City’s success. Consistent with the goal of being a balanced
community, this Housing Element continues the City’s
commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential
development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our
existing neighborhoods.
Role and Content of Housing Element
The Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan to
address housing needs in Cupertino. This updated Housing
Element focuses on housing needs from January 31, 2015
through January 31, 2023, in accordance with the housing
element planning period established by State law for San
Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions.
This Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document
regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation
of housing for all economic segments of the population.
Per State Housing Element law, the document must be
periodically updated to:
Outline the community’s housing production objectives
consistent with State and regional growth projections
Describe goals, policies and implementation strategies to
achieve local housing objectives
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on
special needs populations
CONTENTS
HE-3 Introduction
Role and Content of
Housing Element
HE-4 Housing Needs
Assessment
Demographic Trends
in Cupertino
Housing Stock
Characteristics
Market Conditions
and Income Related to
Housing Costs
HE-15 Regional Housing
Needs and Allocation
HE-16 Housing Resources
HE-19 Housing Plan
Qualified Objectives
451
HE-4
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Identify adequate sites for the production of housing
serving various income levels
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other
General Plan elements
This element outlines the community’s projected housing
needs and defines the actions the City will take to
address them. General Plan Appendix B provides detailed
background information to meet all requirements of State
Housing Element law.
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section describes the demographic, housing, and
economic conditions in Cupertino; assesses the demand
for housing for households at all income levels; and
documents the demand for housing to serve special needs
populations. The Housing Needs Assessment establishes
the framework for defining the City’s housing goals and
formulating policies and ptrategies that address local
housing needs.
A community’s population characteristics can affect the
amount and type of housing needed. Factors such as
population growth, household type, and whether or not
households are more likely to rent or buy their homes
influence the type of housing needed.
Reducing waste and efficiently managing
resources will help further natural conserva-
tion goals
The Housing Needs Assessment establishes
the framework for defining the City’s
housing goals and needs
452
HE-5
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Demographic Trends in Cupertino and the Region
Population
The City’s population increased by 15 percent between
2000 and 2010, exceeding the growth rate of Santa Clara
County (six percent), the San Francisco Bay area (five
percent), and the State of California (10 percent) (see
Table HE-1). During this period, Cupertino grew from
50,546 to 58,302 residents. A portion of this population
growth can be attributed to the annexation of 168 acres
of land between 2000 and 2008. Annexation of Garden
Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered County “islands” added
1,600 new residents. After removing the population
increases from these annexations, Cupertino experienced
a 12-percent increase in its population during the previous
decade.
Households
A household is defined as a person or group of persons
living in a housing unit, as opposed to persons living in
group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes,
or prisons. In 2010, Cupertino was home to 20,181
households (see Table HE-1). The City added approximately
2,000 new households between 2000 and 2010, an increase
of 11 percent. Approximately 600 of these households,
however, resulted from annexations. After adjusting for
household increases due to annexation, the number of
households grew by only eight percent between 2000
and 2010. During the same time period, the number of
households increased by 6.8 percent in Santa Clara County.
Household Type
Households are divided into two different types, depending
on their composition. Family households are those
consisting of two or more related persons living together.
The City’s population increase has
placed new pressures on Cupertino’s
neighborhoods
453
HE-6
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Non-family households include persons who live alone
or in groups of unrelated individuals. Cupertino has a
large proportion of family households. In 2011, family
households comprised 77 percent of all households in
the City, compared with 71 percent of Santa Clara County
households (see Table HE-1).
Household Tenure
Households in Cupertino are more likely to own than
rent their homes. Approximately 63 percent of Cupertino
households owned their homes in 2010. By comparison, 58
percent of Santa Clara County households owned homes
(see Table HE-1).
Long-term Projections
Table HE-2 on page HE-7 shows population, household,
and job growth projections for Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, and the nine-county Bay Area region between 2010
and 2040 and represents the analysis conducted by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) using 2010
Census data and a variety of local sources.
Between 2010 and 2040, Cupertino’s population is
expected to grow by 12,898 residents—from 58,302 to
71,200. This translates into an increase of 22 percent over
30 years. ABAG projects both Santa Clara County and the
ABAG region will experience much larger growth over the
same time period (36 percent and 31 percent, respectively).
Cupertino’s job growth is expected to continue to outpace
population and household growth between 2010 and 2020,
compounding the “jobs rich” nature of the City and the
region. By 2020, Cupertino is anticipated to have a jobs-to-
housing ratio of 1.40 (up from 1.29 in 2010, but mirroring
the regional average of 1.40). Job growth in Cupertino is
projected to level off after 2020 to a comparable pace with
population and household growth. Similar trends are also
projected for the County and the ABAG region as a whole.
Family households are the largest
proportions of household type in Cupertino
454
HE-7
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE HE-1: POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS, 2000-2010/2011
2000 2010/2011 Total Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2000-2011
City of Cupertino
Population 50,546 58,302 7,756 15.3%
Households 18,204 20,181 1,977 10.9%
Average Household Size (a)2.75 2.83
Household Type (a)
Families 74.8%77.4%
Non-Families 25.2%22.6%
Tenure
Owner 63.6%62.6%
Renter 36.4%37.4%
Santa Clara County
Population 1,682,585 1,781,642 99,057 5.9%
Households 565,863 604,204 38,341 6.8%
Average Household Size (a)2.92 2.89
Household Type (a)
Families 69.9%70.8%
Non-Families 30.1%29.2%
Tenure
Owner 59.8%57.6%
Renter 40.2%42.4%
Bay Area (b)
Population 6,783,760 7,150,739 366,979 5.4%
Households 2,466,019 2,608,023 142,004 5.8%
Average Household Size (a)2.69 2.69
Household Type (a)
Families 64.7%64.8%
Non-Families 35.3%35.2%
Tenure
Owner 57.7%56.2%
Renter 42.3%43.8%
California
Population 33,871,648 37,253,956 3,382,308 10.0%
Households 11,502,870 12,577,498 1,074,628 9.3%
Average Household Size (a)2.87 2.91
Household Type (a)
Families 68.9%68.6%
Non-Families 31.1%31.4%
Tenure
Owner 56.9%55.9%
Renter 43.1%44.1%
Notes:
(a) Average household size and household type figures from American Community Survey (ACS), 2007-2011.
(b) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
455
HE-8
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Housing Stock Characteristics
A community’s housing stock is defined as the collection
of all types of housing located within the jurisdiction. The
characteristics of the housing stock—including condition,
type, and affordability—are important in determining the
housing needs for Cupertino.
Distribution of Units by Structure Type
A majority of housing units in Cupertino are single-
family detached homes (57 percent in 2013). While still
representing the majority house type, this represents a
decrease from 2000, when 61 percent of all homes were
single-family detached. In comparison, single-family
detached homes in both Santa Clara County and the Bay
Area comprised 54 percent of all homes in 2013.
Large multi-family buildings (defined as units in structures
containing five or more dwellings) represent the second
TABLE HE-2: POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, AND JOB PROJECTIONS, 2010-2040
Percent Change
20102020203020402010-20202020-20302030-2040
City of Cupertino
Population 58,30262,10066,30071,2006.5%6.8%7.4%
Households 20,18121,46022,75024,0406.3%6.0%5.7%
Jobs 26,09029,96031,22033,11014.8%4.2%6.1%
Santa Clara County
Population 1,781,6421,977,9002,188,5002,423,50011.0%10.6%10.7%
604,204675,670747,070818,40011.8%10.6%9.5%
Jobs 926,2701,091,2701,147,0201,229,52017.8%5.1%7.2%
Bay Area (a)
Population 6,432,2887,011,7007,660,7008,394,7009.0%9.3%9.6%
Households 2,350,1862,560,4802,776,6402,992,9908.9%8.4%7.8%
Jobs 3,040,1103,579,6003,775,0804,060,16017.7%5.5%7.6%
Notes:
a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Source: Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
The population of Cupertino is expected
to increase by twenty-two percent over the
next thirty years
456
HE-9
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
largest housing category in Cupertino (21 percent),
followed by single-family attached dwellings (12 percent).
Between 2000 and 2013, these two housing types
experienced an increase of 24 and 26 percent, respectively.
Market Conditions and Income Related to
Housing Costs
The cost of housing is dependent on a variety of factors,
including underlying land costs, market characteristics,
and financing options. In the Bay Area, the technology
boom has increased the demand for new housing at all
income levels, resulting in both lower-earning residents
and well-paid area professionals competing for housing
in an overcrowded and expensive market. High housing
costs can price lower-income families out of the market,
cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into
overcrowded conditions. Cupertino has some of the highest
housing costs in the region.
Rental Market Characteristics and Trends
A review of rental market conditions in Cupertino was
conducted for this Housing Element by reviewing
advertised apartment listings. The survey found that
market-rate rents averaged:
$1,608 per month for studio units
$2,237 per month for one-bedroom units
$2,886 per month for two-bedroom units
$3,652 per month for three-bedroom units
Rental prices in Cupertino ranged from $1,400 for a studio
unit to $5,895 for a five-bedroom unit. As can be expected,
smaller units are generally more affordable than larger
units. The overall median rental price for all unit sizes
surveyed was $2,830, and the average price was $2,919.
The Bay Area technology boom has
increased housing demand at all levels
457
HE-10
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Home Sale Trends
While other areas of the State and nation experienced
downturns in the housing market during the national
recession that began in 2008, Cupertino home values have
continued to grow. During the depth of the housing market
crash (between 2008 and 2010), the median home price in
Cupertino held steady at around $1,000,000. Since 2011,
home prices in Cupertino have increased substantially. The
2013 median home sales price of $1,200,000 in Cupertino
was nearly double that of the County median price
($645,000), and prices continued to rise in 2014.
Housing Affordability
According to the federal government, housing is
considered “affordable” if it costs no more than 30 percent
of a household’s gross income. Often, affordable housing
is discussed in the context of affordability to households
with different income levels. Households are categorized
as very low income, low income, moderate income, or
above moderate income based on percentages of the
area median income established annually by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD). In 2014, the area median income for Santa Clara
County was $105,500 for a family of four.
Special Housing Needs
Certain groups have more difficulty finding decent,
affordable housing due to their special circumstances.
Special circumstances may be related to one’s income-
earning potential, family characteristics, the presence of
physical or mental disabilities, or age-related health issues.
As a result, certain groups typically earn lower incomes
and have higher rates of overpayment for housing, or they
may live in overcrowded residences. Housing Element law
specifically requires an analysis of the special housing needs
Despite the national economic downturn,
Cupertino home values have continued to
rise
458
HE-11
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
of the elderly, the disabled, female-headed households,
large families, farmworkers, and homeless persons and
families. Table HE-3 summarizes demographics for these
special needs groups in Cupertino.
TABLE HE-3: SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS IN CUPERTINO
Special Needs Group Person or
Household RenterOwnerPercent of Total
Senior-Headed Households 3,983 785 (19.7%)3,198 (80.3%)19.7%
Households with a Senior
Member 5,069 n/a n/a 25.1%
Seniors Living Alone 1,612 516 (32.0%)1,096 (68.0%)8.0%
Large Households 1,883 619 (32.9%)1,264 (67.1%)9.3%
Single-Parent Households 883 n/a n/a 4.4%
Female Single-Parent Households 667 n/a n/a 6.9%
Persons with Disabilities (a)3,445 n/a n/a 5.9%
Agricultural Workers (b)36 n/a n/a <1%
Persons living in Poverty (b)2,330 n/a n/a 4.0%
Homeless (c)112 n/a n/a <1%
Notes:
(a) 2010 Census data not available for persons with disabilities. Estimate is from the 2008-2012 ACS. Estimate is for persons 5 years
of age and older.
(b) 2010 Census data not available. Estimate is from the 2007-2011 ACS.
(c) 2010 Census data not available. Estimate is from 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Point-In-Time Census and Survey
Comprehensive Report. Of the 112 homeless persons counted in Cupertino in 2013, 92 persons were unsheltered and 20 were
sheltered.
Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013; U.S. Census, American
Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012; 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Point-In-Time Census and Survey Comprehensive
Report
459
HE-12
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Seniors
Many senior residents face a unique set of housing needs,
largely due to physical limitations, fixed incomes, and
health care costs. Affordable housing cost, unit sizes and
accessibility to transit, family, health care, and other services
are critical housing concerns for seniors.
In 2010, 20 percent of Cupertino householders were 65
years old or older, slightly higher than the proportion of
senior households in Santa Clara County (18.5 percent).
A large majority of these senior households owned
their homes; 86 percent of elderly households were
homeowners, compared to only 58 percent of householders
under 64 years old.
Cupertino’s elderly renter households are more likely
to be lower income than elderly owner households.
Approximately 62 percent of elderly renter households
earned less than 80 percent of the area median income
compared to 42 percent of senior homeowners. Elderly
households also tend to pay a larger portion of their
income on housing costs than do other households.
Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or
more members. Large households are identified as a
special needs group because of limited opportunities for
adequately sized and affordable housing. Cupertino has
a smaller proportion of large households than Santa Clara
County as a whole (9.3 percent in Cupertino compared
to 15 percent in Santa Clara County). In the City, large
households are more likely to be homeowners (67 percent)
than renters (33 percent). Approximately 64 percent of the
housing units in Cupertino have three or more bedrooms
and can accommodate large households.
Cupertino’s elderly renter households are
more likely to be lower income than elderly
owner households
460
HE-13
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special
consideration and assistance because of their greater
need for affordable housing and accessible day care,
health care, and other supportive services. Female-headed
single-parent households with children, in particular, tend
to have a higher need for affordable housing than other
family households in general. In addition, these households
are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often
the sole source of income in addition to being the sole
caregiver for the children in the household. In 2010, 667
female-headed single-parent households with children
under 18 years of age lived in Cupertino, representing
3.3 percent of all households in the City. A significant
proportion of these households were living in poverty (21
percent).
Persons with Disabilities
A disability is a physical or mental impairment that limits
one or more major life activities. Persons with disabilities
generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to
finding employment or adequate housing due to physical
or structural obstacles. This segment of the population
often needs affordable housing that is located near public
transportation, services, and shopping. Persons with
disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair
accessibility or other special features that accommodate
physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity
of the disability, people may live independently with some
assistance in their own homes, or may require assisted
living and supportive services in special care facilities.
Approximately six percent of Cupertino residents and eight
percent of Santa Clara County residents had one or more
disabilities in 2010.
In 2010, a significant proportion of
Cupertino’s 3.3 percent female-headed
single-parent households were living in
poverty
461
HE-14
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Residents Living Below the Poverty Level
Families with incomes below the poverty level, specifically
those with extremely low and very low incomes, are at
the greatest risk of becoming homeless and often require
assistance in meeting their rent and mortgage obligations
in order to prevent homelessness. Census data suggest
that four percent of all Cupertino residents were living
below the poverty level in 2010. Specifically, about three
percent of family households and two percent of families
with children were living below the poverty level. These
households may require specific housing solutions such
as deeper income targeting for subsidies, housing with
supportive services, single-room occupancy units, or rent
subsidies and vouchers.
Homeless
Demand for emergency and transitional shelter in
Cupertino is difficult to determine given the episodic nature
of homelessness. Generally, episodes of homelessness
among families or individuals can occur as a single event
or periodically. The county-wide 2013 Santa Clara County
Homeless Census & Survey reported a point-in-time
count of 7,631 homeless people on the streets and in
emergency shelters, transitional housing, and domestic
violence shelters throughout the County. This estimate
includes 112 homeless individuals in Cupertino. The count,
however, should be considered conservative because many
unsheltered homeless individuals may not be visible at
street locations, even with the most thorough methodology.
Shelters acorss Santa Clara county provide
for thousands of homeless people and
families seeking assistance
462
HE-15
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584,
the State, regional councils of government (in this case,
ABAG), and local governments must collectively determine
each locality’s share of regional housing need (RHNA). In
conjunction with the State mandated housing element
update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update
their elements by January 31, 2015, ABAG has determined
housing unit production needs for each jurisdiction within
the Bay Area. These allocations set housing production
goals for the planning period that runs from January 1,
2014 through October 31, 2022 (Table HE-4).
Low income households may require
specific housing solutions due to a greater
risk for issues such as homelessness
TABLE HE-4: RHNA, CUPERTINO, 2014-2022
Income Category Projected NeedPercent of Total
Extremely Low/Very Low (0-50% of AMI)356 33.5%
Low (51-80% of AMI)207 19.5%
Moderate (81-120% of AMI)231 21.7%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI)270 25.4%
Total Units 1,064 100.0%
Source: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2014.
463
HE-16
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Progress toward the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation
The City of Cupertino may count housing units constructed,
approved, or proposed since January 1, 2014 toward
satisfying its RHNA goals for this planning period. Between
January 1 and May 31, 2014, building permits for 14
single-family housing units and three second units were
approved in Cupertino. In addition, six single-family homes
and seven apartments received Planning approvals. Also
included in the RHNA credits are 32 second units projected
to be developed within the planning period. This projection
is based on historical approvals of second units during
the past Housing Element planning period. With these
credits, the City has a remaining RHNA of 1,002 units: 356
extremely low/very low-income units, 207 low-income units,
196 moderate-income units, and 243 above moderate-
income units.
HOUSING RESOURCES
Overview of Available Sites for Housing
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to
demonstrate that a sufficient supply of land exists in the
City to accommodate the fair share of the region’s housing
needs during the RHNA projections period (January 1, 2014
– October 31, 2022). The Government Code requires that
the Housing Element include an “inventory of land suitable
for residential development, including vacant sites and sites
having the potential for redevelopment” (Section 65583[a]
[3]). It further requires that the element analyze zoning and
infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development
is feasible during the planning period.
Cupertino faces regional growth demands while
undergoing a transformation from a traditional suburban
residential community to one that increasingly reflects more
The Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) helps determine each areas share of
the regional housing need
464
HE-17
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
urban characteristics: public gathering spaces, increased
shopping and entertainment choices conveniently located
near housing, and jobs within an urban core. Cupertino
historically has more jobs than housing. When this
imbalance is multiplied across adjacent cities, regional
consequences include high housing costs, sprawl into
outlying areas, congestion of the transportation system,
and increased air pollution.
The General Plan’s development allocation policies
are intended to improve the jobs/housing balance by
increasing potential housing units and tempering non-
residential growth. The General Plan controls the amount
of commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses that
can be built through development allocations in terms of
square feet (commercial and office), rooms (hotel), and
units (residential). Through a comprehensive General Plan
Amendment adopted in fall 2014, the City conducted
extensive community engagement and resource analyses
to identify strategies to replenish, re-allocate, and increase
office, commercial, hotel, and residential allocations
citywide to plan for future development activity, all the
while balancing regional growth pressures with strongly
held community desire to maintain Cupertino’s character
and quality of life.
Figure HE-1 indicates the available residential development
opportunity sites to meet and exceed the identified
housing need. The opportunity sites can accommodate
infill development of up to 1,386 residential units on
properties zoned for densities of 20 dwelling units to the
acre or more. The potential sites inventory is organized by
geographic area and in particular, by mixed use corridors.
As shown in Table HE-5, a large proportion of the near-term
development potential lies within the Heart of the City
Special Area. An additional potential site is located in the
North Vallco Park Special Area.
Cupertino has historically had more jobs
then housing
465
HE-18
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure HE-1
Housing Element Sites to Meet the RHNA
North Vallco
Park:
344 Units
Heart of the
City:
1,042 Units
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Los Altos
Site 5
93 units
Site 1
235 units
Site 4
103 units
Site 6
11 units
Site 3
344 units
Site 2
600 units
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Special Areas
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
North Vallco Park
Heart of the City
Housing Elements
Sites
VTA Priority
Development Area
(PDA)
Site
units Site Number: Realistic
Capacity. Note: Realistic
capacity is 85% of maximum capacity
allowed under Alternative C
466
HE-19
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
HOUSING PLAN
This section presents the quantified objectives for new
housing unit construction, conservation, and rehabilitation
during the 2014-2022 planning period, as well as the
policies and strategies to meet these objectives and
address local housing needs. Policies and strategies are
grouped into the following goals:
Goal HE-1: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for
all Economic Segments
TABLE HE-5: SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY ON SITES TO MEET THE
RHNA
Site General Plan/Zoning Special
Area
Max
Density
(DUA)
Max Height
Realistic
Capacity
(units)
Site 1 (The Oaks
Shopping Center)
C/O/R
P(CG, Res, OP)
Heart of
the City 35 45 ft; or
60 ft with retail 235
Site 2 (Vallco Shopping
District)
C/O/R
P(Regional Shopping,
OP, Res)
Heart of
the City 35
45 ft; or
60 ft with retail; or 75-90
ft in certain locations*
with community benefits
600 max
Site 3 (The Hamptons)High Density
P(Res)
North
Vallco Park 65 75 ft; or 60 ft in certain
locations*;344
Site 4 (United Furniture/
East of East Estates Dr)
C/O/R
P(CG, Res)
Heart of
the City 25 45 ft 103
Site 5 (Glenbrook
Apartments)
Medium Density
R3(10-20)
Heart of
the City 20 45 ft 93
Site 6 (Barry Swenson)C/O/RP(CG, Res)
Heart of
the City 25 45 ft 11
Total 1,386
Notes: Site 2 (Vallco) height allowance to 75 feet is applicable only with community benefits and only for a 200 foot depth along the west
Wolfe Rd. property line and set back 200 feet from the Stevens Creek Blvd. property line. Height allowance to 90 feet only with community
benefits and only east of Wolfe. Site 3 (Hamptons) height limit of 60 feet is applicable for buildings located within 50 feet of property lines
abutting Wolfe Rd, Pruneridge Ave. & Apple Campus 2 site. For more detail on height limits, see Land Use and Community Design Element,
Figure LU-1.
467
HE-20
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Goal HE-2: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of
Cupertino Households
Goal HE-3: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods
Goal HE-4: Energy and Water Conservation
Goal HE-5: Services for Extremely Low-Income
Households and Special Needs Neighborhoods
Goal HE-6: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities
Goal HE-7: Coordination with Regional Organizations
and Local School Districts
This section also identifies the responsible party and
timeline for each implementation strategy.
Quantified Objectives
Table HE-6 outlines the proposed housing production,
rehabilitation, and conservation objectives for the eight-
year Housing Element planning period.
TABLE HE-6: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Income Category New Construction
(RHNA)RehabilitationConservation
Extremely Low 178 10 8
Very Low 178 10
Low 207 20
Moderate 231
Above Moderate 270
Total 1,064 40 8
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014
468
HE-21
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HE-1.1: Provision of Adequate Capacity for
New Construction Need
Designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to
accommodate Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation of 1,064 units for the 2014-2022 planning
period.
Policy HE-1.2: Housing Densities
Provide a full range of densities for ownership and rental
housing.
Policy HE-1.3: Mixed Use Development
Encourage mixed-use development near transportation
facilities and employment centers.
Implementing Strategies
Strategy 1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions. To
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), the City will continue to:
Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use
Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the
RHNA of 1,064 units while maintaining a balanced
land use plan that offers opportunities for employment
growth, commercial/retail activities, services, and
amenities.
Monitor development standards to ensure they are
adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing
in the community
GOAL HE-1
AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF RESIDENTIAL
UNITS FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS
469
HE-22
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Monitor the sites inventory and make it available on the
City website.
Monitor development activity on the Housing Opportunity
Sites to ensure that the City maintains sufficient land to
accommodate the RHNA during the planning period. In
the event a housing site listed in the Housing Element
sites inventory is redeveloped with a non-residential use
or at a lower density than shown in the Housing Element
sites inventory, ensure that the City has adequate capacity
to meet the RHNA by making the findings required
by Government Code Section 65863 and identifying
alternative site(s) within the City if needed.
Strategy 2: Second Dwelling Units. The City will continue
to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and
encourage the production of second units.
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Sources:None required
Quantified Objectives:
1,064 units (178 extremely
low-, 178 very low-, 207 low-,
231 moderate- and 270 above
moderate-income units)
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Sources:None required
Quantified Objectives:Four second units annually for a
total of 32 units over eight years
470
HE-23
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 3: Lot Consolidation. To facilitate residential and
mixed use developments, the City will continue to:
Encourage lot consolidation when contiguous smaller,
underutilized parcels are to be redeveloped
Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated
access and circulation
Provide technical assistance to property owners of
adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinated redevelopment
where appropriate
Encourage intra- and inter-agency cooperation in working
with applicants at no cost prior to application submittal
for assistance with preliminary plan review.
Strategy 4: Flexible Development Standards. The City
recognizes the need to encourage a range of housing
options in the community. The City will continue to:
Offer flexible residential development standards in
planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller
lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratios and setbacks,
particularly for higher density and attached housing
developments
Consider granting reductions in off-street parking on a
case-by-case basis for senior housing.
Cupertino will encourage the development
of mixed-use centers
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Sources:None required
Quantified Objectives:N/A
471
HE-24
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 5: To reduce constraints to housing development,
and in order to ensure that the designated sites can obtain
the realistic capacity shown in the Housing Element, the
City will review revisions to the Heart of the City Specific
Plan residential density calculation requirement, to eliminate
the requirement to net the non-residential portion of the
development from the lot area.
Policy HE-4: Housing Mitigation
Ensure that all new developments—including market-rate
residential developments—help mitigate project-related
impact on affordable housing needs.
The Housing Element should identify land at
appropriate densities to accommodate the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Sources:None required
Quantified Objectives:N/A
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame: 2016
Funding Sources:None required
Quantified Objectives:N/A
GOAL HE-2
HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE FOR A DIVERSITY
OF CUPERTINO HOUSEHOLD
472
HE-25
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HE-5: Range of Housing Types
Encourage the development of diverse housing stock
that provides a range of housing types (including smaller,
moderate cost housing) and affordability levels. Emphasize
the provision of housing for lower- and moderate-income
households including wage earners who provide essential
public services (e.g., school district employees, municipal
and public safety employees, etc.)
Policy HE-6: Development of Affordable Housing
and Housing for Persons with Special Needs
Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations
and other development tools to encourage the
development of affordable housing. Make every reasonable
effort to disperse units throughout the community but not
at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of
providing affordable units.
Implementing Strategies
Strategy 6: Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation
Program. The City will continue to implement the
Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Strategy. This
strategy requires that developers of office, commercial,
and industrial space pay a mitigation fee, which will
then be used to support affordable housing in the City
of Cupertino. These mitigation fees are collected and
deposited in the City’s Below Market-Rate Affordable
Housing Fund (BMR AHF).
A range of housing options should be
encouraged in the community
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Sources:BMR AHF
Quantified Objectives:N/A
473
HE-26
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 7: Residential Housing Mitigation Program.
The City will continue to implement the Residential
Housing Mitigation Program to mitigate the need for
affordable housing created by new market-rate residential
development. This program applies to all new residential
development of one unit or greater. Mitigation includes
either the payment of the “Housing Mitigation” fee or
the provision of a Below Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units.
Projects of seven or more for-sale units must provide on-site
BMR units. Projects of six units or fewer for-sale units can
either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation
fee. Developers of market-rate rental units, where the
units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing
Mitigation fee to the BMR AHF. The BMR program specifies
the following:
a. Priority. To the extent permitted by law, priority for
occupancy is given to Cupertino residents, Cupertino full-
time employees and Cupertino public service employees
as defined in Cupertino’s BMR Policy and Procedures
Manual.
b. For-Sale Residential Developments. Require 15% for-sale
BMR units in all residential developments where the units
can be sold individually (including single-family homes,
common interest developments, and condominium
conversions or allow rental BMR units as allowed in (c)(2)
below).
c. Rental Residential Developments: To the extent
permitted by law, require 15% rental very low and low-
income BMR units in all rental residential developments.
If the City is not permitted by law to require BMR units in
rental residential developments:
d. Rental Alternative. Allow rental BMR units in for-sale
residential developments, and allow developers of
market-rate rental developments to provide on-site rental
Lot consolidation will continue to be
encouraged for development
474
HE-27
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
BMR units, if the developer: 1) enters into an agreement
limiting rents in exchange for a financial contribution or a
type of assistance specified in density bonus law (which
includes a variety of regulatory relief); and 2) provides
very low-income and low-income BMR rental units.
e. Affordable Prices and Rents. Establish guidelines for
affordable sales prices and affordable rents for new
affordable housing and update the guidelines each year
as new income guidelines are received;
f. Development of BMR Units Off Site. Allow developers to
meet all or a portion of their BMR or Housing Mitigation
fee requirement by making land available for the City or
a nonprofit housing developer to construct affordable
housing, or allow developers to construct the required
BMR units off site, in partnership with a nonprofit.
The criteria for land donation or off-site BMR units (or
combination of the two options) will be identified in the
Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.
g. BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for
a minimum of 99 years; and enforce the City’s first right
of refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that
BMR units remain affordable.
Development of housing for persons with
special needs is a priority for Cupertino
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division and Housing
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Sources:BMR AHF
Quantified Objectives:20 BMR units over eight years
475
HE-28
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 8: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF). The City’s BMR AHF will continue
to support affordable housing projects, strategies and
services, including but not limited to:
BMR Program Administration
Substantial rehabilitation
Land acquisition
Acquisition of buildings for permanent affordability, with
or without rehabilitation
New construction
Preserving “at-risk” BMR units
Rental operating subsidies
Down payment assistance
Land write-downs
Direct gap financing
Fair housing
The City will target a portion of the BMR AHF to benefit
extremely low-income households and persons with special
needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence,
and the disabled, including persons with developmental
disabilities), to the extent that these target populations
are found to be consistent with the needs identified in the
nexus study the City prepares to identify the connection,
or “nexus” between new developments and the need for
affordable housing.
To ensure the mitigation fees continue to be adequate to
mitigate the impacts of new development on affordable
housing needs, the City will update its Nexus Study for the
Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2016.
The Housing Plan should encourage a
diverse stock of housing types
476
HE-29
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 9: Housing Resources. Cupertino residents and
developers interested in providing affordable housing in
the City have access to a variety of resources administered
by other agencies. The City will continue to provide
information on housing resources and services offered by
the County and other outside agencies. These include, but
are not limited to:
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) – Santa Clara County
Housing and Community Development Department
First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and Developer Loans
for Multi-Family Development - Housing Trust Silicon
Valley (HTSV)
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) - Housing Authority
of Santa Clara County (HASCC)
Affordable housing development - Santa Clara County
HOME Consortium
The City will also continue to explore and pursue various
affordable housing resources available at the local, regional,
state, and federal levels that could be used to address
housing needs in the community.
Cupertino’s Below Market Rate Affordable
Housing Fund will continue to support
affordable housing projects, programs, and
services
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division and Housing
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing; update Nexus Study by
the end of 2016
Funding Sources:BMR AHF
Quantified Objectives:N/A
477
HE-30
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 10: Surplus Properties for Housing. The City will
explore opportunities on surplus properties as follows:
Work with local public agencies, school districts and
churches, to identify surplus properties or underutilized
properties that have the potential for residential
development.
Encourage long-term land leases of properties
from churches, school districts, and corporations for
construction of affordable units.
Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing
for teachers or other employee groups on the surplus
properties.
Research other jurisdictions’ housing programs for
teachers for their potential applicability in Cupertino.
The City will update its Nexus Study for the
Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2016
Responsible Agencies:
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Sources:None required
Quantified Objectives:N/A
Responsible Agencies:Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing; evaluate housing pro-
grams for teachers in 2015
Funding Sources:BMR AHF
Quantified Objectives:N/A
478
HE-31
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 11: Incentives for Affordable Housing
Development. The City will continue to offer a range
of incentives to facilitate the development of affordable
housing. These include:
Financial assistance through the City’s Below Market-
Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and CDBG
funds
Partner with CDBG and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable housing developers
for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds,
including HOME funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds
Density bonus incentives (see Strategy 12)
Flexible development standards
Technical assistance
Waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax
Parking ordinance waivers
Expedited permit processing
The City is proposing to join the Santa Clara County HOME
Consortium so that HOME funds for eligible affordable
housing projects and strategies within the City of Cupertino
may be eligible to receive HOME funding.
The City’s Below Market Rate Residential
Mitigation Program requires all new
residential developers to either provide
below market rate units or pay a mitigation
fee
Responsible Agencies:Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division and Housing
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing incentives; decision to
join HOME Consortium in 2014
Funding Sources:BMR AHF; CDBG; HOME;
General Fund
Quantified Objectives:N/A
479
HE-32
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 12: Density Bonus Ordinance. The City will
encourage use of density bonuses and incentives, as
applicable, for housing developments which include one of
the following:
At least 5 percent of the housing units are restricted to
very low income residents
At least 10 percent of the housing units are restricted to
lower income residents
At least 10 percent of the housing units in a for-sale
common interest development are restricted to moderate
income residents.
The project donates at least one acre of land to the city
or county large enough for 40 very low income units;
the land has the appropriate general plan designation,
zoning, permits, approvals, and access to public facilities
needed for such housing; funding has been identified;
and other requirements are met.
A density bonus of up to 20 percent must be granted to
projects that contain one of the following:
The project is a senior citizen housing development (no
affordable units required)
The project is a mobile home park age restricted to
senior citizens (no affordable units required)
For projects that contain on-site affordable housing,
developers may request one to three regulatory
concessions, which must result in identifiable cost
reductions and be needed to make the housing affordable.
The City will update the density bonus ordinance as
necessary to respond to future changes in State law.
Affordable housing development will
continue to be incentivized by the City
480
HE-33
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 13: Extremely Low-Income Housing and
Housing for Persons with Special Needs. The City will
continue to encourage the development of adequate
housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income
households and persons with special needs (such as the
elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled,
including persons with developmental disabilities).
Specifically, the City will consider the following incentives:
Provide financing assistance using the Below Market-Rate
Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community
Development Block Grant funds (CDBG).
Allow residential developments to exceed planned
density maximums if they provide special needs
housing and the increase in density will not overburden
neighborhood streets or hurt neighborhood character.
Grant reductions in off-street parking on a case-by-case
basis.
Partner with and/or support the funding application of
qualified affordable housing developers for regional,
state, and federal affordable housing funds, including
HOME funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),
and mortgage revenue bond.
The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance will be
updated to respond to changes in the law
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division and Housing
Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding SourcesNone Required
Quantified Objectives N/A
481
HE-34
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 14: Employee Housing. The City permits
employee housing in multiple zoning districts. Pursuant to
the State Employee Housing Act, any employee housing
consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or
12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or
household shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No
conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning
clearance shall be required of this employee housing that
is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same
zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in
a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural
employees who do not work on the property where the
employee housing is located. The Employee Housing Act
also specifies that housing for six or fewer employees be
treated as a residential use. The City amended the Zoning
Ordinance to be consistent with the State law in 2014 and
will continue to comply with the Employee Housing Act
where it would apply.
The City will continue to encourage the
development of low income housing for
communities with special needs, such as the
elderly
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Housing Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources BMR AHF; CDBG; HOME
Quantified Objectives N/A
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division and
Housing Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources None Required
Quantified Objectives N/A
482
HE-35
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HE-7: Housing Rehabilitation
Pursue and/or provide funding for the acquisition/
rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-,
low-, and moderate-income households. Actively support
and assist non-profit and for-profit developers in producing
affordable units.
Policy HE-8: Maintenance and Repair
Assist lower-income homeowners and rental property
owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units.
Policy HE-9: Conservation of Housing Stock
The City’s existing multi-family units provide opportunities
for households of varied income levels. Preserve existing
multi-family housing stock by preventing the net loss of
multi-family housing units in new development and the
existing inventory of affordable housing units that are at risk
of converting to market-rate housing.
Implementing Strategies
Strategy 15: Residential Rehabilitation. The City will
continue to:
Utilize its Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund
(BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts
in the community. These include:
Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental housing
Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing
The City of Cupertino permits farmworker
housing in agricultural districts
GOAL HE-3
STABLE AND PHYSICALLY SOUND
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
483
HE-36
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Provide assistance for home safety repairs and mobility/
accessibility improvements to income-qualified owner-
occupants using CDBG funds. The focus of this strategy
is on the correction of safety hazards.
Partner with and/or support the funding application of
qualified affordable housing developers for regional,
state, and federal affordable housing funds, including
HOME funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),
and mortgage revenue bonds.
Strategy 16: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units. One
housing project – Beardon Drive (eight units) – is consid-
ered at risk of converting to market-rate housing during the
next ten years. The City will proactively contact the property
owner regarding its intent to remain or opt of the afford-
able program. In the event the project becomes at risk of
converting to market-rate housing, the City will work with
the property owner or other interested nonprofit housing
providers to preserve the units.
The City will continue to monitor its entire portfolio of
affordable housing for-sale and rental inventory annually.
The City will monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by
requiring Below Market-Rate (BMR) homeowners to submit
The City shall continue to support the
rehabilitation of very low, low, and moderate
income housing
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Housing Division; West Valley
Community Services
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources BMR AHF; CDBG; HOME
Quantified Objectives
Rehabilitate five units per
year for a total of 40 years
over eight years
484
HE-37
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
proof of occupancy such as utility bills, mortgage loan
documentation, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax
bills. The City will further monitor its affordable for-sale
inventory by ordering title company lot books, reviewing
property profile reports and updating its public database
annually. The City will monitor its affordable rental inventory
by verifying proof of occupancy and performing annual
rental income certifications for each BMR tenant. The
City records a Resale Restriction Agreement against each
affordable BMR for-sale unit and a Regulatory Agreement
for BMR rental units to help ensure long-term affordability.
To help further preserve the City’s affordable housing stock,
the City may consider providing assistance to rehabilitate
and upgrade the affordable units as well.
Strategy 17: Condominium Conversion. The existing
Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the
conversion of rental units in multi-family housing
development in order to preserve the rental housing
stock. Condominium conversions are not allowed if the
rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and certain adjacent areas
is less than five percent at the time of the application
for conversion and has averaged five percent over the
The City will use BMR AHF and CDBG to
support residential rehabilitation throughout
Cupertino
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Housing Division
Time Frame
Annually monitor status of
affordable projects; contact
property owner of at risk
project at least one year
in advance of potential
conversion date.
Funding Sources BMR AHF; CDBG; HOME
Quantified Objectives N/A
485
HE-38
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
past six months. The City will continue to monitor the
effectiveness of this ordinance in providing opportunities for
homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock
with rental housing.
Strategy 18: Housing Preservation Program. When a
proposed development or redevelopment of a site would
cause a loss of multi-family housing, the City will grant
approval only if:
The project will comply with the City’s Below Market-Rate
Program,
The number of units provided on the site is at least equal
to the number of existing units, and
Adverse impacts on displaced tenants, in developments
with more than four units, are mitigated.
The City will continue to monitor housing
that is considered at risk for converting to
market-rate housing
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources None required
Quantified Objectives N/A
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development
/Planning Division and
Housing Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources None Required
Quantified Objectives N/A
486
HE-39
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 19: Neighborhood and Community Clean-Up
Campaigns. The City will continue to encourage and spon-
sor neighborhood and community clean-up campaigns for
both public and private properties.
Policy HE-10: Energy and Water Conservation
Encourage energy and water conservation in all existing
and new residential development.
Implementing Strategies
Strategy 20: Enforcement of Title 24. The City will contin-
ue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation
and will evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions
as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability
element.
The City will monitor its portfolio of
affordable for-sale and rental housing
annually
Responsible Agencies Cupertino Department of
Community Development
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources General Funds
Quantified Objectives N/A
GOAL HE-4
ENERGY AND WATER CONSERVATION
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development
Department/Building Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources None Required
Quantified Objectives N/A
487
HE-40
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 21: Sustainable Practices. The City will continue
to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water
conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted
in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and
nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and
tenant improvements of ten or more units.
To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance,
the City will evaluate the potential to provide incentives,
such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation
improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or
new) with fewer than ten units to exceed the minimum
requirements of the California Green Building Code.
This City will also implement the policies in its climage
action pan to acheive residential-focused greenhouse gas
emission recutions and further these community energy and
water conservation goals
Community clean up campaigns will
continue to be sponsored for both public
and private properties
GOAL HE-5
SPECIAL SERVICES FOR LOWER-INCOME
AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division and
Building Division
Time Frame
Ongoing; consider further
incentives in 2015 to
encourage green building
practices in smaller
developments
Funding Sources None Required
Quantified Objectives N/A
488
HE-41
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HE-11: Lower-Income and Special Needs
Households
Support organizations that provide services to lower-income
households and special need households in the City,
such as the homeless, elderly, disabled and single parent
households.
Implementing Strategies
Strategy 22: Emergency Shelters. The City will continue to
facilitate housing opportunities for special needs persons by
allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use in the “BQ”
Quasi-Public zoning district. The City will subject emergency
shelters to the same development standards as other
similar uses within the BQ zoning district, except for those
provisions permitted by State law and provided in the Zoning
Ordinance for emergency shelters.
Strategy 23: Supportive Services for Lower-Income
Households and Persons with Special Needs. The City
will continue to utilize its Below Market-Rate Affordable
Housing Fund, Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human Service Grants
(HSG) funds to provide for a range of supportive services
for lower-income households and persons with special
needs.
The City’s Landscape Ordinance will
continue to be implemented for water
conservation
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Planning Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources None Required
Quantified Objectives N/A
489
HE-42
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Strategy 24: Rotating Homeless Shelter. The City will
continue to support the operation of a Rotating Homeless
Shelter program.
Policy HE-12: Housing Discrimination
The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all
unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race,
The City will continue to provide Fair
Housing services for all residents of
Cupertino
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Housing Division
Time Frame
Annually through the Action
Plan funding application
process allocate CDBG and
HSG to organizations that
cater to the needs of lower
income and special needs
households
Funding Sources BMR AHF; CDBG; HSG
Quantified Objectives N/A
GOAL HE-6
EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Housing Division; Faith in
Action
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources CDBG; HSG; BMR AHF
Quantified Objectives N/A
490
HE-43
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic
background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so
that all persons can obtain decent housing.
Implementing Strategies
Strategy 25: Fair Housing Services. The City will continue
to:
Provide fair housing services, which include outreach,
education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing
complaints.
Retain a fair housing service provider to provide direct
services for residents, landlords, and other housing
professionals.
Coordinate with efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair
Housing Consortium to affirmatively further fair housing.
Distribute fair housing materials produced by various
organizations at public counters and public events.
A 2010 zoning amendment allows for
emergency shelters as a matter of right in
the Quasi-Public zoning district
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development/
Housing Division; Santa
Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium; Eden Council
for Hope and Opportunity
(ECHO)
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources BMR AHF; CCDBG
Quantified Objectives N/A
491
HE-44
2040 GENERAL PLAN
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Policy HE-13: Coordination with Local School
Districts
The Cupertino community places a high value on the
excellent quality of education provided by the three
public school districts which serve residents. To ensure the
long-term sustainability of the schools in tandem with the
preservation and development of vibrant residential areas,
the City will continue to coordinate with the Cupertino
Union School District (CUSD), Fremont Union High School
District (FUHSD), and Santa Clara Unified School District
(SCUSD).
Policy HE-14: Coordination with Regional Efforts to
Address Housing-Related Issues
Coordinate efforts with regional organizations, including
ABAG and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), as well as neighboring jurisdictions, to address
housing and related quality of life issues (such as air quality
and transportation).
Policy HE-15: Public-Private Partnerships
Promote public-private partnerships to address housing
needs in the community, especially housing for the
workforce.
Implementing Strategies
Strategy 26: Coordination with Outside Agencies and
Organizations. The City recognizes the importance of
partnering with outside agencies and organizations in
The City shall continue to support the
operation of rotating homeless shelters
GOAL HE-7
COORDINATION WITH REGIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
492
HE-45
CHAPTER 4
Housing Element
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
addressing local and regional housing issues.
These may include, but are not limited to, the following:
School districts
Housing providers
Neighboring jurisdictions
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Air Quality Management District
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (COC)
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC)
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Specifically, the City will meet with these agencies/
organizations periodically to discuss the changing needs,
development trends, alternative approaches, and partnering
opportunities.
The City will continue work to eliminate
unlawful housing discrimination
Responsible Agencies
Cupertino Department of
Community Development
Planning Division and
Housing Division
Time Frame Ongoing
Funding Sources None Required
Quantified Objectives N/A
493
Housing Element Technical Report
Appendix B
HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
Appendix B
B
494
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
B-2 Housing Commission Attachment B 495
B-3
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
Cupertino is a unique community with a high quality of life,
a renowned school system, and a robust high-technology
economy. The long-term vitality of Cupertino and the
local economy depend upon the availability of all types of
housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs.
As Cupertino looks towards the future, increasing the range
and diversity of housing options will be integral to the
City’s success. Consistent with the goal of being a balanced
community, this Housing Element continues the City’s
commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential
development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our
existing neighborhoods.
The Housing Element Technical Report describes the City
of Cupertino’s procedures and Municipal Code as of
2014. This Report does not limit the City’s ability to amend
or repeal the procedures or ordinances so long as these
changes are not inconsistent with the policies in this Report.
1.1 Role and Content of Housing Element
This Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan
to address the housing needs in Cupertino. The Housing
Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the
development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing
for all economic segments of the population. Per State
Housing Element law, the document must be periodically
updated to:
Outline the community’s housing production objectives
consistent with State and regional growth projections
Describe goals, policies and implementation strategies to
achieve local housing objectives
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on
special needs populations
CONTENTS
B-3 Introduction
B-10 Housing Needs Assessment
B-69 Regional Housing Need
Determination
B-71 Housing Constraints
B-126 Housing Resources
B-158 Analysis General Plan Consistency
B-163 Supplemental Materials
496
B-4
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Identify adequate sites for the production of housing
serving various income levels
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other
General Plan elements
Housing element law continually evolves. This element
for the 2014-2022 planning period addresses all laws
adopted since the element was last updated in 2010. SB
812 requires that the City assess the housing needs of
developmentally disabled persons. SB 244, which does
not pertain to the housing element per se but is triggered
by a housing element update requires that cities and
counties address the infrastructure needs of disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within the jurisdiction’s
designated sphere of influence. According to data from
the California Department of Water Resources, Cupertino
contains no disadvantaged communities within its sphere of
influence.
This updated Housing Element focuses on housing needs
from January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023, in
accordance with the housing element planning period for
San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions established by State
law.
Relationship to the General Plan
State law requires that a General Plan and its constituent
elements “comprise an integrated, internally consistent
and compatible statement of policies. ”This implies that
all elements have equal legal status; no one element is
subordinate to any other element. This Housing Element
must be consistent with the policies and proposals set forth
by the General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation
Elements. Additionally, environmental constraints identified
in the Health and Safety Element and the Environmental
497
B-5
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Resources/Sustainability Element are recognized in the
Housing Element. When an element in the General Plan
is amended, the Housing Element will be reviewed and
modified as necessary to ensure continued consistency
among the various elements. The City will ensure that
updates to these elements achieve internal consistency with
the Housing Element as well.
1.2 Public Participation
This Housing Element has been developed with
extensive participation from members of the Cupertino
community. The public participation process described
below engaged a diverse set of community stakeholders
in a productive dialogue on housing issues. Participants
included community members, property owners, housing
developers, service providers, school districts, and the
business community.
Meeting and workshop announcements and agendas, as
well as presentation materials and web cast archives of all
stakeholder and community meetings, were posted on the
City’s website. A postcard advertising meetings (February
19, March 4, March 11, and April 1) was direct mailed to all
Cupertino addresses to ensure that all economic segments
of the community were invited to participate. Email
notification for all meetings was sent to persons requesting
information about the General Plan Update (over 300
persons). The paragraphs below summarize the outreach
activities and meetings in more detail.
Stakeholder Interviews
To inform the Cupertino Housing Element update and
identify key housing needs, issues, and opportunities, the
update team interviewed approximately 25 stakeholders.
Most of the stakeholders were interviewed in small groups
organized by interest, including community advocates,
498
B-6
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
economic development, service providers, school districts,
and property owners/developers. The team conducted six
group interviews and one individual interview. To ensure
that the concerns of low- and moderate-income and
special needs residents were addressed, agencies and
organizations that serve the low- and moderate-income and
special needs community were invited to participate in the
stakeholder interviews. Section 7 includes a list of invited
and interviewed parties as well as a summary of key themes
and findings.
Joint Planning Commission/Housing
Commission Workshop
On January 23, 2014 the Planning Commission and
Housing Commission hosted a joint workshop to begin
discussion on potential housing sites. Eleven participants
broke into small groups and identified potential future sites
and the criteria for increasing density in certain areas.
Housing Commission Workshop
On February 12, 2014, the Housing Commission hosted
a workshop to continue the sites discussion and prioritize
sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a
project update presentation, the 15 participants broke
into groups to prioritize potential housing sites, with the
goal of showing adequate capacity to achieve a housing
production goal of 1,064 units, consistent with Cupertino’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2014-2022.
Planning Commission Open House and Study
Session
On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission hosted
an open house and study session to provide a public
forum to continue the Housing Element sites discussion.
A public hearing nwas conducted on the item and the
Planning Commission recommended criteria to focus the
499
B-7
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
sites selection. Specifically, the Commission recommended
removing sites that were viewed as unviable (successful
shopping centers, sites with existing established institutional
uses, and small sites with low yield or no property owner
interest). The Planning Commission recommended including
sites that would further three goals:
Distribute housing throughout the city
Encourage development along the Priority Development
Area designated by the One Bay Area plan
Minimize impacts to schools
City Council Study Session
On March 4, 2014 the City Council held a study session to
discuss in depth the potential housing sites that would be
analyzed in the environmental document to be prepared
for the Housing Element update and parallel amendments
to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. A public hearing
was conducted on the item and community members had
the opportunity to comment on the Housing Element and
housing sites.
Environmental Review Scoping Meeting
On March 11, 2014, the City held a scoping meeting
to discuss the environmental review of the combined
General Plan Amendment and Housing Element update.
The meeting provided an opportunity for the community
to comment on the scope and content of the planned
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
500
B-8
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Housing Commission Meeting on Housing
Policy
On March 19, 2014, the Housing Commission held a study
session to discuss revisions to housing goals, policies, and
strategies associated with the Housing Element update.
A public hearing was conducted on the item and five
community members attended.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting on Housing Policy
On April 1, 2014, the Planning Commission and City
Council held a joint study session to discuss revisions to
housing goals, policies, and strategies included in the
Housing Plan section of the 2014-2022 Housing Element. A
public hearing was conducted on the item and community
members had the opportunity to comment on the Housing
Element Housing Plan.
1.3 Incorporation of Community Feedback
At the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission open
house and study session, participants emphasized that
future development should reflect the character of the
City and neighborhoods in which they are located. They
also expressed the need to distribute housing throughout
Cupertino and for smaller unit affordable rental housing.
In response, the residential sites inventory includes sites
outside the City’s core as a means to distribute housing
production citywide. The Housing Element also includes
Policy HE-5: Range of Housing Types, which encourages
the development of diverse housing stock that provides a
range of housing types (including smaller, moderate cost
housing) and affordability levels.
A concern about the viability of mixed use was also
expressed during the community outreach activities.
Participants and decision makers noted that developers
501
B-9
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
are interested in developing the residential portion of a
project and do not include substantial commercial uses. To
reflect this concern, the site suitability analysis—conducted
to identify appropriate sites for inclusion in the Housing
Element—used locational criteria to select sites that could
best facilitate mixed use development, especially at corner
properties where commercial uses are most viable.
Participants at the March 19, 2014 Housing Commission
Study Session suggested that energy conservation
mechanisms can provide cost savings and result in more
affordable housing costs. Existing goals and policies
support energy conservation for all residential construction.
In addition, the City will evaluate the potential to provide
incentives for affordable development to exceed the
minimum requirements of the California Green Building
Code.
Community members were particularly involved in the site
inventory. The inventory of residential opportunity sites was
developed in consultation with the Housing Commission,
Planning Commission, City Council, and members of
the public. At four meetings, commissioners and council
members, as well as members of the public, discussed
the inventory. During these discussions, several sites were
removed and new sites were added based on input from
stakeholders. Decisions to add or remove sites were based
on realistic expectations for sites to be redeveloped within
the planning period.
School impacts were a common theme during the site
selection process. Staff explained to participants and
decision makers that impact to schools may not be a
goal of the site selection exercise since Government
Code Section 65995 preempts this issue. This law states
that school impact mitigation fees are presumed to fully
mitigate any school impacts associated with development.
To ensure the long-term sustainability of the schools in
502
B-10
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant
residential areas, Strategy 26 in the Housing Plan directs
the City to continue to coordinate with the Cupertino Union
School District (CUSD), Fremont Union High School District
(FUHSD), and Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD).
1.4 Organization of Housing Element
Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes
the following components:
An analysis of the City’s current and future housing needs
An analysis of governmental and non-governmental
constraints to housing production
An inventory and analysis of housing resources
A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, strategies,
and quantified objectives to address the City’s housing
needs
Included in the appendix is a thematic summary of the
stakeholder interviews, a review of the prior (2007-2014)
Housing Element, and a parcel-specific residential sites
inventory.
2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Housing Needs Assessment describes the housing,
economic, and demographic conditions in Cupertino;
assesses the demand for housing for households at all
income levels; and documents the demand for housing
to serve special needs populations. The Housing Needs
Assessment is intended to assist Cupertino in developing
housing goals and formulating policies and strategies that
address local housing needs.
To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics
503
B-11
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
of Cupertino are similar to, or different from, other nearby
communities, this Housing Needs Assessment presents
data for Cupertino alongside comparable data for all of
Santa Clara County and, where appropriate, for the San
Francisco Bay Area and the state of California.
This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous
sources, including:
United States Census Bureau and American Community
Surveys (ACS)
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD)
State of California Departments of Finance,
State of California Employment and Development
Department, State of California Department of Social
Services
State of California Department of Public Health
United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Homeless Census
Veronica Tam and Associates (Housing Element
Consultant)
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
(CDD)
211 Santa Clara County
Craigslist.org
504
B-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Zillow.com
DQNews.com
Specific data sources used are identified in each table or
figure.
2.1 Regional Context
Cupertino is a suburban city of 10.9 square miles located
in Santa Clara County. The City incorporated in 1955 and
grew from a small agricultural community into a suburban
place during the expansion of Silicon Valley. The cities of
Los Altos and Sunnyvale limit any potential of expansion
of Cupertino to the north, the cities of Santa Clara and
San Jose abut Cupertino to the east, and Saratoga is to
the immediate west. Unincorporated areas of Santa Clara
County form the southern and western boundaries of the
City.
Cupertino’s built environment is dominated by single-family
subdivisions, with distinctive commercial and employment
centers separated from the surrounding residential areas.
Because of the suburban pattern, the city has a largely
automobile-based land use and transportation system.
Highway 85 functions as the main north/south traffic route
through the city, and Interstate 280 is a major east/west
route.
2.2 Population & Household Trends
Population
As presented in Table 2.1, between 2000 and 2010 the City
of Cupertino’s population percent change increased by 15.3
percent, which is at a higher rate than Santa Clara County
at 5.9 percent, San Francisco Bay area as a whole at 5.4
percent, and the State of California at 10 percent. During
this period, Cupertino grew from 50,546 to 58,302 persons,
505
B-13
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
which translates to an increase of 15.3 percent. This growth
was much more significant than the growth experienced by
the region overall. However, a portion of this population
growth can be attributed to the City’s annexation of
168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino’s
annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered
County “islands” added 1,600 new residents. After
removing the population increases from these annexations,
the City of Cupertino experienced a 12-percent increase in
its population during the previous decade. By comparison,
Santa Clara County’s population grew by 5.9 percent,
while the nine-county Bay Area’s population grew by 5.4
percent. Overall, the state of California’s population grew
more similarly to Cupertino’s, with an overall increase of 10
percent.
Households
A household is defined as a person or group of persons
living in a housing unit, as opposed to persons living in
group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes,
or prisons. According to the American Community Survey
(ACS), there were 20,181 households in Cupertino in 2010
(see Table 2.1). The City added approximately 2,000 new
households between 2000 and 2010, an increase of 11
percent. Approximately 600 of these households, however,
resulted from annexations. After adjusting for household
increases due to annexation, the number of households
in Cupertino grew by only eight percent between 2000
and 2010. During the same time period, the number of
households increased by 6.8 percent in Santa Clara County,
5.8 percent in the Bay Area as a whole and 9.3 percent in
the State of California.
Average Household Size
Average household size is a function of the number of
people living in households divided by the number of
occupied housing units in a given area. In Cupertino, the
506
B-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
average household size in 2011 was 2.83, slightly higher
than the Bay Area as a whole at 2.69, but slightly lower
than Santa Clara County at 2.89 and the State of California
at 2.91 (see Table 2.1). Because population growth has
outpaced the increase in households in Cupertino, the
average household size has increased since 2000. The
contrary is true for the County.
Household Type
Households are divided into two different types, depending
on their composition. Family households are those
consisting of two or more related persons living together.
Non-family households include persons who live alone or
in groups of unrelated individuals. As shown in Table 2.1,
Cupertino has a large proportion of family households.
In 2011, family households comprised 77.4 percent of all
households in the city. Cupertino’s family households figure
is higher than Santa Clara County’s family households
figure at 70.8 percent and the Bay Area as a whole at 64.8
percent and the State of California at 68.6 percent. As of
2011, Cupertino’s non-family households comprised of
22.6 percent of all households in the city. Cupertino’s 22.6
percent is lower than Santa Clara County at 29.2 percent
and the Bay Area as a whole at 35.2 percent and State of
California at 31.4 percent.
Household Tenure
Households in Cupertino are more likely to own than
rent their homes. According to Table 2.1, 62.6 percent
of Cupertino households owned their homes in 2010,
a minimal decrease from 2000. Comparing the City of
Cupertino with other jurisdictions, as of 2010, 57.6 percent
owned their home in Santa Clara County, 56.2 percent in
the Bay Area as a whole and 55.9 percent in the State of
California. As of 2010, renter households comprised 37.4
percent of all households in Cupertino, 42.4 percent in
Santa Clara County, 43.8 percent in the Bay Area as a whole
507
B-15
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.1: POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS, 2000-2010/2011
2000 2010/2011 Total Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2000-2011
City of Cupertino
Population 50,546 58,302 7,756 15.3%
Households 18,204 20,181 1,977 10.9%
Average Household Size (a)2.75 2.83
Household Type (a)
Families 74.8%77.4%
Non-Families 25.2%22.6%
Tenure
Owner 63.6%62.6%
Renter 36.4%37.4%
Santa Clara County
Population 1,682,585 1,781,642 99,057 5.9%
Households 565,863 604,204 38,341 6.8%
Average Household Size (a)2.92 2.89
Household Type (a)
Families 69.9%70.8%
Non-Families 30.1%29.2%
Tenure
Owner 59.8%57.6%
Renter 40.2%42.4%
Bay Area (b)
Population 6,783,760 7,150,739 366,979 5.4%
Households 2,466,019 2,608,023 142,004 5.8%
Average Household Size (a)2.69 2.69
Household Type (a)
Families 64.7%64.8%
Non-Families 35.3%35.2%
Tenure
Owner 57.7%56.2%
Renter 42.3%43.8%
California
Population 33,871,648 37,253,956 3,382,308 10.0%
Households 11,502,870 12,577,498 1,074,628 9.3%
Average Household Size (a)2.87 2.91
Household Type (a)
Families 68.9%68.6%
Non-Families 31.1%31.4%
Tenure
Owner 56.9%55.9%
Renter 43.1%44.1%
Notes:
(a) Average household size and household type figures from American Community Survey (ACS), 2007-2011.
b) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, SantaClara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
508
B-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
and 44.1 percent in the State of California.
Age Distribution
Cupertino’s age distribution, shown in Table 2.2, is relatively
similar to that of Santa Clara County, with a few notable
exceptions. In both Cupertino and Santa Clara County,
persons under 20 years old make up over a quarter of the
overall population. In the City, the number and proportion
of persons in this age group have increased slightly since
2000. However, compared to the County as a whole,
Cupertino has a lower proportion of younger adults in the
25 to 34 age range but a higher proportion of older adults
(persons 45 to 54 years old). In fact, from 2000 to 2010, the
fastest growing segment of the Cupertino community was
older adults in the 45 to 54 year old age category, which
increased from 15.4 to 17.3 percent of the total population.
In contrast, the proportion of other adults (those in the 25
to 44 age cohort) showed the sharpest decline between
2000 and 2010. In addition, Cupertino’s elderly population,
residents age 65 and above, increased from 11 percent to
13 percent between 2000 and 2010.
TABLE 2.2: AGE DISTRIBUTION, 2000-2010
Age Cohort City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
2000 2010 2000 2010
Under 15 22.4%22.5%20.9%20.2%
15 to 17 4.3%5.1%3.9%3.9%
18 to 20 2.5%2.8%3.9%3.8%
21 to 24 2.7%2.8%5.4%5.1%
25 to 34 12.1%8.6%17.8%15.1%
35 to 44 21.0%18.2%17.6%15.6%
45 to 54 15.4%17.3%13.0%14.8%
55 to 64 8.7%10.2%8.0%10.4%
65 to 74 5.8%6.2%5.2%6.0%
75 to 84 3.8%4.0%3.3%3.5%
85 +1.4%2.2%1.1%1.5%
Median Age 37.9 39.9 34.0 36.2
Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
509
B-17
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Household Income
According to American Community Survey (ACS) estimates,
the median household income in Cupertino in 2011
was $124,825. This figure is significantly higher than the
estimated median household income of $89,064 for Santa
Clara County.1 Furthermore, 62.3 percent of Cupertino
households earned more than $100,000 in 2011, whereas
only 45.0 percent of Santa Clara households and 39.0
percent of Bay Area households fall into this income
category. On a per capita basis, Cupertino is also wealthier
than Santa Clara County. In 2011, the per capita income
in Cupertino was $51,965, compared to $40,698 in the
County. Table 2.3 summarizes the distribution of household
incomes for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay
Area.
The Housing Element law establishes five income
categories according to Area Median Income (AMI) for
purposes of evaluating housing assistance needs:
Extremely Low Income (0-30 percent AMI)
Very Low Income (31-50 percent AMI)
Low Income (51-80 percent AMI)
Moderate Income (81-120 percent AMI)
Above Moderate Income (>120 percent AMI)
1 Median household income and per capita income data are calculated fields
by the Census Bureau based on raw data from the American Community
Surveys. Without access to the raw data, median and per capita income can-
not be calculated for customized region not identified as a Census Designated
Place.
510
B-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The State and Federal governments classify household
income into various groups based upon its relationship to
the County AMI and adjusted for household size. In 2010,
79.2 percent of Cupertino households earned moderate
or above-moderate incomes, and only 20.8 percent
of useholds earned lower incomes (see Table 2.4).2 In
comparison, 67.6 percent of County households earned
moderate or above-moderate incomes and 32.4 percent
earned lower incomes, including 12.6 percent who earned
extremely low incomes.
2.3 Employment Trends & Jobs/Housing Balance
Local Employment Opportunities
Since 2000 there has been a net increase of over 1,200 jobs
held by Cupertino residents, for a total of 25,200 employed
residents in 2011. As shown in Table 2.5, the number of
jobs held by Cupertino residents grew by 5.2 percent
between 2000 and 2011. The City of Cupertino job growth
percentage was far greater than the growth experienced by
Santa Clara County as a whole at 0.8 percent between 2000
and 2011.
Despite this overall growth, most industry sectors
experienced a decline in the number of jobs available.
Between 2000 and 2011 the largest job losses in
employment occurred in the manufacturing and retail
trade sectors. These decreases were offset by growth in
the professional, scientific, management, administrative,
and waste management services industry, which added
1,748 jobs, and the educational, health, and social services
industry, which added 1,144 jobs. Even with the recent
changes to employment sectors during the previous
decade, manufacturing remains the largest job sector for
residents of both Cupertino and Santa Clara County. As
2 Data were obtained from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) prepared for HUD by the Census Bureau using 2006-2010 American
Community Survey (ACS) data.
511
B-19
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.3: HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION, 2011
Household Income
Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area
Number PercentNumber PercentNumber Percent
Less than $24,9991,8449.1%79,05713.2%404,25415.7%
$25,000 to $49,9991,9339.6%90,02715.0%440,57517.1%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,9659.7%84,59414.1%403,08715.6%
$75,000 to $99,9991,8749.3%75,97412.7%324,12312.6%
$100,000 or more12,56062.3%269,99845.0%1,005,44139.0%
Total 20,176100.0%599,652100.0%2,577,480100.0%
Median Household Income $124,825 $89,064 (b)
Per Capita Income $51,965 $40,698 (b)
TABLE 2.4: HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2010
Income Category (% of
County AMI)
Cupertino Santa Clara County
Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely Low (30% or less)1,485 7.6%75,395 12.6%
Very Low (31 to 50%)1,320 6.7%61,830 10.4%
Low (51 to 80%)1,260 6.4%56,325 9.4%
Moderate or Above (over 80%)15,515 79.2%403,195 67.6%
$100,000 or more 19,580 100.0%596,745 100.0%
Total 20,176 100.0%599,652 100.0%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on
American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010.
512
B-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
of 2011, manufacturing jobs comprise 28.1 percent of
all jobs held by Cupertino residents and 19.6 percent of
jobs held by residents of Santa Clara County overall. The
manufacturing sector includes the production of computer,
electronic, and communication equipment, with such major
employers as Apple and Hewlett-Packard.
With the 2008-2012 collapse of the financial and credit
markets and the worldwide recession, Cupertino and the
broader Silicon Valley region lost some of the gains in key
sectors that were achieved between 2003 and 2007. The
impacts of the economic downturn, although serious, were
somewhat localized to particular sectors and industries such
as construction, manufacturing, and retail/wholesale trade.
Fortunately for Cupertino, high-tech employment did not
decline at the same rate as the rest of the economy, and
long-term prospects for this sector remain strong.
Unemployment
According to unemployment data provided by the State
of California Employment Development Department, as of
February 2014, the City of Cupertino had an unemployment
rate of approximately 3.9 percent. The unemployment rate
for the City was less than that of the County as a whole
(6.1 percent). Since 2008, the unemployment rate has
remained stable in both the City and the County, which
had unemployment rates of 3.8 percent and 6.0 percent,
respectively, at that time.
Long-term Projections
Table 2.6 presents population, household, and job growth
projections for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the
nine-county Bay Area region between 2010 and 2040. The
figures represent the analysis conducted by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) using 2010 Census data
and a variety of local sources.
513
B-21
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.5: JOBS BY SECTOR, 2000-2011
Industry Sector
Cupertino Santa Clara County
2000 2011 2000 2011
Jobs% TotalJobs% Total%
Change
Jobs% TotalJobs% Total%
Change
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
760.3%360.1%-52.6%4,3640.5%4,4250.5%1.4%
Construction6422.7%4201.7%-34.6%42,2325.0%47,0055.5%11.3%
Manufacturing7,95233.2%7,07728.1%-11.0%231,78427.5%167,03419.6%-27.9%
Wholesale trade6282.6%5452.2%-13.2%25,5153.0%20,2522.4%-20.6%
Retail trade2,0568.6%1,5406.1%-25.1%83,3699.9%81,9189.6%-1.7%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 3831.6%4251.7%11.0%23,5462.8%23,5782.8%0.1%
Information1,4626.1%1,3705.4%-6.3%39,0984.6%32,6273.8%-16.6%
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing
1,2465.2%1,3685.4%9.8%38,7154.6%44,0155.2%13.7%
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services
4,66719.5%6,41525.5%37.5%131,01515.5%152,96018.0%16.7%
Educational, health, and social services 3,06312.8%4,20716.7%37.3%123,89014.7%157,34918.5%27.0%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services
8323.5%7342.9%-11.8%49,1865.8%60,6387.1%23.3%
Other services (except public administration)5902.5%7152.8%21.2%29,9873.6%36,3304.3%21.2%
Public administration 3621.5%3511.4%-3.0%21,2112.5%22,4212.6%5.7%
Total 23,959100.0%25,203100.0%5.2%843,912100.0%850,552100.0%0.8%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
514
B-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Cupertino’s population is expected to grow by 12,898
residents—from 58,302 in 2010 to 71,200 in 2040. This
translates into an increase of 22 percent over 30 years.
ABAG projects both Santa Clara County and the ABAG
region to experience much larger growth (36 percent
and 31 percent over 30 years, respectively). Specifically,
communities with lower housing costs have been
experiencing influxes of residents in search of comparative
affordable housing. As a community with high costs of
housing, Cupertino has not experienced an influx of
residents. Instead, Cupertino’s job growth is expected to
continue to outpace population and household growth
in Cupertino between 2010 and 2020, compounding the
“jobs rich” nature of the City, resulting in a jobs-to-housing
ratio of 1.40 by 2020 (up from 1.29 in 2010) but mirroring
the regional average of 1.40. Furthermore, job growth is
projected to level off after 2020 to a comparable pace with
population and household growth. Similar trends are also
projected for the County and the ABAG region as a whole.
TABLE 2.6: POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, AND JOB PROJECTIONS, 2010-2040
20102020203020402010-20202020-20302030-2040
City of Cupertino
Population58,30262,10066,30071,2006.5%6.8%7.4%
Households20,18121,46022,75024,0406.3%6.0%5.7%
Jobs 26,09029,96031,22033,11014.8%4.2%6.1%
Santa Clara County
Population1,781,6421,977,9002,188,5002,423,50011.0%10.6%10.7%
Households604,204675,670747,070818,40011.8%10.6%9.5%
Jobs 926,2701,091,2701,147,0201,229,52017.8%5.1%7.2%
Bay Area (a)
Population6,432,2887,011,7007,660,7008,394,7009.0%9.3%9.6%
Households2,350,1862,560,4802,776,6402,992,9908.9%8.4%7.8%
Jobs 3,040,1103,579,6003,775,0804,060,16017.7%5.5%7.6%
Notes:
(a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Source: Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
515
B-23
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
2.4 Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Stock Conditions
The age of the housing stock in Cupertino is similar to that
of Santa Clara County. As shown in Table 2.7, the largest
proportion of homes in the city (26.7 percent) was built
between 1960 and 1969. In both Cupertino and Santa Clara
County, 1972 is the median year housing structures were
built.
Typically, unless carefully maintained, older housing
can create health, safety, and welfare problems for its
occupants. Even with normal maintenance, dwellings over
40 years of age can deteriorate and require significant
rehabilitation. However, while Cupertino’s housing stock
is older, most homes remain in relatively good condition,
a testament to the relative wealth of the community and
pride of home ownership.
Data on the number of units which lack complete plumbing
and kitchen facilities are often used to assess the condition
of a jurisdiction’s housing stock. As Table 2.8 indicates,
virtually all housing units contain complete plumbing and
kitchen facilities. The 2007-2011 ACS indicates that less
than one percent of the units lack these facilities.
To characterize the physical conditions of Cupertino’s
stock of older residential structures, a windshield survey
was performed in 2009-2010 (inspecting exterior building
components visible from the public right-of-way only). The
windshield survey was conducted for the Rancho Rinconada
residential neighborhood in the eastern part of Cupertino.
This neighborhood, which is bordered by Lawrence
Expressway, Bollinger Road, Miller Avenue, and Stevens
Creek Boulevard, is one of the city’s older neighborhoods,
with many small, single-story homes built in the 1950s.
The windshield survey reported on the exterior condition
of the housing units in this neighborhood, including a
516
B-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
review of each unit’s foundation, roofing, siding and/or
stucco, and windows. The survey concluded that over half
of the several dozen homes surveyed had shingles missing
from the roof, while nearly all had siding or stucco that
needed to be patched and repainted. Many of the homes
surveyed were characterized by a lack of maintenance, with
overgrown yards or garbage and debris on the property. No
significant changes in the market conditions have occurred
since the survey in 2009-2010 to have impacted the
housing conditions in this neighborhood. The City offers
rehabilitation assistance to lower and moderate income
households to make necessary repairs and improvements.
The City also operates a Code Enforcement program that
is primarily complaint/response driven. Between 2009 and
2014, Code Enforcement staff investigated over 1,200
code violations. During investigation of complaints, Code
Enforcement officers assess the primary complaint as well
as other visible code violations. Based on recent statistics
on code enforcement activities, typical code violations
in the City include dilapidated structures, trash and
debris, hazardous vegetation, and exterior storage. Most
violations are able to be resolved within a relatively short
timeframe. Depending on the type of code violations, Code
Enforcement officers would refer homeowners to the City’s
rehabilitation programs for assistance. Households are not
displaced due to code enforcement activities unless there
is a critical health and safety issue present. Since 2007, an
estimated three residential units have been deemed unsafe
due to health and safety issues.
517
B-25
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Distribution of Units by Structure Type
As shown in Table 2.9, a majority of housing units in
Cupertino are single-family detached homes. As of 2013,
57.3 percent of total units in the City of Cupertino were
single-family detached dwelling units (a decrease from the
61 percent recorded in 2000). As of 2013, the proportion of
single-family homes in the City of Cupertino is still greater
than Santa Clara County as a whole (54.1 percent) and the
Bay Area as a whole at 53.6 percent.
Large multi-family buildings (defined as units in structures
containing five or more dwellings) represent the second
largest housing category at 21.0 percent of the total
number of units in Cupertino as of 2013. As of 2013,
multi-family housing (5+ units) represented 25.5 percent of
housing units in Santa Clara County and 25.1 percent in the
Bay Area as a whole.
TABLE 2.7: HOUSING STRUCTURES YEAR BUILT, CUPERTINO, 2011
Year Built Cupertino Santa Clara County
Number PercentageNumberPercentage
Built 2000 to Later 1,638 7.8%59,880 9.5%
Built 1990 to 1999 2,520 12.0%63,429 10.1%
Built 1980 to 1989 2,920 13.9%79,409 12.6%
Built 1970 to 1979 4,374 20.8%143,847 22.9%
Built 1960 to 1969 5,619 26.7%121,349 19.3%
Built 1950 to 1959 3,216 15.3%100,795 16.0%
Built 1940 to 1949 539 2.6%27,495 4.4%
Built 1939 or earlier 232 1.1%33,244 5.3%
Total 21,058 100.0%629,448 100.0%
Median Year Built 1972 1972
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
518
B-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Single-family attached homes comprised the third largest
housing category in Cupertino, at 12.2 percent in 2013.
By comparison, these homes made up 9.7 percent of the
housing stock in all of Santa Clara County and 9.2 percent
in the Bay Area as a whole. As of 2013, small multi-family
homes (defined as units in structures containing 2 to 4
dwellings) represented 9.5 percent in the City of Cupertino,
7.7 percent in Santa Clara County and 9.9 percent in the
Bay Area as a whole.
TABLE 2.8: HOUSING CONDITIONS, CUPERTINO, 2011
Number Percent of Total
Plumbing Facilities
Owners
Complete Plumbing Facilities 12,900 63.9%
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 61 0.3%
Renters
Complete Plumbing Facilities 7,215 35.8%
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 0 0.0%
Total 20,176 100.0%
Kitchen Facilities
Owners
Complete Kitchen Facilities 12,923 64.1%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 38 0.2%
Renters
Complete Kitchen Facilities 7,132 35.3%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 83 0.4%
Total 20,176 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
519
B-27
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.9: HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE, 2000-2013
2000 2013
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
Percent
Change
City of Cupertino
Single Family Detached 11,42561.1%12,05657.3%5.5%
Single Family Attached 2,02810.8%2,56112.2%26.3%
Multi-family 2-4 units 1,6638.9%2,0029.5%20.4%
Multi-family 5+ units 3,57619.1%4,42221.0%23.7%
Mobile Homes 9 0.0%0 0.0%-100.0%
Total 18,701100.0%21,041100.0%12.5%
Santa Clara County
Single Family Detached 323,91355.9%346,14554.1%6.9%
Single Family Attached 52,7399.1%62,2019.7%17.9%
Multi-family 2-4 units 46,3718.0%48,9237.7%5.5%
Multi-family 5+ units 136,62823.6%163,12425.5%19.4%
Mobile Homes 19,6783.4%19,0533.0%-3.2%
Total 579,329100.0%639,446100.0%10.4%
Bay Area
Single Family Detached 1,376,86153.9%1,505,15353.6%9.3%
Single Family Attached 224,8248.8%258,6339.2%15.0%
Multi-family 2-4 units 266,32010.4%278,4509.9%4.6%
Multi-family 5+ units 623,38824.4%705,89925.1%13.2%
Mobile Homes 61,0112.4%59,6732.1%-2.2%
Total 2,552,404100.0%2,807,808100.0%10.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
520
B-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Overcrowding
Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of
more than one person per room (including bedrooms and
dining rooms but not kitchens or bathrooms). Units with
more than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be
severely overcrowded. As shown in Table 2.10, as of 2011
the total percentage of overcrowding by tenure represented
5.2 percent for Cupertino households, which is slightly
lower compared to 7.2 percent in Santa Clara County.
Overcrowding was much more common in Cupertino’s
renter-occupied households, with 10.7 percent of these
households considered to be overcrowded. By comparison,
only 2.2 percent of owner-occupied households in the city
were overcrowded. In Santa Clara County, 3.4 percent of
owner-occupied households experienced overcrowding
versus 12.5 percent of renter-households. Overcrowding
conditions in Cupertino approximate regional averages,
with a slightly higher level of overcrowding among renter-
households than in the region.
2.5 Market Conditions & Income Related to
Housing Costs
This section of the Needs Assessment provides information
on market conditions for housing in Cupertino. This
information is important because it reveals the extent to
which the private housing market is providing for the needs
of various economic segments of the local population.
Available data on housing market conditions are combined
with information on the demographics of the local
population to identify those segments of the population
that may face difficulties in securing affordable housing in
Cupertino.
521
B-29
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.10: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS, 2011 (A)(B)
Owners Renters Total Overcrowded
HouseholdsPercentHouseholdsPercentHouseholdsPercent
Cupertino
1.51 or more persons per room (Severely Overcrowded)390.3%731.0%112 0.6%
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)2461.9%7009.7%946 4.7%
1.00 or Less 12,67697.8%6,44289.3%19,11894.8%
Total 12,961100.0%7,215100.0%20,176100.0%
% Overcrowded by Tenure 2.2%10.7%5.2%
Santa Clara County
1.51 or more persons per room (Severely Overcrowded)2,7550.8%11,7994.8%14,5542.4%
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)9,1362.6%19,2137.8%28,3494.7%
1.00 or Less 340,00696.6%216,74387.5%556,74992.8%
Total 351,897100.0%247,755100.0%599,652100.0%
% Overcrowded by Tenure 3.4%12.5%7.2%
ABAG Region
1.51 or more persons per room (Severely Overcrowded)9,6200.7%40,1613.6%49,7811.9%
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)32,6322.2%63,1885.7%95,8203.7%
1.00 or Less 1,434,77997.1%997,10090.6%2,431,87994.4%
Total 1,477,031100.0%1,100,449100.0%2,577,480100.0%
% Overcrowded by Tenure 2.9%9.4%5.6%
Notes:
(a) State HCD defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more (excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Units with more than 1.5 persons
per room are considered severely overcrowded.
(b) The 2010 Census does not contain detailed data on household conditions. Overcrowding data in this table are based on the American Community
Survey (ACS), which is comprised of a series of small surveys for jurisdictions taken at different intervals based on population size. The 2000 Census
overcrowding data were developed based on the 100 percent survey. Therefore, the significant changes between the 2000 Census and ACS may due
in part to actual changes in overcrowding conditions, and in part to different survey methodologies.
Sources: U.S. Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2007-2011.
522
B-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Rental Market Characteristics and Trends
A review of rental market conditions in Cupertino was
conducted for this Housing Element by reviewing
advertised apartment listings. As shown in Table 2.11, a
total of 170 units were listed, the majority of which were
one- and two-bedroom units. The survey found that market-
rate rents averaged:
$1,608 per month for studio units
$2,237 per month for one-bedroom units
$2,886 per month for two-bedroom units
$3,652 per month for three-bedroom units
Rental prices in Cupertino ranged from $1,400 for a studio
unit to $5,895 for a five-bedroom unit. As can be expected,
smaller units are more affordable than larger units. The
overall median rental price for all unit sizes was $2,830, and
the average price was $2,919.
TABLE 2.11: OVERVIEW OF RENTAL HOUSING MARKET, CUPERTINO, 2014 (a)
Size Number
Advertised Median RentAverage RentRent Range
Studio 5 $1,559 $1,608 $1,400-$1,800
One-Bedroom 44 $2,274 $2,237 $1,845-$2,567
Two-Bedroom 80 $2,844 $2,886 $1,950-$3,820
Three-Bedroom 33 $3,500 $3,652 $2,600-$4,595
Four-Bedroom 6 $4,999 $4,683 $3,700-$5,300
Five-Bedroom 2 $5,198 $5,198 $4,500-$5,895
Total 170 $2,830 $2,919 $1,400-$5,895
Note:
(a) Search performed on Craigslist.org and Zillow.com of listings dated February 12 to March 7, 2014. Sources: Craigslist.org, 2014;
Zillow.com, 2014.
523
B-31
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
While home prices in the city steadily increased, the
number of homes being sold declined slightly between
2012 and 2013, from 530 units to 512 units (Figure A-B).
Neighboring jurisdictions also experienced similar declines
in sales volume, with the largest decrease occurring in
Home Sale Trends
While other areas of the state and nation have experienced
downturns in the housing market recently, Cupertino home
values have continued to grow. During the depth of the
housing market crash (between 2008 and 2010), median
home price in Cupertino held steady at around $1,000,000.
Since 2011, home prices in Cupertino have increased
substantially. According to DQNews, the median sales price
for single-family residences and condos increased by 28.6
percent from $933,000 in 2011 to $1,200,000 in 2013. As
shown in Table 2.12, this increase was one of the highest in
the region. Median home prices in Santa Clara County as a
whole increased even more dramatically (by 36.5 percent)
during the same time period. Figure B-1 shows that the
City of Cupertino had the second highest median home
sales price in the region during 2013 at $1,200,000, behind
only the City of Saratoga at $1,600,000. The 2013 median
home sales price of $1,200,000 in Cupertino was also
nearly double that of the County median price ($645,000).
Most recent sales data reported by DQNews.com compare
sales records in the month of March 2014 with those in
March 2013. Prices in Santa Clara County experienced
a 15 percent increase over that one-year period, while
Milpitas and Cupertino registered the largest increases
in the County at 36 percent and 31 percent, respectively.
Throughout 2014, Cupertino’s median home sale price
has continued on this upward trend—as of June 2014,
the median single-family home price in Cupertino was
$1,550,000 and a townhome/condominium was selling for
$822,500.
524
B-32
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure B-1
Annual Median Home Sale Price, 2013
$701,000
$1,200,000
$800,000
$635,000
$1,600,000
$767,500
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
CampbellCupertinoMountain
View
Santa Clara SaratogaSunnyvale
Santa Clara County: $645,000
TABLE 2.12: ANNUAL MEDIAN HOME SALE PRICES, 2011-2013
Jurisdiction2011 2012 2013 % Change
2011-2012
% Change
2012-2013
% Change
2011-2013
Campbell$569,000 $625,000 $701,000 9.8%12.2%23.2%
Cupertino$933,000 $1,045,750 $1,200,000 12.1%14.8%28.6%
Mountain View $678,500 $769,250 $800,000 13.4%4.0%17.9%
Santa Clara$500,000 $540,000 $635,000 8.0%17.6%27.0%
Saratoga$1,377,500 $1,527,500 $1,600,000 10.9%4.7%16.2%
Sunnyvale$570,000 $645,000 $767,500 13.2%19.0%34.6%
Santa Clara County $472,500 $525,000 $645,000 11.1%22.9%36.5%
Source: DQNews.com, 2014.
525
B-33
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Figure B-1
Annual Median Home Sale Price, 2013
$701,000
$1,200,000
$800,000
$635,000
$1,600,000
$767,500
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
CampbellCupertinoMountain
View
Santa ClaraSaratogaSunnyvale
Santa Clara County: $645,000
Mountain View. Overall, the number of units sold in the
County decreased slightly from 20,940 units in 2012 to
20,700 units in 2013, according to DQNews.com.
Vacancy Rates and Trends
The 2010 Census data as reported in ABAG’s Housing
Element Data Profiles indicate an overall vacancy rate of 4.0
percent in the City, which was slightly lower than the Santa
Clara County vacancy rate of 4.4 percent (see Table 2.13).
Specifically, Cupertino’s rental vacancy rate was reported
at 4.7 percent, compared to a vacancy rate of less than
one percent (0.8 percent) for ownership housing. While the
rental vacancy rate increased notably from the 1.8 percent
reported by the 2000 Census, the homeowner vacancy rate
stayed essentially the same. Despite the increase, the local
vacancy rates were still below optimum. Typically, industry
standards consider a rental vacancy rate of five to six
percent and a vacancy rate for ownership housing of one to
two percent to be adequate to facilitate mobility.
Housing Affordability
According to the federal government, housing is
considered “affordable” if it costs no more than 30 percent
of a household’s gross income. Often, affordable housing
is discussed in the context of affordability to households
with different income levels. Households are categorized
as extremely low income, very low income, low income,
median income, moderate income, or above moderate
income based on percentages of the AMI established
annually by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development. Income limits also vary by
household size. Table 2.14 provides the maximum income
limits for a four-person household in Santa Clara County in
2014. Extremely low-, very low- and low-income households
are eligible for federal, state, and local affordable housing
programs. Moderate-income households are eligible for
526
B-34
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
some state and local housing programs. These income
categories are also used by ABAG in the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation, or RHNA, process. In Cupertino, the
Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance establishes an
additional income range: median income (81 -100 percent
of AMI).
Another way to think of the household income categories
is to consider what types of jobs people in these different
categories might have. Figure B-3 provides representative
households in Santa Clara County, along with hypothetical
jobs and family compositions.
Ability to Purchase/Rent Homes by
Household Income
Table 2.15 shows affordability scenarios by income and
household size for Santa Clara County. The following
analysis compares the maximum affordable housing costs
Campbell Cupertino Mountain
View Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale
2012 555 530 849 1,176 480 1,208
2013 554 512 759 1,214 448 1,326
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
Figure B-2
Home Sales Volume, 2012 - 2013
0
500
1,000
1,500
2012 555 530 849 1,176 480 1,208
2013 554 512 759 1,214 448 1,326
Campbell Cupertino Mountain
View Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale
527
B-35
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CampbellCupertinoMountain
ViewSanta ClaraSaratogaSunnyvale
20125555308491,1764801,208
20135545127591,2144481,326
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
TABLE 2.13: HOUSING OCCUPANCY AND VACANCY STATUS, 2010
Cupertino Santa Clara County California
Occupancy
Status NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
Occupied Housing Units 20,18196.0%604,20495.6%12,577,49891.9%
Vacant 846 4.0%27,7164.4%1,102,5838.1%
For Rent 373 1.8%11,5191.8%374,6102.7%
For Sale Only108 0.5%5,0670.8%154,7751.1%
Rented Or Sold, Not Occupied 76 0.4%2,2220.4%54,6350.4%
For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 125 0.6%3,0000.5%302,8152.2%
For Migrant Workers 3 0.0%50 0.0%2,1000.0%
Other Vacant (a)161 0.8%5,8580.9%213,6481.6%
Total 21,027100.0%631,920100.0%13,680,081100.0%
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 0.8%1.4%2.1%
Rental Vacancy Rate 4.7%4.3%6.3%
Notes:
(a) If a vacant unit does not fall into any of the classifications specified above, it is classified as “other vacant.”For example, this category
includes units held for occupancy by a caretaker or janitor, and units held by the owner for personal reasons. Source: Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
528
B-36
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
for various households to the rental survey and median
home sales price data for Cupertino shown earlier. The
maximum affordable sales price was calculated using
household income limits published by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
conventional financing terms, and assuming that
households spend 30-35 percent of gross income on
mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance.
When comparing the home prices and rents shown earlier
in Table 2.11 and Table 2.12 with the maximum affordable
housing costs presented in Table 2.15, it is evident
that extremely low- and very low-income households
in Cupertino have no affordable housing options. For
example, a four-person very low income household could
afford $1,084 a month for rent, but the average rent for
a two-bedroom unit was $2,886, more than double what
this household could afford. Even for low- and moderate-
income households, adequately sized and affordable rental
housing options are very limited. A four-person moderate
income household could afford $2,928 monthly for rent,
barely above the average rent of a two-bedroom unit.
Homeownership is generally beyond the reach of most
lower- and moderate-income households.
TABLE 2.14: HOUSEHOLD INCOME LIMITS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 2014
Income Category % Of Area Median IncomeTop of Income Range (a)
Extremely Low Income 0% to 30%$31,850
Very Low Income 31% to 50%$53,050
Low Income 51% to 80%$84,900
Moderate Income 81% to 120%$126,600
Santa Clara Median Income 100%$105,500
Notes:
(a) Based on HCD 2014 Household Income Limits for households of four persons in Santa Clara County.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2014.
529
B-37
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
As shown in Table 2.15, a four-person moderate income
household could afford a home of approximately $625,800,
just about half the price of a median-priced home in
Cupertino.
To augment this analysis, the household incomes of select
occupations were analyzed to evaluate these workers’
ability to rent or purchase homes in Cupertino. Figure B-4
shows the average annual wages for a range of occupations
in Santa Clara County, based on 2013 State Employment
Development Department occupational employment and
wage data. In general, low-paying occupations in the
health care support and food preparation industries do not
pay salaries high enough to allow their workers to afford
housing in Cupertino. In addition, while those employed in
higher-paying occupations may earn more, they may still
have difficulty purchasing an adequately sized home.
Figure B-3
Representative Households, Santa Clara
County, 2014
Moderate Income Household (80% – 120% AMI)
Estimated Annual Income:
$84,900 - $126,000
Dad works as a paralegal, mom works
as a home health aide; they have two
children.
Low Income Household (50% – 80% AMI)
Estimated Annual Income:
$53,050 - $84,900
Dad works as a security guard, mom
works as a teaching assistant; they have
two children.
Very Low Income Household (Up to 50% AMI)
Estimated Annual Income:
Up to $42,050
Mom works as a file clerk and is the only
source of financial support in her family;
she has one child.
Sources: California Employment and Development Department, 2014; and
California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2014.
530
B-38
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.15: MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 2013 (a, b, c)
Annual Income Limits
Affordable Housing CostUtilities, Taxes, Insurance, HOA DuesAffordable Price
RentOwnership Utilities
Renter
Utilities
Ownership
Taxes/
Insurance RentSale
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
1-Person $22,300$558$558$137$149$195$421 $41,840
2-Person $25,500$638$638$160$173$223$478$47,330
3-Person $28,650$716$716$182$198$251$534$52,465
4 Person $31,850$796$796$242$265$279$554$49,524
5 Person $34,400$860$860$290$316$301$570$47,649
Very Low Income (31-50% AMI)
1-Person $37,150$929$929$137$149$325$792$89,158
2-Person $42,450$1,061$1,061$160$173$371$901$101,340
3-Person $47,750$1,194$1,194$182$198$418$1,012$113,325
4 Person $53,050$1,326$1,326$242$265$464$1,084$117,076
5 Person $57,300$1,433$1,433$290$316$5011,143$120,617
Low Income (51-80% AMI)
1-Person $59,400$1,108$1,292$137$149$452$973$135,504
2-Person $67,900$1,266$1,477$160$173$517$1,106$154,329
3-Person $76,400$1,424$1,662$182$198$582$1,242$172,959
4 Person $84,900$1,583$1,846$242$265$646$1,341$183,353
5 Person $91,650$1,709$1,994$290$316$698$1,419$192,177
Median Income (81-100% AMI)
1-Person $73,850$1,662$1,939$137$149$678$1,525$217,864
2-Person $84,400$1,899$2,216$160$173$775$1,739$248,456
3-Person $94,950$2,136$2,492$182$198$872$1,954$278,851
4 Person $105,500$2,374$2,769$242$265$969$2,132$301,010
5 Person $113,950$2,564$2,991$290$316$1,047$2,274$319,248
Moderate Income (101-120% AMI)
1-Person $88,600$2,031$2,369$137$149$829 $1,894 $272,771
2-Person $101,300$2,321$2,708$160$173$948$2,161$311,206
3-Person $113,950$2,611$3,046$182$198$1,066$2,429$349,445
4 Person $126,600$2,901$3,385$242$265$1,185$2,659$379,449
5 Person $136,750$3,133$3,656$290$316$1,279$2,843$403,961
Notes:
(a) This table is intended for general information purposes only. Any proposed BMR unit initial sales prices shall be determined by the City based on
Health and Safety Code requirements and available interest rates/conditions at the time of sale. (b) Assumptions for rental scenarios: 2014 HCD income
limits; affordable housing costs pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 50053(b)(1)(2)(3)(4); utilities based on Housing Authority of Santa
Clara 2013 County Utility Allowance (c) Assumptions for ownership scenarios: 2014 HCD income limits; affordable housing costs pursuant to California
Health & Safety Code Section 50052.5(b)(1)(2)(3)(4); 35% of monthly affordable cost for taxes, insurance, monthly mortgage insurance and HOA dues; 5%
downpayment, 5% interest rate; conventional 30 year fixed rate mortgage loan; utilities based on Housing Authority of Santa Clara 2013 County Utility
Allowance.Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2014; California Health & Safety Code, 2014; Housing Authority of
the County of Santa Clara, 2013; Veronica Tam and Associates, 2014.
531
B-39
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Overpayment (Cost Burden)
According to Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) standards, a household is considered
to be “cost-burdened” (i.e. overpaying for housing) if it
spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-
related costs. Households are “severely cost burdened” if
they pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing
cost. According to special data developed by the ACS for
HUD, approximately 30 percent of renters and 37 percent
of homeowners in Cupertino were overpaying for housing
in 2010. By contrast, overpayment was much more common
in Santa Clara County as a whole, with 42 percent of renters
and 39 percent of homeowners classified as cost-burdened
in 2010.
Housing cost burden was particularly pronounced for
extremely low- and very low-income households in
Cupertino. In 2010, 51 percent of Cupertino’s extremely
low-income renters and 37 percent of its very low-income
renters were severely cost burdened. This finding is
consistent with the analysis of the local housing market,
which revealed a significant gap between home prices and
rents and the income of lower income households.
Figure B-4
Income Needed to Afford Housing Compared with Income
$152,925
$106,995
$59,719 $55,000 $54,296
$36,000 $23,795
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
ManagementEngineeringEducationProtective
Services
SalesHealthcare
Support
Food Prep
Income Needed to Rent an Apt.
($135,840)
Income Needed to Buy a Home
($299,555)
532
B-40
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.16: HOUSING COST BURDEN BY TENURE AND HOUSEHOLD TYPE, CUPERTINO,
2010 (A)
Household by
Type, Income, and
Housing Problem
Renters Owners Total
HouseholdsSeniorsSmall
Families
Large
Families TotalSeniors Large
Families Total
Extremely Low (0-30%)30031010820370106651,485
With any housing problem 61.7%69.4%100.0%64.6%55.4%100.0%61.7%63.3%
With cost burden >30%61.7%69.4%100.0%64.6%55.4%100.0%61.7%63.3%
With cost burden >50%45.0%62.9%100.0%56.1%27.0%100.0%44.4%50.8%
Very Low (31-50%)7530025485555408351,320
With any housing problem 100.0%70.0%100.0%81.4%35.1%100.0%44.9%58.3%
With cost burden >30%100.0%70.0%40.0%79.4%36.0%100.0%45.5%58.0%
With cost burden >50%60.0%30.0%40.0%43.3%27.9%100.0%32.9%36.7%
Low (51-80%)5515055450500308101,260
With any housing problem 100.0%76.7%100.0%76.7%31.0%0.0%45.7%56.7%
With cost burden >30%100.0%66.7%90.9%72.2%31.0%0.0%42.6%53.2%
With cost burden >50%100.0%43.3%72.7%46.7%21.0%0.0%30.2%36.1%
Moderate/Above Moderate (>80%)2653,5153855,1701,9901,02510,34515,515
With any housing problem 47.2%24.9%66.2%28.7%22.9%40.0%35.5%33.3%
With cost burden >30%47.2%12.8%0.0%15.6%21.4%33.2%33.7%27.7%
With cost burden >50%11.3%0.0%0.0%0.6%7.0%2.4%7.5%5.2%
Total Households6954,2754756,9253,4151,10512,65519,580
With any housing problem 63.3%33.1%72.6%39.8%29.6%41.6%38.2%38.7%
With cost burden >30%63.3%22.8%14.7%29.5%28.8%35.3%36.5%34.0%
With cost burden >50%38.1%8.2%12.6%13.1%14.6%6.8%12.6%12.8%
Notes:
(a) Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data. Due to the small sample
size, the margins for error can be significant. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance
rather than on precise numbers.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on the 2006-2010 ACS.
533
B-41
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
2.6. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
State law requires local housing elements to include an
inventory of affordable housing developments that could
be at risk of conversion to market rates during the 10-year
period that follows the adoption of the element. For those
units found to be at risk of conversion, the element must
estimate the cost to preserve or replace the at-risk units, to
identify the resources available to help in the preservation
or replacement of those units, and to identify those
organizations that could assist in these efforts.
Inventory of Existing Affordable Units
Table 2.17 presents the inventory of affordable housing
units in Cupertino and indicates the earliest dates of
termination of affordability restrictions for each project. In
2011, the 10 below market rate (BMR) units in the Chateau
Cupertino development expired. However, the City is
committed to maintaining the long-term affordability of
current BMR units. As such, in 2005 the City increased
the minimum affordability term for BMR units in new
developments to 99 years. Since 2010, 17 new units at
the Markham Apartments have been added to the BMR
inventory.
Units at Risk of Conversion During Next Ten
Years
The affordable housing developments at risk of conversion
to market rate during the next 10 years include those units
whose affordability restrictions are set to expire January 31,
2025 or earlier. As presented in Table 2.17, the affordability
restrictions for the eight-unit Beardon Drive project will
expire in December 2024. In addition, certain affordability
restrictions for Le Beaulieu Apartments are also set to
expire during the next 10 years.
Cupertino Community Housing originally developed Le
Beaulieu in 1984 and utilized HUD project-based Section
8 assistance. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a nonprofit
organization, acquired and rehabilitated the project in
534
B-42
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.17: INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Number of
Affordable Units
Household Income
Funding Source
Earliest
Termination
DateVery Low or Low Moderate
Affordable Developments
Sunny View
West 22449 Cupertino Rd.
100 100 0 HUD 202/811 3/31/2031
Stevens Creek Village
19140 Stevens Creek Blvd.
40 40 0 CHFA, HUD &
HOME 6/30/2035
Le Beaulieu Apartments
10092 Bianchi Way
27 27 0CalFHA/CDBG 2035
9/12/2015
WVCS Transitional Housing
10311-10321 Greenwood Ct.
4 4 0 CDBG7/14/2026
Beardon Drive
10192-10194 Beardon Dr.
8 8 0 CDBG12/21/2024
Senior Housing Solutions
19935 Price Avenue
1 1 0 CDBG6/242066
Maitri Transitional Housing
Undisclosed Location
4 4 0 CDBG3/16/2064
Total 184 184 0
1998. Le Beaulieu contains 27 one- and two-bedroom
units for adults with physical disabilities who are able to
live independently. All units are handicap accessible and
affordable to very low-income households (less than 50
percent of AMI).
The Le Beaulieu development is not considered to be at
risk of converting to market rate because there are other
funding sources tied to the property such as the City’s
CDBG (30-year agreement) and CalHFA loan agreement.
535
B-43
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.17: INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Number of
Affordable Units
Household Income
Funding Source
Earliest
Termination
DateVery Low or Low Moderate
Affordable Developments
Biltmore Apartments
10159 South Blaney Ave.
2 2 0 BMR6/30/2029
Park Center Apartments
20380 Stevens Creek Blvd.
4 4 0 BMR 7/8/2026
The Hamptons
19500 Pruneridge Ave.
34 34 0 BMR10/20/2027
Arioso Apartments
19608 Pruneridge Ave.
20 20 0 BMR1/29/2028
Forge-Homestead Apartments
20691 Forge Way
15 15 0 BMR1/16/2027
Aviare Apartments
20415 Via Paviso
20 20 0 BMR 7/8/2026
The Markham Apartments
20800 Homestead Road
17 17 0 BMR 2039
Lake Biltmore
19500 Pruneridge Ave.
2 2 0 BMR 2029
Vista Village
101144 Vista Drive
24 24 0 BMR11/29/2056
Total 138 138 0
Below Market Rate (BMR) For-Sale Units
Total (a)122 0 122 BMR
Notes:
(a) Property addresses of BMR units are not listed in order to protect the privacy of homeowners. Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
536
B-44
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
In addition, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition is committed
to maintaining the property as affordable. Discussions
with Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition staff in early 2014
confirmed the organization is in the process of applying for
a 20-year extension of the Section 8 contract. Renewal of
Section 8 funding for senior and disabled housing has been
prioritized by HUD and Mid-Peninsula Housing fully expects
to be able to extend the Section 8 assistance. Furthermore,
other affordability covenants on the project would require
the project to remain as affordable housing well beyond
this Housing Element planning period.
One property has been identified with expiring affordability
restriction during this planning period – the Beardon Drive
development. In 1994, Community Housing Developers
Inc., a nonprofit housing provider, received a loan from
the City’s CDBG program for the acquisition of the
Beardon Drive property. The loan agreement restricts the
eight units for very low-income use for 30 years. As such,
income restriction for this project would expire in 2024. As
Beardon Drive is owned by a nonprofit housing provider, it
is considered to be at low risk of converting to market-rate
housing. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this Housing
Element, options and costs to preserve these units are
discussed below.
Preservation and Replacement Options
Typically, transferring the at-risk projects to nonprofit
ownership would ensure the long-term affordability of the
units. However, the Beardon Drive project is already owned
by a nonprofit organization. Beardon Drive does not rely
on ongoing rent subsidies (such as Section 8) to maintain
affordable rents. A strategy to preserving this project as
affordable housing is to ensure the financial status of the
project (i.e., net operating income and reserve) is adequate
to maintain the affordable rents. The City has included
a strategy in the Housing Plan to provide rehabilitation
537
B-45
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
assistance to affordable housing projects to upkeep
the housing quality standards and to reduce ongoing
maintenance and operating expenses. The City may also
choose to extend the loan repayment schedule in exchange
for an extended affordability covenant.
Another strategy is to provide ongoing rental subsidies
to the project. The estimated total amount needed to
subsidize rents for existing tenants is shown in Table 2.18.
Given the unit mix of all eight at-risk units, the total cost of
subsidizing the rents for these units is estimated at $61,152
annually. For a 10-year affordability covenant, a total
subsidy of more than $600,000 would be needed.
Construction of Replacement Units
In the unlikely event that Community Housing Developers,
Inc. chooses to convert Beardon Drive from an affordable
housing project to market-rate housing, the construction
of new affordable housing units as a means of replacing
the currently at-risk units may be an option for Cupertino.
The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety
of factors including the density and size of the units (i.e.
square footage and number of bedrooms), location,
land costs, and type of construction. Based on general
assumptions for average construction costs, it would cost
approximately $940,000 to construct eight affordable
replacement units, excluding land costs and other soft costs
(such as architecture and engineering). When considering
these additional costs, especially given the high cost of
land in Cupertino, the total costs to develop replacement
units would be significantly higher.
Financial Resources Available to the City to
Assist in Preservation
Clearly, the costs of preserving or replacing affordable
538
B-46
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
housing units are substantial. In light of this challenge,
the City must consider what resources are available to
help preserve or replace those units so that lower-income
tenants are not displaced in the event that affordable units
convert to market rate. The City has access to a range of
different funds that could potentially assist in a preservation
effort, including:
City Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund
(AHF) (approximately $6 million unencumbered as of
2014)
TABLE 2.19: ESTIMATED NEW CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Unit Size
(A)(B)(C)(D)
Total Units
Estimated
Average Unit
Size (sq. ft.)
Estimated
Gross Building
Size
Estimated
Gross Building
Costs
2 Bedroom 8 807 7,747$941,963
Average Per Unit Cost:$117,745
Notes:
(a) (C) = (A) x (B) x 1.20 (i.e. 20% inflation to account for hallways and other common areas). (D) =
(C) x $97.27 (per square foot construction costs) x 1.25 (i.e. 25% inflation to account for parking and
landscaping costs).Source: Veronica Tam and Associates, 2014
TABLE 2.18: RENTAL SUBSIDIES REQUIRED FOR AT-RISK UNITS
Unit Size/
Household Size
Number of
Units
Fair Market
Rent (a)
Household
Annual
Income (b)
Affordable
Housing
Cost (c)
Monthly per
Unit Subsidy
(d)
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
2-Bedroom/3-person household 8$1,649$47,750$1,012$637$5,096.00
Total Annual Subsidy $61,152
Notes:
(a) Fair Market Rent (FMR) is determined by HUD. These calculations use the 2014 HUD FMR for Santa Clara County.
(b) Rents are restricted to 50% AMI for this development, which puts residents in the Very Low Income Category, set by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2014.
(c) The affordable housing cost is calculated based on 30% of the AMI, minus utilities for rentals.
(d) The monthly subsidy covers the gap between the FMR and the affordable housing cost Source: Veronica Tam and Associates, 2014.
539
B-47
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
CDBG Entitlement Funds (approximately $150,000
unencumbered as of 2014)
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium Funds Funds
(available through a competitive application process after
the City joins the Consortium in 2015)
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
State Grant Programs
Federal Grant Programs
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
HUD Section 8 “Mark to Market” Program
Once the City becomes aware of an impending conversion,
staff will begin exploring the availability of funding
from various sources. In many cases, the City will find
it advantageous to collaborate with private affordable
housing developers or managers to develop and implement
a viable plan to preserve affordable housing units. Private
developers can often bring additional expertise and access
to funding, such as tax credits. The State Department of
Housing and Community Development maintains a list
of affordable housing developers and property managers
who have expressed an interest in working with local
communities to preserve affordable housing projects. This
database lists organizations that are interested in working
in any county within the State of California, including
well-known affordable housing providers such as Mercy
Housing, EAH, MidPen Housing, etc. The database also
lists numerous organizations that have expressed interest in
working on preservation projects in Santa Clara County in
particular, including organizations such as BRIDGE Housing
Corporation and Eden Housing. The organizations listed
above are but a few of those listed in the HCD database
that the City of Cupertino could consider as potential
540
B-48
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
partners in the event that it becomes necessary to assemble
a team to preserve an affordable housing project.
2.7. Special Housing Needs
This section of the needs assessment profiles populations
with special housing needs, including seniors, large
households, single parent households, persons with
disabilities (including persons with developmental
disabilities), farm workers, persons living in poverty, and
homeless persons.
Table 2.20 summarizes the special needs groups in
Cupertino
Seniors
Many senior residents face a unique set of housing needs,
largely due to physical limitations, fixed incomes, and
health care costs. Affordable housing cost, unit sizes and
accessibility to transit, family, health care, and other services
are important housing concerns for the seniors.
As Table 2.21 shows, in 2010, 19.7 percent of Cupertino
householders were 65 years old or older, comparable
to the proportion of senior households in Santa Clara
County (18.5 percent). A large majority of these senior
households owned their homes (80.3 percent). In Cupertino,
homeownership is much more common among seniors than
for any other age group. Just 58.2 percent of householders
under 64 years old owned their homes.
541
B-49
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
data shown in Table 2.16 indicates that among Cupertino’s
senior households, renters were more likely to be lower
income than homeowners. Nearly 62 percent of senior
renter-households earned less than 80 percent of the
median family income compared to only 42 percent of
senior homeowners.
Seniors across the country are often required to dedicate
a larger portion of their income to housing costs. Among
all of the renter-households in Cupertino, the proportion
of seniors overpaying for housing in 2010 was more than
TABLE 2.20: SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS, 2010-2013
Special Needs Group Persons or
Household Renter OwnerPercent of Total
Senior-Headed Households 3,983 785 (19.7%)3,198 (80.3%)19.7%
Households with a Senior Member 5,069 n/a n/a 25.1%
Seniors Living Alone 1,612 516 (32.0%)1,096 (68.0%)8.0%
Large Households 1,883 619 (32.9%)1,264 (67.1%)9.3%
Single-Parent Households 883 n/a n/a 4.4%
Female Single-Parent Households 667 n/a n/a 6.9%
Persons with Disabilities (a)3,445 n/a n/a 5.9%
Agricultural Workers (b)36 n/a n/a <1%
Persons living in Poverty (b)2,330 n/a n/a 4.0%
Homeless (c)112 n/a n/a <1%
Notes:
(a) 2010 Census data not available for persons with disabilities. Estimate is from the 2008-2012 ACS. Estimate is for persons 5 years
of age and older.
(b) 2010 Census data not available. Estimate is from the 2007-2011 ACS.|
(c) 2010 Census data not available. Estimate is from 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Point-In-Time Census and Survey
Comprehensive Report. Of the 112 homeless persons counted in Cupertino in 2013, 92 persons were unsheltered and 20 were
sheltered.
Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013; U.S. Census, American
Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012; 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Point-In-Time Census and Survey Comprehensive Report.
542
B-50
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
double the proportion for the general population: 63
percent versus 30 percent, respectively (see Table 2.16 on
page A-40). For homeowners, however, the proportion of
senior owner-households overpaying for housing was much
more on par with the general population (29 percent versus
34 percent, respectively). During the community outreach
process for developing the Housing Element, the need for
senior housing options in Cupertino was highlighted by
many residents.
Resources Available
Cupertino offers a number of resources for seniors. As
shown in Table 2.22, there are five residential care facilities
for the elderly and three skilled nursing facilities in the city.
Residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs), also known
as “assisted living” or “board and care” facilities, provide
assistance with some activities of daily living while still
allowing residents to be more independent than in most
TABLE 2.21: ELDERLY HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE AND AGE, 2010
Cupertino Santa Clara County
NumberPercentNumberPercent
Under 64 Years Old
Owner 9,429 58.2%265,72754.0%
Renter 6,769 41.8%226,51746.0%
Total 16,198100.0%492,244100.0%
65 Plus Years Old
Owner 3,198 80.3%82,571 73.8%
Renter 785 19.7%29,389 26.2%
Total 3,983100.0%111,960100.0%
Total Households 20,181 604,204
Percent Householders 65 Plus Years 19.7%18.5%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
543
B-51
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities—also known as
nursing homes—offer a higher level of care, with registered
nurses on staff 24 hours a day.
In addition to assisted living facilities, there are two
subsidized independent senior housing developments in
the city. As shown in Table 2.22, there are a total of 100
units of affordable senior housing in Cupertino. Furthermore
in 2011, the City utilized CDBG funds to rehabilitate a
home that provides accommodation to five low-income
seniors. Demand for these subsidized units is high. Staff
at Sunny View estimate that over 700 people are on the
waiting list, and the turnover rate for available units is about
10 to 15 per year.
The Cupertino Senior Center also serves as an excellent
resource for seniors. The many different services at the
center help seniors to obtain resources in the community
that will assist them to continue to remain independent
and safe in their own homes. Available programs include
various social and recreation activities, special events, travel
programs, transportation discounts, drop-in consultation,
case management, medical, and social services.
Additionally, the Senior Adult Day Care (Cupertino Center)
provides frail, dependent, low-income Cupertino seniors
with specialized programs of recreation, mental stimulation,
exercise, companionship and nutritious meals during the
day. This facility is operated by Live Oak Adult Day Care a
local non-profit organization.
In addition, the City supports a number of programs with
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), General
Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) and Below Market-Rate
(BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funds that provide
services specifically for seniors in the community. The Long-
Term Care Ombudsman Program, operated by Catholic
Charities, provides advocacy for Cupertino seniors in
544
B-52
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
long-term care facilities to ensure they have a voice in their
own care and treatment. The program receives, investigates
and resolves any complaints associated with the care of
long-term care facility residents. A legal assistance program
for seniors is provided by Senior Adults Legal Assistance
(SALA) which provides free legal services to low- and very
low-income seniors at the Cupertino Senior Center. Legal
services provided are in the area of consumer complaints,
housing, elder abuse, and simple wills. The Live Oak
TABLE 2.22: HOUSING RESOURCES FOR THE ELDERLY
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Location Capacity
The Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23500 Cristo Rey Drive 741
Paradise Manor 4 19161 Muriel Lane 6
Pleasant Manor of Cupertino 10718 Nathanson Avenue 6
Purglen of Cupertino 10366 Miller Avenue 12
Sunny View Manor (a)22445 Cupertino Road 190
Total 955
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Health Care Center at Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23600 Via Esplendor 48
Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness Center 22590 Voss Avenue 170
Sunny View Manor 22445 Cupertino Road 48
Total 266
Subsidized Independent Senior Rental Housing
Sunny View West 22449 Cupertino Road 99
Senior Housing Solutions 19935 Price Avenue 1
Total 100
Adult Day Care
Live Oak Adult Day Services 20920 McClellan Road 30
Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek N/A
Notes:
(a) Sunny View Manor has 115 units for independent and assisted (RCFE) living. All 115 units are licensed as RCFE units, but residents
may choose between independent and assisted living options. The distribution of independent and assisted living units varies over
time. Sources: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2014; California
Department of Public Health, Health Facilities Search, 2014.
545
B-53
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or
more members. Large households are identified as a
special needs group because of limited opportunities for
adequately sized and affordable housing. Cupertino has
a smaller proportion of large households than Santa Clara
County as a whole. As shown in Table 2.23, 9.3 percent of
all households in Cupertino were comprised of five or more
persons in 2010. In Santa Clara County, about 14.8 percent
of households were considered large. Large households
were more likely to be homeowners (1,264 households, 67
percent) than renters (619 households, 33 percent).
While Cupertino has a smaller proportion of large
households than Santa Clara County, its housing stock is
comprised of a larger proportion of homes with three or
more bedrooms. As shown in Table 2.24, about 64 percent
of the housing units in Cupertino had three or more
bedrooms while only 59 percent of Santa Clara County
homes had three or more bedrooms.
Adult Day Care receives partial financial assistance to help
operate the Senior Adult Day Care (Cupertino Center).
TABLE 2.23: HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE, 2010
Owner Renter Total
NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
Cupertino
1- 4 Persons 11,36390.0%6,93591.8%18,29890.7%
5+ Persons 1,26410.0%6198.2%1,8839.3%
Total 12,627100.0%7,554100.0%20,181100.0%
Santa Clara County
1- 4 Persons 297,38585.4%217,57885.0%514,96385.2%
5+ Persons 50,91314.6%38,32815.0%89,24114.8%
Total 348,298100.0%255,906100.0%604,204100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
546
B-54
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Resources Available
Large households in Cupertino can benefit from the general
housing programs and services offered by the City, such
as the BMR Program and housing rehabilitation programs.
Other programs include Mortgage Credit Certificates and
Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the County, and
homebuyer assistance offered by the Housing Trust Silicon
Valley.
Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special
consideration and assistance because of their greater
TABLE 2.24: EXISTING HOUSING STOCK BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, 2011
Owner Households Renter Households Total
NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
Cupertino
No Bedroom 0 0.0%2082.9%2081.0%
1 Bedroom 4683.6%1,55421.5%2,02210.0%
2 Bedrooms 1,53011.8%3,49148.4%5,02124.9%
3 Bedrooms 4,78236.9%1,60922.3%6,39131.7%
4 Bedrooms 4,78536.9%3144.4%5,09925.3%
5 or More Bedrooms 1,39610.8%39 0.5%1,4357.1%
Total 12,961100.0%7,215100.0%20,176100.0%
Santa Clara County
No Bedroom 1,0910.3%16,3716.6%17,4622.9%
1 Bedroom 7,4772.1%74,19529.9%81,67213.6%
2 Bedrooms 54,46115.5%94,45338.1%148,91424.8%
3 Bedrooms 147,93342.0%45,45618.3%193,38932.3%
4 Bedrooms 109,89231.2%13,8755.6%123,76720.6%
5 or More Bedrooms 31,0438.8%3,4051.4%34,4485.7%
Total 351,897100.0%247,755100.0%599,652100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013.
547
B-55
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
need for affordable housing and accessible day-care,
health care, and other supportive services. Female-headed
single-parent households with children, in particular, tend
to have a higher need for affordable housing than other
family households in general. In addition, these households
are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often
the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for the
children in the household. In 2010, there were 667 female-
headed single-parent households with children under 18
years of age in Cupertino, representing 3.3 percent of all
households in the City (Table 2.25). A significant proportion
of these households were living in poverty in 2011 (21
percent). The U.S. Census Bureau sets poverty level
thresholds each year and they are often used to establish
eligibility for federal services.
The number of female-headed single-parent households
declined slightly from 2000, but these households continue
to make up the same proportion of all households in the
City. Compared to Santa Clara County, the City’s proportion
of female-headed single-parent households was lower (five
percent versus three percent, respectively).
548
B-56
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Resources Available
Single-parent households in Cupertino can benefit from
City programs and services that provide assistance to lower
income households in general, such as the BMR, CDBG and
HSG Programs. Single-parent households can also benefit
from supportive and childcare services available to County
residents through various organizations, including Catholic
Charities of Santa Clara County, Choices for Children, Grail
Family Services, InnVision Shelter Network, Second Harvest
Food Bank, and West Valley Community Services, among
others. 3
3 David Rosen. “Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land
Markets.” NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review 1(3). 2004.
TABLE 2.25: FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS, CUPERTINO, 2010
Household Type Number Percent of Total
1-Person Household 3,544 17.6%
Male Householder 1,472 7.3%
Female Householder 2,072 10.3%
2 or More Person Household 16,637 82.4%
Family Households:15,776 78.2%
Married-Couple Family 13,802 68.4%
With Own Children Under 18 Years 8,392 41.6%
Other Family;1,974 9.8%
Male Householder, no Wife Present 581 2.9%
With Own Children Under 18 Years 216 1.1%
Female Householder, no Wife Present 1,393 6.9%
With Own Children Under 18 Years 667 3.3%
Nonfamily Households:4,405 21.8%
Male Householder 1,472 7.3%
Female Householder 2,072 10.3%
Total Households 20,181 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census, 2010.
549
B-57
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Persons with Disabilities
A disability is a physical or mental impairment that limits
one or more major life activities. Persons with a disability
generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to
finding employment or adequate housing due to physical
or structural obstacles. This segment of the population
often needs affordable housing that is located near public
transportation, services, and shopping. Persons with
disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair
accessibility or other special features that accommodate
physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity
of the disability, people may live independently with some
assistance in their own homes, or may require assisted living
and supportive services in special care facilities.
According to the 2008-2012 ACS, about six percent of
Cupertino residents and eight percent of Santa Clara
County residents had one or more disabilities (Table 2.27).
Hearing, ambulatory, and independent living difficulties
were the most common disabilities among seniors, while
cognitive difficulties were more common among persons
TABLE 2.26: POVERTY STATUS, CUPERTINO, 2011
Families Below Poverty Line Number Percent
Married-Couple Family 237 57.5%
With Own Children Under 18 Years 115 27.9%
Other Family
Male Householder 26 6.3%
With Own Children Under 18 Years 7 1.7%
Female Householder 149 36.2%
With Own Children Under 18 Years 87 21.1%
Total Families Below Poverty Line 412 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2007, 2011
550
B-58
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
aged 18 to 64 with disabilities. Overall, ambulatory
difficulties were the most prevalent (45.2 percent). Table
2.28 shows that among persons with disabilities aged 18 to
64, the majority (55.8 percent) in both the City and County
were not in the labor force. About one-third of both City
and County residents (aged 18 to 64) with disabilities were
employed.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
A recent change in State law requires that the Housing
Element discuss the housing needs of persons with
developmental disabilities. As defined by the Section 4512
of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental
disability” means “a disability that originates before an
individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be
expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a
substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the
Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include
mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.
This term shall also include disabling conditions found
to be closely related to mental retardation or to require
treatment similar to that required for individuals with mental
retardation, but shall not include other handicapping
conditions that are solely physical in nature. This definition
also reflects the individual’s need for a combination and
sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services,
individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that
are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually
planned and coordinated.
551
B-59
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The Census does not record developmental disabilities.
However, according to the U.S. Administration on
Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the
percentage of the population that can be defined as
developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. This equates to
approximately 875 persons with developmental disabilities
residing in the City of Cupertino, based on the 2010 Census
population.
TABLE 2.27: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY DISABILITY TYPE, 2012
Disability Type % of Disabilities Tallied
Age 5 to 17Age 18 to 64Age 65+Total
Cupertino
With a hearing difficulty 17.8%21.6%55.3%40.8%
With a vision difficulty 5.3%16.4%10.9%12.7%
With a cognitive difficulty 36.2%40.3%21.9%29.5%
With an ambulatory difficulty 30.3%32.1%55.0%45.2%
With a self-care difficulty 57.9%19.6%20.0%21.5%
With an independent living difficulty -- 32.0%46.0%38.6%
Total Persons with Disabilities (a)152 1,313 1,9803,445
% of Total Population 6%
Santa Clara County
With a hearing difficulty 11.8%20.1%41.4%29.8%
With a vision difficulty 14.6%16.4%17.4%16.7%
With a cognitive difficulty 69.4%41.7%28.0%36.9%
With an ambulatory difficulty 17.5%42.3%61.9%50.1%
With a self-care difficulty 28.5%17.2%26.9%22.6%
With an independent living difficulty -- 36.8%51.4%41.5%
Total Persons with Disabilities (a)8,691 62,22165,554136,466
% of Total Population 8%
Note:
(a) Total does not include population under 5 years of age. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey
(ACS), 2008-2012.
552
B-60
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
According to the State’s Department of Developmental
Services, as of September 2013, approximately 303
Cupertino residents with developmental disabilities were
being assisted at the San Andreas Regional Center. Most
of these individuals were residing in a private home with
their parent or guardian, and 196 of these persons with
developmental disabilities were under the age of 18.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work
independently within a conventional housing environment.
More severely disabled individuals require a group living
environment where supervision is provided. The most
severely affected individuals may require an institutional
environment where medical attention and physical therapy
are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist
before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for
the developmentally disabled is the transition from the
person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of
independence as an adult.
Resources Available
Table 2.29 summarizes the licensed community care
facilities in Cupertino that serve special needs groups.
TABLE 2.28: PERSONS AGE 18 TO 64 WITH DISABILITIES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS,
2012
Cupertino Santa Clara County
Persons With a
Disability Number Percent of Total
Population Number Percent of Total
Population
Total Population Age 18-64 (a)1,313 100.0%62,221 100.0%
Employed 480 36.6%22,566 36.3%
Unemployed 101 7.7%4,932 7.9%
Not in Labor Force 732 55.8%34,723 55.8%
Note:
(a) Total does not include population under 18 years of age or over 65 years. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community
Survey (ACS), 2008-2012.
553
B-61
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Adult residential facilities offer 24-hour non-medical care for
adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who are unable to provide
for their daily needs due to physical or mental disabilities.
Group homes, small residential facilities that serve children
or adults with chronic disabilities, also provide 24-hour care
by trained professionals. In addition, a 27-unit multi-family
residential property (Le Beaulieu) offers affordable housing
to very low-income persons with disabilities.
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose
primary incomes are earned through agricultural labor.
They have special housing needs because of their relatively
low income and also because of the often transient and
seasonal nature of their jobs. The 2011 ACS reported that
36 Cupertino residents were employed in the agriculture,
farming, fishing and forestry occupations, making up less
than 0.1 percent of the City’s population.
Resources Available
To the extent that farmworkers may want to live in
Cupertino, their need for affordable housing would
TABLE 2.29: COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES IN CUPERTINO, 2014
Adult Residential Facilities Location Capacity
Paradise Manor 2 19133 Muriel Lane 6
Paradise Manor 3 19147 Muriel Lane 6
Total 12
Group Homes
Pace-Morehouse 7576 Kirwin Lane 6
Pacific Autism Center for
Education Miracle House 19681 Drake Drive 6
Total 12
Source: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2014
554
B-62
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
be similar to that of other lower income persons, and
their housing needs can be addressed through general
affordable housing programs for lower-income households,
such as BMR, CDBG and HSG programs.
Residents Living Below the Poverty Level
Families with incomes below the poverty level, specifically
those with extremely low and very low incomes, are at
the greatest risk of becoming homeless and often require
assistance in meeting their rent and mortgage obligations
in order to prevent homelessness. The 2007-2011 ACS
found that four percent of all Cupertino residents were
living below the poverty level. Specifically, about three
percent of family households and two percent of families
with children were living below the poverty level. These
households may require specific housing solutions such
as deeper income targeting for subsidies, housing with
supportive services, single-room occupancy units, or rent
subsidies and vouchers.
Resources Available
Persons living with incomes below the poverty level can
benefit from City programs and services that provide
assistance to lower-income households in general, such as
BMR, CDBG and HSG programs. Households with incomes
below the poverty level can also benefit from supportive
services available to County residents through various
organizations, including Catholic Charities of Santa Clara
County, Choices for Children, InnVision Shelter Network,
Second Harvest Food Bank, and West Valley Community
Services, among others.
Homeless
Demand for emergency and transitional shelter in Cupertino
is difficult to determine given the episodic nature of
homelessness. Generally, episodes of homelessness
555
B-63
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
among families or individuals can occur as a single event
or periodically. The 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless
Census & Survey reported a point-in-time count of 7,631
homeless people on the streets and in emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and domestic violence shelters. This
estimate includes 112 homeless individuals in the City
of Cupertino. The count, however, should be considered
conservative because many unsheltered homeless
individuals may not be visible at street locations, even with
the most thorough methodology.
There is no data presently available documenting the
increased level of demand for shelter in Santa Clara County
or Cupertino during particular times of the year. Due to the
relatively mild climate, the only time of year when increased
demand appears to be a factor is during the winter months
(November to March). The annual homeless count always
takes place in the last week of January, a period when
demand for shelter typically is at its highest. Since the
year-round need described above is based on the annual
count, the need for emergency shelter either year-round or
seasonally is not likely to be greater than that found during
the annual homeless count.
Resources Available
Table 2.31 lists facilities within Santa Clara County that
serve the needs of homeless. Emergency shelters provide
temporary shelter for individuals and families while
transitional shelters serve families making a transition
from homelessness to permanent housing. In Cupertino,
West Valley Community Services (WVCS) offers supportive
services and the Transitional Housing Program (THP)
through its Haven to Home Program. The Haven to Home
Program helps homeless individuals and families work
towards stability by providing access to resources such as
food, transportation, toiletries and other such items. The
556
B-64
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
program has the capacity to provide housing for 12 single
men and six single mothers with one child under the age
of six. Residents of THP sign a six-month lease, which
may be renewed depending on the resident’s case plan
and progress. For supportive services, a case manager is
available to provide intensive case management for up to
21 homeless households at a time. The THP typically has
a waiting list of 10 to 30 households, while the waiting list
for supportive services generally has five to 20 households.
Given the increase in requests for emergency shelter over
the past few years, WVCS staff believes that there is a need
for additional emergency shelter services in Cupertino. This
need is particularly high for families with children.
Additionally, Faith in Action Silicon Valley Rotating Shelter
operates a rotating shelter program which accommodates
up to 15 homeless men. The shelter rotates locations, which
include various Cupertino congregation and community
partner locations. Additional services offered by the
program include case management, meals, shower facilities,
bus passes, job development and counseling, and other
supportive services.
TABLE 2.30: SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOMELESS CENSUS AND SURVEY, 2013 (a)
Jurisdiction Individuals % Total
Cupertino
Unsheltered (b)92 82.1%
Sheltered (c)20 17.9%
Total 112 100.0%
Santa Clara County
Unsheltered (b)5,674 74.4%
Persons in Family Households 1,011 13.2%
Sheltered (c)1,957 25.6%
Persons in Family Households 56 0.7%
Total 7,631 100.0%
Notes:
(a) This Homeless Census and Survey was conducted over a two day period from January 29 to January 30, 2013
This survey, per HUD new requirements, does not include people in rehabilitation facilities, hospitals or jails
due to more narrow HUD definition of point-in-time homelessness. (b) Individuals found living on the streets, in parks,
encampments, vehicles, or other places not meant for humanhabitation. (c) Individuals who are living in emergency shelters or
transitional housing programs. Source: 2013 Santa ClaraCounty Homeless Point-In-Time Census & Survey, Comprehensive Report.
557
B-65
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
2.8. Needs Assessment Summary
Cupertino grew faster than Santa Clara County and the
Bay Area between 2000 and 2010. The local population
increased by 15 percent from 50,600 people to 58,300.
However, some of this growth was due to the annexation
of 168 acres of unincorporated land in Santa Clara
County between 2000 and 2008.
ABAG projects Cupertino will grow to 71,200 residents
by 2040. Cupertino and Santa Clara County are
anticipated to experience the same rate of population
increase (nearly 21 percent) between 2010 and 2040;
the Bay Area’s population is expected to increase by 28
percent during the same time.
Cupertino has an aging population. The median age in
Cupertino rose from 37.9 years old in 2000 to 39.9 years
old in 2010. The percent of elderly residents, aged 65
years old and older, increased from 11 percent to 13
percent.
The City has a high percentage of family households;
in 2010, family households comprised 77 percent of all
households in Cupertino, compared with 71 percent of
Santa Clara County households and 65 percent of Bay
Area households.
Large households comprised 9.3 percent of the City’s
total households, the majority of which were owner-
households. Overall, the proportion of large households
in the City was lower than countywide average.
Approximately 3.3 percent of all households in the City
were single-parent households, with 21 percent living
below the poverty level. However, the proportion of
single-parent households in the City has declined since
2000.
558
B-66
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
About six percent of the City’s population aged five
and above had one or more disabilities, lower than
the countywide average of eight percent. According
to the State Department of Developmental Services,
303 residents were being assisted at the San Andreas
Regional Center.
Cupertino, along with Santa Clara County, is becoming
an increasingly jobs-rich city. ABAG projects the number
of jobs in Cupertino will increase by 25 percent between
2010 and 2040, resulting in a jobs-to-household ratio of
1.38 by 2040, up from the ratio of 1.29 in 2010.
The local housing stock is dominated by single-family
detached homes; 57 percent of homes were single-family
detached dwellings in 2013. Although the number of
multi-family housing units experienced the most rapid
growth between 2000 and 2013, Cupertino still has a
smaller proportion of multi-family housing units than
Santa Clara County (28 percent in the city versus 32
percent in the County overall). One affordable housing
project – Beardon Drive (eight units) – is considered at
risk of converting to market-rate housing during the next
ten years.
Housing costs continue to rise in Cupertino. Median
home sales prices rose by approximately 29 percent
between 2011 and 2013, after plateauing between 2008
and 2010 during the depth of the housing market crisis.
Homeownership in Cupertino is generally out of reach for
most except the highest-earning households.
Affordable rental housing is equally difficult to obtain.
The current median market rent rate of $3,500 for a
three-bedroom unit exceeds the maximum affordable
monthly rent for lower- and moderate-income
households.
559
B-67
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.31: HOMELESS FACILITIES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 2014
Organization Facility Address Total Capacity
Transitional Housing
EHC LifeBuilders Transitional (Families
With Children)
Boccardo Family Living
Center 13545 Monterey
Road San Martin, CA
95046
26 Units
EHC LifeBuilders Transitional (Veterans)
Boccardo Regional
Reception Center 2011
Little Orchard St. San
Jose, CA 95125
20 Beds
EHC LifeBuilders Transitional (Youth)
Sobrato House Youth
Center 496 S. Third
Street San Jose, CA
95112
9 Units
Family Supportive Housing Transitional (Families)Scattered Sites in Santa
Clara County Not available
InnVision Transitional
Montgomery Street Inn
358 N. Montgomery
Street San Jose, CA
95110
85 Persons
InnVision Transitional (Women and
Children)
Villa 184 South 11th
Street San Jose, CA
95112
55 Persons
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Transitional (Victims
of Domestic Violence -
Women and Children)
The HomeSafes in San
Jose and Santa Clara (a)48 Units
West Valley Community Services
Transitional (Men and
Single Mothers)
10311-10321
Greenwood Ct.
Cupertino, CA 95014
12 Single Men and 6
Single Mothers
Maitri Transitional (Women and
Children)
N/A (address is confi-
dential)9 Beds
Note:
(a) Location is confidential. Source: 211 Santa Clara County, 2014.
560
B-68
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 2.31: HOMELESS FACILITIES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 2014
Organization Facility Address Total Capacity
Emergency Shelters
Asian Americans For Community Involvement of Santa Clara County, Inc.
Emergency (Victims of
Domestic Violence -
Women and Children)
Asian Women's Home
2400 Moorpark Avenue,
Suite 300
12 persons
EHC LifeBuilders Emergency
Boccardo Reception
Center (BRC) 2011 Little
Orchard San Jose, 95125
200 Persons (Year
Round) 250 Persons
(December 2 to March
31)
EHC LifeBuilders Emergency
Sunnyvale National
Guard Armory 620 E.
Maude Sunnyvale, 94086
125 Persons
EHC LifeBuilders Emergency (Veterans)
Boccardo Reception
Center (BRC) 2011 Little
Orchard San Jose, 95125
40 Persons (December
2 to March 31)
EHC LifeBuilders Emergency (Youth)
Sobrato House Youth
Center 496 S. Third
Street San Jose, CA
95112
10 beds
Family Supportive Housing Emergency (Families)
San Jose Family
Shelter 692 North King
Road San Jose, CA,
951331667
35 Families
Faith In Action Silicon Valley Rotating Shelter Emergency
Faith In Action Silicon
Valley Rotating Shelter
1669-2 Hollenbeck Ave.
#220 Sunnyvale, CA
94087
15 Persons
InnVision Emergency
Julian Street Inn 546
West Julian Street San
Jose, CA, 95110
70 Beds
InnVision Emergency (Women and
Children)
260 Commercial Street
San Jose, CA, 95112 55 Persons
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Emergency (Victims of
Domestic Violence -
Women and Children)
The Shelter Next
DoorSanta Clara County
(a)20 Persons
561
B-69
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
In 2010, 30 percent of renters and 37 percent of
homeowners were overpaying for housing in Cupertino.
In 2010, 63 percent of elderly renter-households were
overpaying for housing, the highest rate among any
household type regardless of tenure.
The 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey reported
a point-in-time count of 7,631 homeless people on the
streets and in emergency shelters, transitional housing,
and domestic violence shelters, including 112 individuals
in the City of Cupertino.
3. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
DETERMINATIONS 2014-2022
This section discusses the projected housing needs for the
current planning period, which runs from January 1, 2014
through October 31, 2022.
3.1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the
state, regional councils of government (in this case, ABAG),
and local governments must collectively determine each
locality’s share of regional housing need. In conjunction
with the state-mandated housing element update cycle that
requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their elements
by January 31, 2015, ABAG has allocated housing unit
production needs for each jurisdiction within the Bay Area.
These allocations set housing production goals for the
planning period that runs from January 1, 2014 through
October 31, 2022.
The following summarizes ABAG’s housing need allocation
for Cupertino, along with housing production data for the
2014-2022 time period. The City of Cupertino may count
housing units constructed, approved, or proposed since
562
B-70
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
January 1, 2014 toward satisfying its RHNA goals for this
planning period. Table 3.1 presents a summary of ABAG’s
housing needs allocation for Cupertino for 2014 to 2022.
3.2 Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income
Households
State law requires housing elements to quantify and analyze
the existing and projected housing needs of extremely
low-income households. HUD defines an extremely low-
income household as one earning less than 30 percent of
AMI. These households encounter a unique set of housing
situations and needs, and may often include special needs
populations or represent families and individuals receiving
public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or
disability insurance.
As discussed in the Needs Assessment section,
approximately eight percent of all Cupertino households
earned less than 30 percent of AMI in 2010. Extremely low-
income households represented 12 percent of all renter-
households and five percent of all owner-households.
To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low
income households, state law allows either assuming 50
percent of the very low-income households as extremely low
TABLE 3.1: RHNA, CUPERTINO, 2014-2022
Income Category Projected Need Percent of Total
Extremely Low/Very Low (0-50% of AMI)356 33.5%
Low (51-80% of AMI)207 19.5%
Moderate (81-120% of AMI)231 21.7%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI)270 25.4%
Total Units 1,064 100.0%
Source: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2014.
563
B-71
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
income, or to apportion the very low-income households
based on Census-documented distribution. Using the
allowable even split, 50 percent of Cupertino’s 356 very low-
income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low-
income households. Based on this methodology, the city
has a projected need of 178 units for extremely low-income
households.
Extremely low-income households often rely on supportive
or subsidized housing as a means of transitioning into
stable, more productive lives. Supportive housing combines
housing with supportive services such as job training,
life skills training, substance abuse programs, and case
management services. Subsidized housing can include
programs such as the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program or tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) which
ensures that the tenant does not pay more than 30 percent
of their gross income on housing by paying a portion of the
tenants rent. Efficiency studios and BMR rental units can also
provide affordable housing opportunities for extremely low-
income households.
4. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code
states that the housing element must analyze “potential
and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income
levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, and local processing and permit
procedures.”
In addition to government constraints, this section
assesses other factors that may constrain the production of
affordable housing in Cupertino. These include infrastructure
availability, environmental features, economic and financing
564
B-72
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
constraints, market conditions and community acceptance
of different housing types and densities. Recent court
rulings have removed some of the mechanisms local
government traditionally has used to require developers to
provide affordable housing, thus exacerbating the difficulty
of meeting the number of units determined necessary by
the regional housing needs assessment.
4.1. Government Constraints
Government regulations can affect housing costs by
limiting the supply of buildable land, setting standards and
allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for
the use of land or the construction of homes. The increased
costs associated with such requirements are often passed
on to consumers in the form of higher home prices and
rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land
use policies (as defined in a community’s general plan),
zoning regulations and their accompanying development
standards, subdivision regulations, growth control
ordinances or urban limit lines, and development impact
and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing
times also may be regulatory constraints.
General Plan
The Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020 was completed in
November 2005. The General Plan provides the policy and
program direction necessary to guide land use decisions
in the first two decades of the 21st century. The existing
General Plan is current and legally adequate and is not
considered an impediment to housing production. Parallel
with the update of this Housing Element, the City undertook
a focused update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to respond to community interest in enlivening aging
commercial developments and better accommodating
housing need, among requests from some property owners
for General Plan Amendments.
565
B-73
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
As required by state law, the General Plan includes a land
use map indicating the allowable uses and densities at
various locations in the city. The Land Use/Community
Design section identifies five categories of residential uses
based on dwelling unit density, expressed as the number of
dwelling units permitted per gross acre.
The “Very Low Density” classification, intended to
protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive
development and to protect human life from hazards
associated with floods, fires, and unstable terrain,
applies one of four slope-density formulas to determine
allowable residential density.
The “Low Density” and “Low/Medium Density”
categories promote traditional single-family
development, allowing densities of one to five units
per gross acre, and five to 10 units per gross acre,
respectively.
The “Medium/High Density” and the “High Density”
categories provide for a wide range of multi-family
housing opportunities at densities of 10 to 20 units per
gross acre and 20 to 35 units per gross acre, respectively.
In addition to the five residential categories, the General
Plan allows for residential uses in the “Industrial/
Residential,” “Office/Commercial/Residential,”
“Commercial/Residential” and “Neighborhood Commercial/
Residential” land use categories.
In 2013 the City undertook a focused General Plan
Amendment process intended to replenish, re-allocate,
and increase City-wide office, commercial, hotel, and
residential allocations in order to plan for anticipated future
development activity while keeping with the community’s
character, goals, and objectives. In addition, the process
aimed to capture retail sales leakage and some amount
566
B-74
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
of regional demand for office and hotel development.
The residential increases proposed during the process are
consistent with 2040 One Bay Area Plan.
None of the City’s General Plan policies have been
identified as housing constraints. The General Plan does
not define whether residential units are to be rented or
owned or whether they are to be attached or detached. The
General Plan’s land use policies incorporate housing goals,
including the following:
Policy LU-1: Focus Development in Mixed-Use
Special Areas
In the mixed-use Special Areas where office, commercial
and residential uses are allowed, focus higher intensity
development and increased building heights where
appropriate in designated Special Areas, gateways and
nodes.
Policy LU-17: Multi-Family Residential Design
Maintain a superior living environment for multi-family
dwellings.
Policy LU-18: Single-Family Residential Design
Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by
requiring new development to be compatible with the
existing neighborhood.
Policy LU-19: Compatibility of Lot Sizes
Ensure that zoning, subdivision, and lot line adjustment
requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need
to preserve neighborhood lot patterns.
Policy LU-22: Jobs/Housing Balance
Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.
567
B-75
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the
siting of housing, other than those pertaining to hillside and
other sensitive areas. Land use policies limit development
in hillside areas to protect hillside resources but allows
for low-intensity residential development in the foothills.
The General Plan also encourages the clustering of new
development away from sensitive areas such as riparian
corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space
preserves and ridgelines. Thus, even in hillside and sensitive
areas, the General Plan creates opportunities for housing
production.
Zoning Ordinance
The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance establishes development
standards and densities for new housing in the City.
These regulations include minimum lot sizes, maximum
number of dwelling units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot
coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking
requirements. These standards are summarized in Table
4.1. As required by state law, the Zoning Map is consistent
with the General Plan. The residential zoning districts and
their respective permitted densities and development
standards are summarized below. Residential development
is permitted by right in residential zones.
R-1 Single Family Residential
The R-1 District is intended to create, preserve, and enhance
areas suitable for detached single-family dwellings. The R-1
District includes sub-areas with varying minimum lot size
requirements. Residential structures in the R-1 District are
limited in size by a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent
and a maximum floor area ratio of 45 percent. Setbacks
are 20 feet in the front and rear yards and a combined 15
feet of side yards, with no one side yard setback less than
5 feet. The maximum building height of 28 feet allows for
a wide range of single family housing types on flat terrain.
568
B-76
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 4.1: SUMMARY OF CITY ZONING STANDARDS
Minimum Yard Setback
Zone
District
Bldg. Ht.
(ft.)
Min. Lot
Width
(ft.)
FrontSide Rear Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Site
Coverage
A 18-2850-603020 25 215,000 N/A
A-120-282003020 20-25 43,000-215,00040%
R-1 286020-2510-15 20 5,000-20,00045%
R-215-3060-70206-12 20 ft./20% lot depth,
whichever is greater 8,500-15,00040%
R-3 3070206-18 20 ft./20% lot depth,
whichever is greater.9,300 40%
RHS307020-2510-15 25 20,000-400,00045%
R-1C30N/AN/AN/A N/A N/A N/A
Note: (a) Maximum number of units cannot exceed that allowed by the General Plan, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Sources: Cupertino
Municipal Code, 2014.
Structures in R-1 Districts with an “i” designation at the end
are limited to one story (18 feet).
Two-story structures in the R-1 District require a Two-
Story Residential Permit. The Director of Community
Development may approve, conditionally approve, or deny
applications for a two-story residential permit. Projects
must be “harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood.”
R-2 Residential Duplex
The R-2 District is intended to allow a second dwelling unit
under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on a
site. The residential duplex district is intended to increase
the variety of housing opportunities within the community
while maintaining the existing neighborhood character.
Minimum lot area is 8,500 square feet; building heights in
this district cannot exceed 30 feet. The R-2 District limits
lot coverage by all buildings to 40 percent of net lot area.
569
B-77
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard and the greater of
20 feet and 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; the
minimum side yard setback is 20 percent of the lot width.
Structures in R-2 Districts with an “i” designation at the end
are limited to one story (18 feet).
The development standards for the R-2 District do not
constrain the development of duplexes. The 30-foot height
limit is appropriate because many R-2 zoned areas abut
single-family residential development. Furthermore, 30
feet in height is sufficient for duplex development. The 40
percent maximum lot coverage has also not constrained
the development of duplexes in Cupertino. None of the
residential opportunity sites included in this Housing
Element fall within the R-2 zone.
R-3 Multi-Family Residential
The R-3 District permits multi-family residential
development. This District requires a minimum lot area of
9,300 square feet for a development with three dwelling
units and an additional 2,000 square feet for every
additional dwelling unit. The minimum lot width in the
R-3 District is 70 feet, and lot coverage may not exceed
40 percent of net lot area. For single-story structures,
required setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, six feet in
the side yard, and the greater of 20 feet or 20 percent of
lot depth in the rear yard; the minimum side yard setback
for two-story structures is nine feet. The maximum height
any building is two stories and may not exceed 30 feet.
This height limit is used because many R-3 districts abut
single-family residential neighborhoods. Basements (fully
submerged below grade except for lightwells required for
light, ventilation and emergency egress, which may have a
maximum exterior wall height of two feet between natural
grade and ceiling) are permitted and are not counted
towards the height requirements. For these reasons, the
570
B-78
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
height standards in the R-3 district are not considered
a constraint to housing production. Furthermore, the
development standards for the R-3 District are on par with
standards present in neighboring jurisdictions.
The development standards for the R-3 District do not
unreasonably constrain the development of multi-family
housing. Multi-family residential uses are permitted uses
in the R-3 District without the need for a Use Permit.
Developments are able to achieve close to the maximum
allowable densities under existing development standards,
including the height limit and maximum lot coverage.
This can be demonstrated by a back-of-the-envelope
calculation of the number of developable units on a one-
acre parcel. As shown in Table 4.2, the maximum density
allowed on a one-acre parcel is 20 units. With a maximum
lot coverage of 40 percent and assuming two stories of
residential development, approximately 35,000 square
feet of residential development can be achieved. Using
conservative assumptions of 20 percent common area space
and large unit sizes of 1,400 square feet, 20 units can be
developed under this scenario. This analysis demonstrates
that projects would be able to achieve the maximum
allowable density in the R-3 District under the development
standards.
This Housing Element includes a strategy to monitor the
development standards to facilitate a range of housing
options (HE-Strategy 1).
RHS Residential Hillside
The RHS District regulates development in the hillsides
to balance residential uses with the need to preserve the
natural setting and protect life and property from natural
hazards. Dwelling unit density is determined by the slope-
density standards outlined in the General Plan. Minimum lot
size ranges from 20,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet.
571
B-79
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The minimum lot width in the RHS District is 70 feet, with an
exception for lots served by a private driveway and which
do not adjoin a public street. Development applications in
the RHS District must include topographical information,
including whether the proposed structure is on or in the
site line of a prominent ridgeline. The City has established
a process to allow for exceptions to development
requirements in the RHS zone if certain stated findings can
be made.
R-1C Residential Single Family Cluster
The purpose of the R-1C District is to provide a means
for reducing the amount of street improvements and
public utilities required in residential development, to
conserve natural resources, and encourage more creative
TABLE 4.2: R3 DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLE
Assumptions
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.)43,560
Maximum Density 20.13
9,300 sq. ft. of lot area
for 3 units, 2,000 sq. ft.
for each additional unit.
Parking and circulation (sq. ft.)19,602 Parking and circulation45% of lot area
Open space (sq. ft.)6,534 Open space 15% of lot area
Lot Coverage (sq. ft.)17,424 Lot Coverage %40% of lot area
Residential Sq. Ft.34,848 Stories of Residential 2
Less Common Area (hallways, stairs)(6.970 Common Area %20% of total building
area
Sq. Ft. for Units 27,878
Number of Units 20 Unit Size (Sq. Ft.)1,400
572
B-80
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
development and efficient use of space. The owner of
a property within Cupertino may submit an application
for single-family residential cluster zoning or rezoning
to the Planning Commission. Alternatively, the Planning
Commission and/or the City Council may initiate a public
hearing to rezone specific properties to the R-1C District.
The allowable density on a parcel is determined by the
existing land use designations in place prior to the rezoning.
Density ranges are determined based on the relationship
with and impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, streets,
infrastructure and natural areas as well as the quality of
design and relationship to adopted Housing Element goals.
While the maximum height in the district is 30 feet, a height
increase may be permitted if the City Council or Planning
Commission determines that it would not have an adverse
impact on the immediately adjacent neighborhood. The
R-1C District also regulates site design and private streets
within the cluster. Development requirements for proposed
R-1C developments can be waived or modified, if the
Planning Commission and City Council find that the site is
constrained but substantially meets the zoning standards
or if the proposal provides for low-moderate income and
senior citizen housing.
Planned Development
The P district is intended to provide a means for guiding
land development that is uniquely suited for planned
coordination of land uses and to provide for a greater
flexibility of land use intensity and design. The planned
development zoning district is specifically intended
to encourage variety in the development pattern of
the community; to promote a more desirable living
environment; to encourage creative approaches in land
development; to provide a means of reducing the amount
of improvements required in development through better
573
B-81
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
design and land planning, to conserve natural features, to
facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces,
and to encourage the creation of public or private common
open space.
All P districts are identified on the zoning map with the letter
P followed by a specific reference to the type of use allowed
in the particular planned development district. For example,
a P(Res) district allows for residential uses. Developments
within a P district are generally required to comply with
the height and density regulations associated with the
underlying use. Beyond density and height regulations, the
P district allows for a greater degree of flexibility around
other development standards. The increased flexibility in
the P zones allow a project to be designed to the special
characteristics of a site (such as corner parcels, proximity to
a creek or open space, etc) without requiring variances or
exceptions. Such sites can include a combination of multiple
housing types, open space and a mix of uses in a single
area. Examples include the Main Street Cupertino and Rose
Bowl mixed use developments.
A majority of the housing sites proposed to accommodate
the RHNA are located in the P district. The majority of
the P districts are governed by a Specific or Conceptual
Plan which provides additional guidance to facilitate
development review and provide more certainty regarding
community expectations. For example, the Heart of the City
Specific Plan provides detailed guidelines for residential
and mixed-use developments (including orientation,
design, setbacks, landscaping, buffers, and transitions to
neighboring properties).
Prior to development within a P (Res/R3) district, applicants
must submit a definitive development plan to the Planning
Commission or City Council. Upon recommendation
of the Planning Commission, the City Council reviews
574
B-82
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
larger developments, including those with eight or more
residential units. Multi-family residential developments
within a P(Res/R3) district are permitted uses by right.
Development plans focus on site and architectural merits
and typically take between two to four months to obtain
approvals. The Municipal Code was amended in 2011
to clarify that the development plan for residential uses
only requires a planned development permit and not a
conditional use permit as residential developments are
permitted uses within a P(Res) district.
A Agricultural and A-1 Agricultural-Residential
Agricultural zones are intended to preserve agriculture or
forestry activities in areas suited to that purpose, and to
include incidental residential development of a rural or
semi-rural character. Single-family dwellings and residences
for farmworkers and their families are permitted in the A and
A-1 Districts.
Minimum lot area corresponds to the number (multiplied by
one thousand square feet) following the A zoning symbol.
For example, A1-43 requires a minimum 43,000 square
foot lot. The minimum lot size for the A District is 215,000
square feet (with or without incidental residential use) and
215,000 square feet for A-1 with no incidental residential
use. Incidental residential uses require a minimum of 43,000
square feet per dwelling unit. The District requires setbacks
of 30 feet in the front yard, 20 feet in the side yards, and
20-25 feet in the rear yard. The maximum building height
of 28 feet allows for a wide range of single family housing
types on flat terrain. Structures in the A District with an “i”
designation at the end are limited to one story (18 feet).
Other Districts
In addition to the districts discussed above, limited
residential uses are allowed in other zoning districts. Often
575
B-83
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
the housing in these non-residential districts is limited
to housing for employees or caretakers. The permitted
residential uses in non-residential districts are discussed
below.
ML Light Industrial
Residential dwellings for caretakers or watchmen are
permitted for those employed for the protection of the
principal light industrial permitted use. The residential
dwellings must be provided on the same lot as the principal
permitted use.
PR Park and Recreation
The PR District regulates publicly owned parks within the
City. Single-family residences for the purpose of housing
a caretaker for the park are permitted in this District. A
caretaker is defined as a person who maintains surveillance
of the park areas during and after the hours of park
operation. The residence may take the form of a mobile
home or a permanent residential structure.
Heart of the City
The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific
development guidance for one of the most important
commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino. This Specific
Plan is intended to carefully guide development, with the
purpose of creating a clear sense of place and community
identity in Cupertino. The Specific Plan contains streetscape
design, development standards and design guidelines for
multi-unit residential and commercial/office projects.
Any new residential development within the Heart of the
City Specific Plan area is required to include a nonresidential
component (that is, horizontal or vertical mixed use is
required if residential uses are proposed). For mixed use
developments in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area,
576
B-84
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 4.3: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Housing Type Zone Parking Ratio
Single-Family R-1, RHS, A-1, P 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse P 2.8 / DU (2 garage, 0.8 open)
Duplex R-2 3 / DU (1.5 enclosed, 1.5 open)
High Density Multi-Family R-3, P 2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open)
Sources: Cupertino Zoning Ordinance, 2014.
residential development density calculations are required
to be based on net density, excluding parking and/
or land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the
development. This requirement can significantly reduce the
number of units a proposed project may provide, and may
constrain new development, although it will forward City
goals for balanced and complementary land uses.
Parking
Excessive parking requirements may serve as a constraint
of housing development by increasing development costs
and reducing the amount of land available for project
amenities or additional units. Off-street residential parking
requirements vary by zone. As shown in Table 4.3, the
parking ratio ranges from two parking spaces per dwelling
unit to four spaces per dwelling unit.
Cupertino’s parking requirements are higher than many
other jurisdictions, particularly for single-family homes.
Given the high cost of land and parking, the high parking
standards may serve as a constraint to housing provision,
although projects are able to attain the maximum permitted
density even with these parking requirements. The Zoning
Ordinance does not include parking reductions for senior
housing, affordable housing, or group homes, unless
State Density Bonus law applies, in which case reductions
are available for senior housing and projects that include
affordable housing. Often, vehicle ownership among
577
B-85
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
elderly and lower-income households is lower than other
populations, making reductions in parking requirements
appropriate. As established in HE-Strategy 11 of this
Housing Element, the City will offer a range of incentives to
facilitate the development of affordable housing, including
parking standards waivers.
The Zoning Ordinance allows for shared parking in
mixed-use developments. For example, residential
projects with a retail or commercial component will have
a lower parking requirement because residential users
may use some retail parking spaces in the evening. The
Zoning Ordinance provides a formula for calculating
the parking reduction in mixed-use developments. In
addition, the Planning Commission or City Council
may allow further reduction in the parking requirement
as part of a use permit development plan or parking
exception based on shared parking arrangements,
parking surveys, and parking demand management
measures.
According to interviews conducted as part of the
Housing Element update in 2013, market-rate and non-
profit developers perceive policies and regulations such
as parking requirements, height limits, and variances
for density as barriers to developing and adding units
to the market. One interviewee noted that Cupertino’s
parking requirements are relatively stringent compared
to other cities on the Peninsula that are moving towards
more flexibility and lower requirements. To address this
concern, the City offers reduced parking requirements as
incentives to facilitate affordable housing (HE-Strategy
11) and will update the Density Bonus Ordinance
(HE-Strategy 12) to allow for one to three regulatory
concessions that would result in identifiable cost
reductions and which are needed to make proposed
housing affordable.
578
B-86
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types
Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must
identify adequate sites through appropriate zoning and
development standards to encourage the development of
various types of housing. This includes single- and multi-
family housing, homeless shelters, group homes, supportive
and transitional housing, SROs, mobile and manufactured
homes, among others.
Homeless Shelters
The Zoning Ordinance allows for permanent and rotating
homeless shelters in the Quasi Public Building (BQ) zone.
Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within existing
church structures in the BQ zone for up to 25 occupants.
The operation period of rotating shelters cannot exceed
two months in any one-year span at a single location.
Permanent emergency shelter facilities are permitted
in the BQ zone if the facility is limited to 25 occupants,
provides a management plan, and if occupancy is limited
to six months or fewer. The City included Strategy 22 in the
Housing Element to ensure continued facilitation of housing
opportunities for special needs persons through emeregency
housing options.
Group Homes and Transitional and Supportive Housing
Pursuant to state law, licensed residential care facilities
for six or fewer residents are permitted by right in all
residential districts (including A, A-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, RHS,
R-1C). Licensed small group homes are not subject to
special development requirements, policies, or procedures
which would impede such uses from locating in a residential
district. Furthermore, small group homes (with six or fewer
persons) with continuous 24-hour care are permitted by
right in all residential districts. Transitional and supportive
housing is treated as a residential use and subject only
579
B-87
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses
in the same zone. Large group homes (with more than
six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1
District, subject to Planning Commission approval.
Single-Room Occupancy Units (SROs)
SRO units are one-room units intended for occupancy by a
single individual. They are distinct from a studio or efficiency
unit, in that a studio is a one-room unit that must contain a
kitchen and bathroom. Although SRO units are not required
to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the
other. The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance does not contain
specific provisions for SRO units. SRO units are treated as a
regular multi-family use, subject to the same restrictions that
apply to other residential uses in the same zone.
Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing and mobile homes can be an
affordable housing option for low- and moderate-income
households. According to the Department of Finance, as of
2013, there are no mobile homes in Cupertino. Pursuant to
State law, a mobile home built after June 15, 1976, certified
under the National Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Act of 1974, and built on a permanent foundation
may be located in any residential zone where a conventional
single-family detached dwelling is permitted subject to
the same restrictions on density and to the same property
development regulations.
580
B-88
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Farmworker and Employee Housing
Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, any employee
housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group
quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single
family or household shall be deemed an agricultural land
use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other
zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing
that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the
same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing
in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural
employees who do not work on the property where the
employee housing is located. The Employee Housing Act
also specifies that housing for six or fewer employees be
treated as a residential use. In 2014, the City amended the
Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the State Employee
Housing Act, permitting employee housing for six of fewer
residents in all residential zoning districts and employee
group quarters in the A and A-1 districts, and in the RHS
district with approval of an Administrative CUP.
Second Dwelling Units
A second dwelling unit is an attached or detached, self-
contained unit on a single-family residential lot. These units
are often affordable due to their smaller size. To promote
the goal of affordable housing within the City, Cupertino’s
Zoning Ordinance permits second dwelling units on lots in
Single-Family Residential (R-1), Residential Hillside (RHS),
Agricultural (A), and Agricultural Residential (A-1) Districts.
Second dwelling units on lots of 10,000 square feet or
more may not exceed 800 square feet, while units on lots
smaller than 10,000 square feet cannot exceed 640 square
feet. All second dwelling units must have direct outside
access without going through the principal dwelling. If the
residential lot encompasses less than 10,000 square feet,
the second dwelling unit must be attached to the principal
581
B-89
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
dwelling unless otherwise approved by the Director of
Community Development through Architectural Review.
Second dwelling units are subject to an architectural review
by the Director of Community Development. The design
and building materials of the proposed second unit must
be consistent with the principal dwelling. In addition, the
second dwelling unit may not require excessive grading
which is visible from a public street or adjoining private
property. The architectural review is done at the ministerial
(building permit) level and is intended to ensure that the
second unit is consistent with the architecture, colors, and
materials of the primary house.
One additional off-street parking space must be provided if
the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off-
street parking spaces for the residential district in which it is
located. Second dwelling units must also comply with the
underlying site development regulations specified by the
zoning district.
Density Bonus
State law requires cities and counties to grant a density
bonus of up to 35 percent and one to three incentives or
concessions to housing projects which contain one of the
following:
At least 5% of the housing units are restricted to very low
income residents
At least 10% of the housing units are restricted to lower
income residents
At least 10% of the housing units in a for-sale common
interest development are restricted to moderate income
residents
A density bonus, but no incentives or concessions, must be
granted to projects that contain one of the following:
582
B-90
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The project donates at least one acre of land to the city
or county large enough for 40 very low income units,
the land has the appropriate general plan designation,
zoning, permits and approvals, and access to public
facilities needed for such housing, funding has been
identified, and other requirements are met
The project is a senior citizen housing development (no
affordable units required)
The project is a mobile home park age restricted to
senior citizens (no affordable units required)
HE-Strategy 12 in the Housing Plan commits the City to
implementation of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Site Improvement Requirements
Residential developers are responsible for constructing
road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements on
new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts,
such as increased runoff or added congestion at a nearby
intersection, additional developer expenses may be
necessary to mitigate impacts. These expenses may be
passed on to consumers.
Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the
Subdivision Ordinance) establishes the requirements for
new subdivisions, including the provision of on- and off-site
improvements. The ordinance requires that subdivisions
comply with frontage requirements and stormwater runoff
be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain
system. Furthermore, each unit or lot within the subdivision
must be served by an approved sanitary sewer system,
domestic water system, and gas, electric, telephone, and
cablevision facilities. All utilities within the subdivision and
along peripheral streets must be placed underground.
583
B-91
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Common residential street widths in Cupertino range from
20 feet (for streets with no street parking) to 36 feet (for
those with parking on both sides). The City works with
developers to explore various street design options to
meet their needs and satisfy public safety requirements.
Developers are typically required to install curb, gutters,
and sidewalks, however, there is a process where the
City Council can waive the requirement. The City prefers
detached sidewalks with a landscaped buffer in between
the street and the pedestrian walk to enhance community
aesthetics and improve pedestrian safety. However,
the City does work with developers to explore various
frontage improvement options depending on the project
objectives, taking into consideration factors such as tree
preservation, land/design constraints, pedestrian safety,
and neighborhood pattern/compatibility. This is especially
true in Planned Development projects, where the City
works with the developer to achieve creative and flexible
street and sidewalk designs to maximize the project as well
as community benefits. The Subdivision Ordinance also
includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland.
The formula for dedication of park land for residential
development is based on a standard of three acres of
parkland per 1,000 persons. The developer must dedicate
parkland based on this formula or pay an in lieu fee based
on the fair market value of the land.
In addition to parkland dedication, the City Council may
require a subdivider to dedicate lands to the school
district(s) as a condition of approval of the final subdivision
map. If school site dedication is required and the school
district accepts the land within 30 days, the district must
repay the subdivider the original cost of the dedicated land
plus the cost of any improvements, taxes, and maintenance
of the dedicated land. If the school district does not accept
584
B-92
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
the offer, the dedication is terminated.
The developer may also be required to reserve land for a
park, recreational facility, fire station, library, or other public
use if such a facility is shown on an adopted specific plan
or adopted general plan. The public agency benefiting
from the reserved land shall pay the developer the market
value of the land at the time of the filing of the tentative
map and any other costs incurred by the developer in the
maintenance of the area. The ordinance states that the
amount of land to be reserved shall not make development
of the remaining land held by the developer economically
unfeasible.
The City of Cupertino’s site improvement requirements for
new subdivisions are consistent with those in surrounding
jurisdictions and do not pose a significant constraint to new
housing development.
Building Codes and Code Enforcement
The City of Cupertino has adopted the 2013 Edition of
the California Building Code, the 2013 California Electrical
Code and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions, the
International Association of Plumbing Officials Uniform
Plumbing Code (2013 Edition), the California Mechanical
Code 2013 Edition, and the 2013 California Fire Code and
the 2013 Green Building Standard Code. The City also
enforces the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, the
1998 Uniform Code for Building Conservation, and the 1997
Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
Code.
Cupertino has adopted several amendments to the 2013
California Building Code. The City requires sprinkler systems
for new and expanded one- and two-family dwellings and
townhouses; underhanging appendages enclosed with
fire-resistant materials; roof coverings on new buildings
585
B-93
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
and replacement roofs complying with the standards
established for Class A roofing, the most fire resistant type
of roof covering. The amendments also establish minimum
standards for building footings, seismic reinforcing on
attached multi-family dwellings, and brace wall panel
construction. These amendments apply more stringent
requirements than the California Building Code. The
California Building Code and the City’s amendments to it
have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous building
conditions. The City’s building codes are reasonable and
would not adversely affect the ability to construct housing in
Cupertino.
The City’s code enforcement program is an important tool
for maintaining the housing stock and protecting residents
from unsafe or unsightly conditions. The Code Enforcement
Division is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the
Cupertino Municipal Code and various other related codes
and policies. Code Enforcement Division staff work to
achieve compliance through intervention, education, and
enforcement, partnering with the community to enforce
neighborhood property maintenance standards.
Code Enforcement staff investigate and enforce City codes
and State statutes based on complaints received. Violation
of a code regulation can result in a warning, citation, fine,
or legal action. If a code violation involves a potential
emergency, officers will respond immediately; otherwise,
Code Enforcement staff responds to complaints through
scheduled inspections. The City has had to declare only
three units unfit for human occupancy since 2007 and most
complaints are resolved readily. Code Enforcement activities
are not considered a constraint to development of housing
in Cupertino.
Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
California Senate Bill 520 (SB 520), passed in October 2001,
requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints
586
B-94
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
for persons with disabilities and develop programs which
accommodate the housing needs of disabled persons.
Procedures for Ensuring Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative
duty on cities and counties to make reasonable
accommodations in their zoning and land use policies
when such accommodations are necessary to provide
equal access to housing for persons with disabilities and do
not impose significant administrative or financial burdens
on local government or undermine the fundamental
purpose of the zoning law. Reasonable accommodations
refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies
that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include
exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or
to height limits to permit elevators.
The City of Cupertino adopted an ordinance in April
2010 for people with disabilities to make a reasonable
accommodations request. Chapter 19.25 provides a
procedure to request reasonable accommodation for
persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing
under the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Federal Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.
Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations
In conformance to state law, licensed residential care
facilities for six or fewer residents are permitted by right
in all residential districts (including A, A-1, R-1, R-2, R-3,
RHS, R-1C). Licensed small group homes are not subject to
special development requirements, policies, or procedures
which would impede such uses from locating in a residential
district. Furthermore, small group homes (with six or fewer
persons) with continuous 24-hour care are permitted
by right in all residential districts, as are transitional and
587
B-95
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
supportive housing. Large group homes (with more than
six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1
District, subject to Planning Commission approval.
The Zoning Ordinance contains a broad definition of family.
A family means an individual or group of persons living
together who constitute a bona fide single housekeeping
unit in a dwelling unit. Families are distinguished from
groups occupying a hotel, lodging club, fraternity or sorority
house, or institution of any kind. This definition of family
does not limit the number of people living together in a
household and does not require them to be related.
Building Codes and Permitting
The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments
to the California Building Code that might diminish the
ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.
Below Market Rate Mitigation Program
The City’s BMR Residential Mitigation Program requires all
new residential developers to either provide below market
rate units or pay a mitigation fee, which is placed in the
City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund
(AHF). The BMR Mitigation Program is based on a nexus
study prepared by the City that demonstrated that all new
developments create a need for affordable housing. Under
this program, developers of for-sale housing where units
may be sold individually must sell at least 15 percent of
units at a price affordable to median- and moderate-income
households. Projects of seven or more units must provide
on-site BMR units. Developers of projects of six units or
fewer can either build a unit or provide pay the Housing
Mitigation fee.
To be consistent with recent court decisions and the State
Costa-Hawkins Act regarding rent control, the City modified
the BMR Mitigation Program so that developers of market-
rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually,
588
B-96
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund. In 2014, the fee was $3.00 per square foot
on residential. The BMR Office and Industrial Mitigation
Program also acknowledges housing needs created by the
development of office and industrial projects and provide
fees to support the development of affordable housing. In
2014, the fee was $6.00 per square foot on office/industrial,
hotel, and retail, and $3.00 per square foot in the Planned
Industrial zone. 4
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing programs
like Cupertino’s BMR Mitigation Program may constrain
production of market rate homes, studies have shown
evidence to the contrary. The cost of an inclusionary
housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either:
1) developers through a lower return, 2) landowners
through decreased land values, or 3) other homeowners
through higher market rate sale prices. In fact, the cost of
inclusionary housing and any other development fee “will
always be split between all players in the development
process.”5 However, academics have pointed out that, over
the long term, it is probable that landowners will bear most
of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeowners
or the developer. 6 In addition, a 2004 study on housing
starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities throughout
California with and without inclusionary housing programs
evidences that inclusionary housing programs do not lead to
a decline in housing production. In fact, the study found that
housing production actually increased after passage of local
inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as diverse as San
4 The housing mitigation fee is updated periodically. Developers should
check with the Community Development Department for the most current fee
amount.
5 W.A. Watkins. “Impact of Land Development Charges.” Land Economics 75(3).
1999.
6 Mallach, A.“Inclusionary Housing Programs: Policies and Practices.” New
Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. 1984. Hagman,
D. “Taking Care of One’s Own Through Inclusionary Zoning: Bootstrapping Low-
and Moderate-Income Housing by Local Government,” Urban Law and Policy
5:169- 187. 1982. Ellickson, R. 1985. “Inclusionary Zoning: Who Pays?” Planning
51(8):18-20.
589
B-97
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.7
Recognizing the need for a financially feasible program that
does not constrain production, some jurisdictions allow
developers to pay a fee for all units, regardless of project
size. As discussed previously, Cupertino’s BMR Mitigation
Program requires large for-sale developments (with seven or
more units) to provide units.
A 2009 courtcase (Palmer v. the City of Los Angeles) has
resulted in cities suspending or amending the portion of
their Housing Mitigation program requiring affordable
units to be included in market rate rental developments.
There also have been a number of court cases related
to affordable housing requirements (decided and those
that are still being litigated). Due to uncertainty regarding
the legal standard applicable to affordable housing
requirements, the Governor vetoed an Assembly Bill (AB
1229) which aimed to reverse the decision in the Palmer
case. Currently pending in the California Supreme Court is
a challenge to the City of San Jose’s inclusionary ordinance.
The Building Industry Association asserts that all programs
requiring affordable housing, whether for sale or for
rent, must be justified by a nexus study showing that the
affordable housing requirement is “reasonably related”
to the impacts of the project on the need for affordable
housing. In a previous California Supreme Court case,
Sterling Park v. City of Palo Alto, the Court ruled that
affordable housing requirements were a type of exaction
that could be challenged under the protest provisions of the
Mitigation Fee Act.
The City of Cupertino has long justified its Housing
Mitigation program as based on the impacts of market rate
housing on the need for affordable housing and continues
to require rental housing developments to pay a mitigation
7 David Rosen. “Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land
Markets.” NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review 1(3). 2004.
590
B-98
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
fee. However, the fee is based on an older nexus study.
The City intends to update its nexus study on the BMR
mitigation fees by the end of 2016 to determine appropriate
housing mitigation fees (HE-Strategy 8).
Park Impact Fees
The City assesses park impact fees for new residential
development. The fee ranges from $8,100 per unit of high
density residential development (at 20 dwelling units per
acre or more) and for apartments with ten or more units to
$15,750 per single-family unit (where the density is 0 to 5
units per acre). Park impact fees for senior/elderly housing is
$4,500 per unit.
Cupertino’s park fees are comparable to or lower than
similar requirements established in other Santa Clara County
jurisdictions. Mountain View and San Jose require park
land dedication or the payment of a park in-lieu fee. The
in-lieu fee in both cities is based on fair market value of
the land. San Jose’s park fees for single-family detached
units ranged from approximately $15,000 to $38,550,
depending on building square footage and the area of
the city. Park fees for multi-family units in San Jose ranged
from $7,650 to $35,600, depending on location and the
size of the development. In Mountain View, park in-lieu
fees are approximately $25,000 for each residential unit,
depending on the value of the land. The City of Palo Alto’s
park dedication requirements vary depending on whether
the project involves a subdivision or parcel map, and
also depending on the size of the unit. Palo Alto collects
$10,638-$15,885 per single-family unit and $3,521-$6,963
per multi-family unit.
Fees and Exactions
Like cities throughout California, Cupertino collects
development fees to recover the capital costs of providing
community services and the administrative costs associated
591
B-99
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
with processing applications. New housing typically requires
payment of school impact fees, sewer and water connection
fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant
fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical
fees collected are outlined in Table 4.4. The total cost of
permits, city fees, and other professional services fees (such
as project-specific architecture and engineering designs and
schematics) has been estimated to equate to 20 percent
of construction costs, or approximately 10 percent of total
project costs.
The Bay Area Cost of Development Survey 2010-2011
conducted by the City of San Jose surveyed six jurisdictions
in the region with sample development projects to
determine associated entitlement, construction, and impact
fees. For a multi-family development, total fees identified
by this survey ranged from $4,841 per unit for the County
of Santa Clara to $42,183 per unit for the City of Palo Alto.
These fees have likely increased since the time of the survey,
and therefore a conservative indication that Cupertino’s
fees (estimated at $20,275 for a similar building type) are
consistent with, and often less than, fees in surrounding
jurisdictions.
Permit Processing
The entitlement process can impact housing production
costs, with lengthy processing of development applications
adding to financing costs, in particular.
Planning Commission and City Council Approvals
The Planning Commission and City Council review
applications for zoning amendments and subdivision
approvals. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing
about proposed zoning changes or subdivisions and
592
B-100
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 4.4: FEES AND EXACTIONS
Fee Amount Single-Family (a) Townhouse (b)Multi-Family (c)
Sanitary Connection Permit (d)
$76 permit fee or $77.50 with
backflow plus additional $300
inspection fee
$376 $378 $378
Water Main Existing Facilities Fee (e)
Fees based on construction
costs with large variation depen-
dent on fire safety requirements
and size of water line.
$7,000 $6,900 $2,300
Parcel Map (1-4 lots) - Planning Fee $7,461 N/A N/A N/A
Tract Map (> 4 lots) - Planning Fee $15,974 $1,597 $1,597 N/A
Residential Design Review/Architectural and Site Approval $2,400/$7,461 $2,400 $746 $149
Development Permit Fee $15,974 $1,597 $1,597 $319
Parcel Map (1-4 lots) - Engineering Fee $4,254 N/A N/A N/A
Tract Map (> 4 lots) - Engineering Fee $8,831 $883 $883 N/A
Engineering Plan Review Fee $736 $368 $124
Grading Permit Fee $750 $350 $601
Master Storm Drainage Area Fee Varies $906 $555 $378
Storm Management Plan Fee $715 $71.50 $71.50 $71.50
Park Impact Fee Varies by density $15,750 $9,000 $8,100
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fee $3.00 / Sq. Ft.$6,000 $4,800 $4,200
Cupertino Union School District Fee $2.02 / Sq. Ft.$4,040 $3,232 $2,828
Fremont Union High School District Fee $1.34 / Sq. Ft.$2,680 $2,144 $1,876
Plan Check and Inspection (Engineering)$655 $655 $655 $655
Building Permit Fee (f)Based on scope of project $7,409 $6,473 $2,121
Total $52,851 $39,750 $24,101
Notes:
(a) Fees estimated for a 3,150 square foot, 3 bedroom home in a 10 unit subdivision with 7,000 sq. ft. lots over 2 acres.
(b) Fees estimated for a 2,200 square foot, 3 bedroom/2.5 bathroom townhouse in a 10 unit subdivision over one acre.
(c) Fees estimated for a 50 unit apartment development with 1,680 gross square foot (1,400 net), 2 bedroom apartment units over 2.2 acres
(d) Average of fees charged in the four Cupertino Sanitary District zones.
(e) Connectiom fee for San Jose Water, which serves the largest area of Cupertino. Cal Water and Cupertino Municipal also serve parts of the City.
(f) Includes all fees payable to the Building Department. Includes Plan check and standard inspection fees, and Construction Tax.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; San Jose Water, 2014; Cupertino Sanitary District, 2014; MIG 2014
593
B-101
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
makes a recommendation to the City Council to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the application. Upon
receipt of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the
City Council holds a public hearing before making a final
decision on the proposed zoning change or subdivision.
Local developers have noted that the entitlement process
in Cupertino can be a time consuming and protracted
process. While the active populous may add complexity to
the entitlement process, Cupertino values public outreach
and is committed to development of community leadership,
local partnerships, an active populace and making
government more accessible and visible to residents.
Design Review
Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design
guidelines. However, all Planned Development Zoning
Districts, the R1 District, RHS District, the Heart of the
City Specific Plan Area, and the North De Anza Boulevard
Conceptual Plan Area are subject to design guidelines.
These design guidelines pertain to features such as
landscaping, building and roof forms, building entrances,
colors, outdoor lighting, and building materials. The design
guidelines are intended to ensure development is consistent
with the existing neighborhood character and are generally
not considered significant constraints to housing production.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidelines
are intended to promote high-quality private-sector
development, enhance property values, and ensure that
both private investment and public activity continues to
be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area.
Design guidelines promote retention and development
viability of single-family residential sized lots in the
transition area between Stevens Creek Boulevard fronting
development and single-family neighborhoods.
594
B-102
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The City requires design review for certain residential
developments to ensure that new development and
changes to existing developments comply with City
development requirements and policies. These include:
Variances in the R-1 District
Two-story residential developments in the R-1 District
where second floor to first floor area ration is greater
than 66 percent and/or where second story side yard
setback(s) are less than 15 feet to a property line
Two-story addition, new two-story home, and/or second
story deck in the R1-a zone
Any new development or modifications in planned
development residential or mixed-use residential zoning
districts
Single-family homes in a planned development
residential zoning district
Modifications to buildings in the R1C or R-2 zoning
districts
Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and modifications to
buildings in the R-3 zoning district
The City has detailed Two-Story Design Principles
incorporated in the R-1 District. These design principles
help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes
with existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for
the review and approval process. Two-story homes with a
second story to first floor ratio greater than 66 percent and
homes with second story side setbacks less than 15 feet
must offset building massing with designs that encompass
higher quality architectural features and materials.
Design Review may occur at the Staff or Design Review
Committee level, depending on the scope of the project.
595
B-103
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Staff and the Design Review Committee, consisting of the
Planning Commission Vice Chair and one other Planning
Commissioner, consider factors such as building scale in
relation to existing buildings, compliance with adopted
height limits, setbacks, architectural and landscape design
guidelines, and design harmony between new and existing
buildings to determine design compliance.
Processing Time
Table 4.5 presents the typical permit processing time
for various approvals in Cupertino. As shown, actions
requiring ministerial review are usually approved within
two to four weeks. Other approvals have longer processing
time frames. Developments requiring multiple approvals
involve joint applications and permits that are processed
concurrently. All approvals for a particular project are
reviewed in a single Planning Commission and/or City
Council meeting. The typical permit processing times
in Cupertino are similar to or lower than those in other
TABLE 4.5: TYPICAL PERMIT PROCESSING TIME (a)
Type of Approval Typical Processing Time
Ministerial Review 2-4 weeks
Two-Story Residential Permit 2-3 months
Conditional Use Permit 2-4 months
Zoning Change 4-6 months
General Plan Amendment 4-6 months
Architectural and Site Review 2-4 months
Design Review 2-3 months
Tentative or Parcel Map 2-4 months
Initial Environmental Study 2 months
Negative Declaration 3-6 months
Environmental Impact Report 9-15 months
Notes:
(a) Processing time accounts for time involved in the preliminary consultation and/or conceptual review phase
Applications for multiple approval types may be processed concurrently. Processing time would depend on time
required to prepare environmental documents. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014
596
B-104
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
jurisdictions and do not pose a major constraint to new
development in the City.
Cupertino is able to process applications in a timely
manner because City staff works closely with applicants
during a pre-application process. The pre-application is
free of charge and its duration may vary depending on the
completeness and/or the complexity of the project. Typical
pre-application process may consist of the following:
Initial preliminary consultation with property owners/
developers to go over project objectives and City
development standards
Submittal and review of conceptual development plans
Preliminary consultations with relevant City departments
(i.e., Fire, Building, Public Works) as deemed necessary
Submittal and review of pre-submittal materials and final
plans
Table 4.6 summarizes the typical approvals required for
various housing types. One-story single-family homes in
properly zoned areas do not require approvals from the
Community Development Department. However, two-story
single-family homes require a two-story permit, which are
approved by the Director of the Community Development
Department and take two to three months to process.
Residential subdivisions require a tentative parcel map or
tentative subdivision map, depending on the number of
units in the development, and take two to four months to
receive approvals. Multi-family residential developments
in R3 or Planned Development (PD) Districts are typically
approved in two to four months.
597
B-105
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 4.6: TYPICAL PROCESSING PROCEDURES BY PROJECT TYPE
Typical Approvals Required Time Frame*
Single-Family
One-Story
(No Planning Permit required)Building Permit 2-4 weeks
One-Story (Minor Residential or Exception Permit required)Minor Residential Permit/ R1 Exception 1-2 months
Two-Story Two-Story Permit 2-3 months
Residential Hillside (no Exception)Building Permit 2-6 weeks
Residential Hillside (with Exception)Hillside Exception 2-3 months
Subdivision
< 5 units Tentative Parcel Map 2-3 months
≥ 5 units Tentative Subdivision Map 3-4 months
Multi-Family – R2, R3
No re-zoning Development Permit, Architectural Site
Approval 2-3 months
<5 parcels Tentative Parcel Map 2-3 months
≥5 parcels Tentative Subdivision Map 3-4 months
Re-zoning
Rezoning Application
4-6 months
Development Permit, Architectural Site
Approval
Tentative or Parcel Map (depending on
number of parcels)
Multi-Family – PD
No re-zoning
Development Permit
3-4 monthsArchitectural Site Approval
Tentative or Parcel Map
Re-zoning
Zoning change
4-6 monthsDevelopment Permit
Architectural Site Approval
Tentative or Parcel Map
* May vary based on on level of Environmental Review required.
598
B-106
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Building Permit
Standard plan check and building permit issuance for
single-family dwellings in Cupertino takes approximately 10
business days. Plan checks for large additions, remodels,
and major structural upgrades for single-family homes
are also processed within 10 days. If a second review is
necessary, the City will take approximately five business
days to complete the review. Prior to the final building
permit inspection for two-story additions and new two-story
homes, applicants must submit a privacy protection plan,
which illustrates how views into neighboring yards second
story windows will be screened by new trees and/or shrubs.
The plan check process may take longer for projects which
entail off-site street improvements.
Over-the-counter plan checks are available for small
residential projects (250 square feet or less). Building
Department staff typically review these projects in less than
30 minutes during normal business hours. In addition, an
express plan check is offered for medium-sized residential
projects (500 square feet or less) and takes approximately
five days. Plan review can take from four weeks to several
months for larger projects, depending on the size.
Examples of this type of plan check include apartments
and single-family residential subdivisions over 10 units.
Cupertino’s building permit procedures are reasonable and
comparable to those in other California communities.
Tree Preservation
The City of Cupertino has a Protected Tree Ordinance
that is intended to preserve trees for their environmental,
economic and aesthetic importance. The City seeks to
retain as many trees as possible, consistent with the
individual rights to develop, maintain, and enjoy their
property.
599
B-107
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The ordinance protects heritage trees, which are
identified as significant for their historic value or unique
characteristics, and certain trees that have a minimum
single-trunk diameter of 10 inches or a minimum multi-truck
diameter of 20 inches when measured at 4.5 feet from
natural grade. These trees include native oak tree species,
California Buckeye, Big Leaf Maple, Deodar Cedar, Blue
Atlas Cedar, Bay Laurel or California Bay, and Western
Sycamore trees.
Trees protected by this ordinance may not be removed
from private or public property without first obtaining a
tree removal permit. Applications for tree removal permits
are reviewed by the Community Development Director.
The Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny
applications. In some cases, the City may require tree
replacement as a condition of permit approval.
Because a large share of residential development in
Cupertino involves infill development involving demolition
and replacement, building footprints are often already in
place and tree preservation issues do not often arise as a
major concern to developers.
4.2 Economic and Market Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, non-governmental
factors may constrain the production of new housing. These
could include economic and market related conditions such
as land and construction costs.
Availability of Financing
While the housing market has rebounded since the
recession that began in 2008, many developers still face
difficulty securing project financing. In interviews completed
as part of the Housing Element update process in 2013,
it was stated that small developers in particular still have
trouble, and some lenders do not understand how to
finance mixed-use development.
600
B-108
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Project Funding
In stakeholder interviews in late 2013, affordable housing
developers and service providers discussed the hardships
caused by the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agencies.
This action eliminated a major source of funding for
affordable housing, and that these funds have not yet been
replaced by other tools. Federal and state funding sources
(including Sections 202 and 811) have been eliminated or
reduced so there is greater reliance on local sources.
Land Availability and Costs
Land costs in Cupertino are very high due to high demand
and extremely limited supply of available land. Cupertino
has seen a number of smaller detached infill housing
projects where single-family homes are constructed on
remnant lots or lots that have previously been developed
with older homes. Multi-family development often requires
lot consolidation and/or removing existing uses. A review
of available real estate listings indicated one residentially
zoned vacant property for sale as of May2014. This 0.22
acre property is zoned P(R-3) and had a listed price of
$1,095,000. Based on this listing, an acre of residentially
zoned land could be listed at close to $5 million.
Construction Costs
Construction costs vary significantly depending on building
materials and quality of finishes. Parking structures for
multi-family developments represent another major variable
in the development cost. In general, below-grade parking
raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other
professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs,
construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional
10 to 40 percent of the construction and land costs.
Owner-occupied multi-family units have higher soft costs
than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for
construction defect liability insurance. Permanent debt
601
B-109
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
financing, site preparation, off-site infrastructure, impact
fees, and developer profit add to the total development
cost of a project. Construction costs run about $100 per
square foot for Type 5 construction (wood and stucco over
parking) for multi-family units and $110 per square foot for
single family units8. Residential developers indicate that
construction costs in the Bay Area may far exceed these
national averages, and can reach $200 per square foot for
larger (four- to six-story) developments.
Key construction costs have risen nationally in conjunction
with economic recovery and associated gains in the
residential real estate market. Figure B-6 illustrates
construction cost trends for key materials based on the
Producer Price Index, a series of indices published by the
U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that
measures the sales price for specific commodities and
products. Both steel and lumber prices have risen sharply
since 2009, as have finished construction products.
4.3. Environmental, Infrastructure & Public
Service Constraints
Environmental Constraints
The majority of Cupertino land area has been urbanized
and now supports roadways, structures, other impervious
surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. In
general, urbanized areas tend to have low to poor wildlife
habitat value due to replacement of natural communities,
fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks,
and intensive human disturbance. There are no significant
wetland or environmental resource issues of concern that
would constrain development in areas designated for
residential development in Cupertino.
8 International Code Council Building Valuation Data for Type V construction,
February 2014
602
B-110
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Producer Price Index: Steel and Lumber
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013
Year
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
A
x
i
s
Steel
Lumber
Figure B-5
Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014; MIG, 2014
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
Producer Price Index: Steel and Lumber
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013
Year
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
A
x
i
s
Steel
Lumber
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
603
B-111
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Roads
Due to the urbanized nature of Cupertino, existing
roads are in place to serve the potential infill residential
development identified in this Housing Element. The
amount of traffic or congestion on a roadway is measured
in terms of Level of Service (LOS) ranging from A to F, with
A representing intersections that experience little or no
congestion and F representing intersections with long and
unacceptable delays. Cupertino has established a policy of
maintaining a minimum of LOS D for major intersections
during the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours, with
some exceptions. The LOS standard for the Stevens Creek
and De Anza Boulevard intersection, the Stevens Creek and
Stelling Road intersection, and the De Anza Boulevard and
Bollinger Road intersection is LOS E+.
The environmental assessment of individual residential
projects considers any associated traffic impacts. If the
study finds that the project could cause an intersection
to deteriorate, mitigation may be required. This usually
consists of improvements to adjacent roads and
intersections, but may also include changes to the number
of units in the project, or to site design and layout.
However, SB 743, signed into law in 2013, started a process
that could fundamentally change transportation impact
analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes will
include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS),
and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in
many parts of California (if not statewide). As such, potential
costs to new development associated with roadway
mitigation may be reduced or eliminated.
Water
Two water suppliers provide service to the City: the
604
B-112
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
California Water Company and the San Jose Water
Company. The San Jose Water Company also has a lease
agreement to operate and maintain the City of Cupertino’s
water system until 2022. Both of these providers derive
the vast majority of their water from the Santa Clara
Valley Water District. According to the 2014 General
Plan Amendment and Housing Element EIR, California
Water Company and San Jose Water Company have
sufficient water supplies to accommodate increased
growth associated with the GPA and Housing Element
under normal, single dry, or multiple dry years. Future
development associated with the Housing Element would
be located within already developed urban areas and
would therefore connect to an existing water distribution
system. No new water treatment facilities or the expansion
of existing facilities would be required to accommodate the
RHNA.
Wastewater
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) serves as the main
provider of wastewater collection and treatment services
for Cupertino, while the City of Sunnyvale serves a small
portion of the Cupertino Urban Service area on the
east side of the city. The City of Sunnyvale Wastewater
Treatment Plant has a daily treatment capacity of 29 mgd
capacity, of which approximately 15 mgd are being utilized
in 2014. The CSD has a contractual treatment allocation
with the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant of 7.85 million gallon per day (mgd), on average.
Current wastewater flow to San Jose/Santa Clara Water
Pollution Control Plant is 5.3 mgd. The CSD prepared a
flow capacity analysis in 2008 and determined that 0.6 mgd
capacity remained for development beyond that previously
allocated and planned for under the General Plan. The
2014 General Plan Amendment and Housing Element EIR
identifies this as a significant and unavoidable impact, as
605
B-113
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
the combined 2014 project would generate an estimated
1.45 mgd of wastewater flows upon buildout, resulting
in a deficit of 0.85 mgd beyond the current contractually
available treatment capacity. However, both the SJ/
SCWPCP and City of Sunnyvale treatment plants have
excess capacity that could potentially treat new wastewater
flows associated with development pursuant to Housing
Element policy.
With regard to sewer capacity, some capacity deficiencies
exist in certain areas of Cupertino, including sewer lines
serving the City Center area and lines on Stelling Road
and Foothill Boulevard. To accommodate wastewater
from major new developments, the lines running at or
new capacity in these areas will have to be upgraded.
Under current practice, the CSD requires developers of
substantial projects to demonstrate that adequate capacity
exists, or to identify and fund the necessary mitigations.
CSD is, as of 2014, performing a capacity analysis of
their entire collection system. Improvements required to
mitigate system deficiencies as well as to accommodate
future development will be identified and added to their
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Capacity fees will
then be developed to fund the CIP. New development that
increases wastewater transmission and treatment demand
would be required to contribute towards system capacity
enhancement improvements through payment of the
capacity fee. In this manner, CSD would be responsible for
upgrading their system rather than placing the responsibility
on the developers of the largest wastewater generators, as
is currently the case. If and when this fee is developed and
implemented, it will create a more reliable and equitable
mitigation for new development.
Storm Drainage
Cupertino’s storm drain system consists of underground
606
B-114
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
pipelines that carry surface runoff from streets to prevent
flooding. Runoff enters the system at catch basins found
along curbs near street intersections and is discharged into
City creeks. The capacity of the storm drain facilities within
Cupertino was evaluated and documented in the 1993
Storm Drain Master Plan, which identifies the areas within
the system that do not have the capacity to handle runoff
during the 10-year storm event, which is the City’s design
standard. The City requires that all new developments
conform to this standard.
Open Space
Cupertino’s General Plan outlines a policy of having
parkland equal to three acres for every 1,000 residents.
Currently, Cupertino has approximately 162 acres of
parkland. Future development in Cupertino would increase
the need for new park land. The General Plan identified
an additional 49 acres of potential neighborhood and
community parks, which would be more than enough
to maintain the standard of three acres for every 1,000
residents. In addition, Cupertino’s park impact fees of
$8,100 to $15,750 per unit would generate funding for
the City to purchase new parkland and maintain existing
recreational resources.
Community Acceptance
Other constraints to housing production in the City include
community acceptance, specifically concerns about impacts
on the school districts, traffic, and parks. In particular,
neighbors have indicated resistance to the development
of buildings taller than two stories. Density and height are
more acceptable if buildings are well designed and along
corridors or adjacent to higher-density development.
In 2013 interviews, many stakeholders indicated that multi-
family projects tend to generate community opposition and
that there is some general fear of growth and increased
607
B-115
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
density in the City. Opposition from the community tends
to increase with the size and height of the project, as well
as the proximity to existing single-family neighborhoods.
To facilitate residential development and meet the RHNA
for this fifth cycle update, the City conducted an extensive
community outreach process to identify appropriate and
feasible sites for residential and mixed use development
over the next eight years. One of the objectives of this
process is to address community concerns.
Schools
Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union
High School District (FUHSD) are among the best in the
state. In addition, a portion of the City, in the northeast
corner, is also served by the Santa Clara Unified School
District. Residents are particularly concerned about the
impacts of new housing on schools. However, State law
(Government Code Section 65995[3][h]) provides that
payment of school impact fees fully mitigates impacts, and
as such, the City’s ability to require additional mitigation is
limited by State law.
CUSD is a rapidly growing school district. Enrollment has
increased every year during the last decade, increasing
from 15,575 in the fall of 2001 to 19,058 in the fall of 2013.
CUSD serves students from Cupertino and parts of San
Jose, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Santa Clara, and Los Altos at 20
elementary schools and five middle schools. Approximately
44 percent of CUSD’s students reside in Cupertino. In
total, 3,325 CUSD students (17 percent of total enrollment)
attend schools other than the school of their attendance
area. FUHSD served 10,657 students from Cupertino, most
of Sunnyvale and parts of San Jose, Los Altos, Saratoga,
and Santa Clara. The Santa Clara District is a medium size
district; as a unified district its 15,394 students are spread
from kindergarten through high school.
608
B-116
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Operating Costs and Finances
Most of CUSD revenues are tied to the size of enrollment.
The State Department of Education guarantees CUSD a
certain level of operations funding known as the “revenue
limit.” The Revenue Limit is established annually by the
State based on the District’s average daily attendance
(ADA).
The revenue limit is composed of State funding and
local property tax revenues. If the District’s property tax
revenufalls below the revenue limit in any given year,
the state will increase its contribution to make up the
difference. CUSD therefore relies on gradual, steady
increases in enrollment to maintain its financial health over
time. Because the revenue limit makes up the majority of
CUSD revenues, and this limit is tied directly to enrollment,
the District needs predictable, ongoing student growth
to keep up with costs. Declines in enrollment would
require the District to cut costs. The 2013-2014 school year
operating budget was $155.6 million. With the total of
19,053 enrolled students districtwide, the operating cost
per student for the school year was approximately $8,167.
In contrast, FUHSD relies on property taxes for most of its
revenue. FUHSD receives property taxes in excess of its
revenue limit. FUHSD keeps these additional revenues for
operations. As a result, the state does not provide annual
per-ADA funding. Therefore, FUHSD counts on a growing
property tax base to keep up with costs and maintain
per-student funding. New development helps promote a
healthy tax base over time. Multi-family development can
be particularly beneficial to the tax base, generating higher
revenues per acre than single-family homes. This translates
into more revenue for FUHSD. The FUHSD’s operating
budget for the school year 2013-2014 was $115 million.
With the total of 10,657 students enrolled, operating cost
609
B-117
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
per student was approximately $10,800.
Moreover, property taxes from new multi-family housing
can exceed the cost to FUHSD to serve students. Table
4.8 illustrates this point, using previously built projects as
examples. Nonetheless, FUHSD stresses that the impacts
of new residential development should be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis to mitigate any undue effects on the
District.
Enrollment and Facilities
Each of the local school districts expects to continue
growing over the next 10 years. CUSD and FUSD project
TABLE 4.7: COMPARISON OF FUHSD PROPERTY TAX
REVENUE PER ACRE
Multi-family HousingSingle-family housing
Value per Unit (a) $822,500 $1,550,000
Density (Units/Acre)20 5
Total Value/Acre $16,450,000 $7,750,000
Property Taxes to FUHSD per Acre (b)$27,965 $13,175
Notes:
(a) Median sales prices from July 2013 to June 2014
(b) FUHSD receives approximately 17% of 1% of assessed value.
Source: School House Services, 2014.
610
B-118
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
that a total of 1,321 new housing units would be built in
Cupertino in the years 2014 through 2023, and expects
enrollment to grow accordingly. It is important to note that
this growth comes from the other cities that the districts
serve, in addition to Cupertino. Cupertino-based students
comprise about 60 percent of enrollment in each district.
In addition to this housing growth, the recent surge in
enrollment at CUSD has been primarily in the younger
grades and these larger classes are now entering middle
school. Accordingly, by 2020 high school enrollment at
FUSD is projected to increase by over 1,000 students.
SCUSD anticipates a 13 percent increase in enrollment by
2023.
TABLE 4.8: FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF CUPERTINO DEVELOPMENTS ON FREMONT
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
MontebelloCity Center TravigneMetropolitanCivic Park
FUHSD REVENUE
Assessed Value of Dev’t $ 113,486,674$ 38,480,698$ 25,106,837 $ 65,788,586$ 116,329,797
Property Tax Revenue (a)$ 252,958$ 85,745$ 57,086$ 145,477$ 258,480
FUHSD COSTS
Number of Students in Dev’t 7 17 2 6 13
Cost to Serve Students (b)$ 75,600$ 183,60$ 21,600$ 64,800$ 140,400
NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)$ 177,358($ 97,855)$ 34,486$ 80,677$ 118,080
Notes:
(a) Percentage of base 1.0 percent property tax FUHSD receives (after ERAF shift) in TRA 13-003: 17%
(b) FUHSD Operating Cost per Student, FY 13-14: $10,800
Sources: Santa Clara County Assessor, Enrolment Projections Consultants, School House Services, 2014.
611
B-119
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The districts will continue to use their facilities efficiently to
accommodate projected growth. CUSD and FUHSD report
that their ability to absorb new students is not unlimited,
and rapid growth does pose a challenge. However, they
will strive to make space and maintain student-teacher
ratios through creative solutions such as relocating special
programs, adjusting schedules, selectively using modular
classrooms, and other approaches. In addition, FUHSD is
developing a plan to dedicate the $198 million raised from
Measure B (authorized in 2008) for facility improvements.
These include athletic facilities, solar power, IT systems,
infrastructure, classrooms, labs, and lecture halls.
The districts also augment their facilities using impact fees
from new development. CUSD receives $2.02 per square
foot in fees from residential development. FUHSD receives
$1.34 per square foot from new residential development.
In addition to the development impact fee, voters have
approved multiple bond measures for school facility
improvements. The districts can also address impacts on
19,346
11,654
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
CUSD
FUSD
Figure B-6
Enrollment Projections, 2008-2013, CUSD and FUHSD
612
B-120
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
a case-by-case basis, establishing partnerships with home
builders to construct new facilities or expand existing
schools.
Higher-density housing generally generates fewer students
per unit. Table 4.9 illustrates this trend among recently-built
projects in Cupertino. On average, the school districts
report that new single-family homes and townhouses
generate 0.8 K-12 students per unit, while new multi-family
homes generate 0.3 K-12 students per unit. In addition,
most enrollment growth comes from existing homes that
are either sold or rented to families with children, not new
development. Nonetheless, the districts indicate that new
housing will contribute to future demand for classroom
space, which the districts must address through the
strategies outlined above.
A comprehensive analysis of school impacts was completed
as part of the 2014 General Plan Amendment and 2015-
2023 Housing Element drafting. Four alternatives were
analyzed, consistent with the Environmental Impact Report
for the combined project. The existing General Plan and
Alternative A would result in the same level of residential
development. Alternatives B and C change the General
Plan designation and zoning for some sites to make more
TABLE 4.9: STUDENT GENERATION IN CUPERTINO DEVELOPMENTS
Higher Density Lower Density
MontebelloTravigneMetropolitanCivic Park
Density (Units/Acre)96 24 30 31
Students/Unit
CUSD (a)0.22 0.26 0.29 0.33
FHUSD (a)0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10
Total 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.43
Notes:
(a) Student enrollment data as of October 2013, provided by Enrolment Projection Consultants. Sources: City of
Cupertino; EPC 2014.
613
B-121
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
units possible. The analysis presented here pertains to the
portion of residential development estimated to take place
between 2015 and 2023 under each growth scenario, to
be consistent with the Housing Element time period. [This
section to be updated subsequent to City Council decision
on General Plan Alternatives.]
The projections in Table 4.10 are based on the rates of
generation of apartments built since 1995 in Cupertino,
which have a relatively small number of middle and high
school students in them. The largest numbers of potential
units and students are in the Garden Gate and Collins
elementary school attendance areas, in the Lawson
Middle School area, and in the Cupertino and Monta Vista
High School areas. Collins and Garden Gate Elementary
Schools and Cupertino High are, or will be, among the
schools with the greatest enrollment stress. The projected
student enrollment from new units is a small fraction of the
projected student enrollment from the existing units in the
City.
Capital costs to add capacity related to rising enrollment
are significant, and development impact fees from
residential development only cover a quarter of this cost.
TABLE 4.10: ESTIMATED STUDENT ENROLLMENT FROM NEW UNITS, 2015-2023
Existing
Conditions
Minimal Growth
A
Moderate Growth
B
Most Growth
C
By 2023
Number of Units Expected 1,140 1,140 1,060 1,993
CUSD Students Expected 365 365 339 638
FUHSD Students Expected 80 80 74 140
Total Students*445 445 413 778
* SCUSD enrollment impacts are relatively small, possibly either positive or negative.
614
B-122
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Table 4.11 indicates the estimated cost deficits related to
needed capital improvements associated with increases
in enrollment. This analysis does not include impact fee
revenue from non-residential development; as such cost
deficits may be somewhat overstated. [This section to be
updated subsequent to City Council decision on General
Plan Alternatives.]
4.4. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Maximizing energy efficiency and incorporating energy
conservation and green building features can contribute
to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters.
In addition, these efforts promote sustainable community
design and reduced dependence on vehicles, and can
significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In addition to compliance with state regulations,
the Environmental Resources/Sustainability, Land Use,
and Circulation Elements of the Cupertino General Plan
includes policies related to energy conservation and
efficiency. In particular, the Land Use Element provides
for higher-density housing in proximity to employment
centers and transportation corridors and includes mixed
use development where appropriate. In addition, the City
is undertaking an effort to prepare a Climate Action Plan
(CAP) by modifying the Regional Climate Action Plan to
suit the City’s needs in order to reduce greenhouse gas
TABLE 4.11: ESTIMATED CAPITAL FACILITIES NET IMPACTS (IN $ MILLIONS)
Existing
Conditions
Minimal Growth
A
Moderate Growth
B
Most Growth
C
By 2023
CUSD Net Capital
Facilities Cost Deficit $8.76 $8.76 $8.13 $15.31
FUHSD Net Capital
Facilities Cost Deficit $4.02 $4.02 $3.71 $7.03
* SCUSD receives large capital facilities and operating revenue benefits if development is significant.
615
B-123
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
emissions. The CAP will meet the regulatory requirements
of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly
known as AB 32. The Plan will include community-vetted
measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
in the region and locally to foster a healthy and resilient
Cupertino. Through extensive research and community
input, the CAP will meet statewide emission mitigation
targets and identify opportunities to reduce emissions that
impact the local environment.
The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance in 2012.
The ordinance aligns with the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen) which sets the threshold of
building codes at a higher level by requiring development
projects to incorporate green building practices. Cal Green
requires every new building built after January 1, 2011
to meet a certain baseline of efficiency and sustainability
standards. The ordinance aims to promote green practices
(e.g., water, energy and resource conservation) through the
design, construction and maintenance of new buildings and
existing buildings undergoing major renovations. The City’s
Green Building Ordinance applies to all new residential
and non-residential buildings and structures, additions,
renovations, and tenant improvements where CalGreen
and minimum green building measures are applicable.
For residential development the ordinance differentiates
between smaller projects of nine or less units and large
projects with more than nine units. The Ordinance requires
larger development projects to earn certification per the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or
Green Point Rating (GPR) standards. Smaller developments
must meet Cal Green’s minimum thresholds as established
by the state.
Utility providers serving Cupertino also encourage energy
and water conservation. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District offers rebate programs that can help residents and
616
B-124
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
businesses save both water and energy. Examples include
rebates for high-efficiency toilets and clothes waters,
converting high-water using landscape to low water using
landscape, and connecting a clothes washer to a graywater
irrigation system. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
offers energy efficiency rebates to property owners and
managers of multifamily dwellings that contain two or
more units. The program encourages owners of existing
properties to upgrade to qualifying energy-efficient
products in individual tenant units and in the common areas
of residential apartment buildings, mobile home parks and
condominium complexes.
The Housing Element contains policies and strategies to
promote energy conservation. For example, the City will
evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving
or reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements
at affordable housing projects (including both existing
and new developments that have fewer than ten units) to
exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green
Building Code.
4.5. Summary
Cupertino’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are not
development constraints to new housing production. The
Land Use/Community Design Element of the General
Plan identifies four categories of residential use and
four mixed use categories, while the Zoning Ordinance
permits residential development in seven districts, plus
planned development districts.
The Zoning Ordinance allows rotating and permanent
homeless shelters in the BQ Zone in compliance with
State law.
The Zoning Ordinance permits employee housing for
workers and their families in residentially zoned districts.
617
B-125
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site improvement, building code requirements, and
permit processing time in Cupertino are comparable to
surrounding communities and are not a development
constraint.
Development fees in Cupertino are comparable to those
in neighboring jurisdictions.
The lack of state and local funding sources for affordable
housing and limited access to financing, in conjunction
with the high cost and low supply of land, may constrain
housing development in the near term.
A potential constraint to housing development is
road capacity. Residential projects may be required to
undertake mitigation measures if developments result in
traffic impacts.
The stormwater drainage, water distribution, and
water supply systems are adequate to accommodate
anticipated growth in Cupertino and are not considered
constraints to development. Wastewater treatment is
reaching capacity in the area; however, existing plants
have some excess capacity to treat new wastewater
flows associated with development pursuant to Housing
Element policy. Some sewer line capacity deficiencies
also exist in certain areas of Cupertino—the Cupertino
Sanitary District is in the process of assessing deficiencies
and developing capacity fees intended to fund necessary
improvements.
Capacity and fiscal impacts to the Cupertino Union
School District, Fremont Union High School District and
the Santa Clara Unified School District must be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis. State law provides that payment
of school impact fees fully mitigates impacts, and as
such, the City’s ability to require additional mitigation is
limited by State law.
Community acceptance may serve as a constraint to
618
B-126
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
housing development. Over the past several years,
multi-family projects have been successfully opposed by
residents.
5. HOUSING RESOURCES
5.1. Overview of Available Sites for Housing
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to
demonstrate that the City of Cupertino has a sufficient
supply of land to accommodate its fair share of the region’s
housing needs during the RHNA projections period
(January 1, 2014 – October 31, 2022). The Government
Code requires that the Housing Element include an
“inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having the potential for
redevelopment” (Section 65583(a)(3)). It further requires
that the element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these
sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the
planning period.
Demonstrating an adequate land supply, however, is only
part of the task. The City must also show that this supply
is capable of accommodating housing demand from all
economic segments of the community. High land costs
in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for
affordable housing on sites that are zoned at relatively low
densities. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)
(3)(B), local governments may utilize “default” density
standards (e.g. the “Mullen Densities”) to provide evidence
that “appropriate zoning” is in place to accommodate
the development of housing for very-low and low-income
households . The purpose of this law is to provide a
numerical density standard for local governments, resulting
in greater certainty in the housing element review process.
Specifically, if a local government has adopted density
standards that comply with the criteria provided in the law,
619
B-127
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
no further analysis is required to establish the adequacy
of the density standard. The default density standard for
Cupertino and other suburban jurisdictions in Santa Clara
County to demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very
low income units is 20 dwelling units per acre or more.
5.2. Progress towards the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA)
California General Plan law requires each city and county
to have land zoned to accommodate its fair share of the
regional housing need. Pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65584, the state, regional councils of
government (in this case, ABAG) and local governments
must collectively determine each locality’s share of regional
housing need. The major goal of the RHNA is to assure a
fair distribution of housing among cities and counties in the
State so that every community provides for a mix of housing
for all economic segments. The housing allocation targets
are not building requirements; rather, they are planning
goals for each community to accommodate through
appropriate planning policies and land use regulations.
Allocation targets are intended to assure that adequate
sites and zoning are made available to address anticipated
housing demand during the planning period.
The RHNA for the ABAG region was adopted in July 2013.
This RHNA covers an 8.8-year projection period (January
1, 2014 through October 31, 2022)9 and is divided into
four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and
above moderate. As determined by ABAG, the City of
Cupertino’s fair share allocation is 1,064 new housing units
during this planning cycle, with the units divided among
the four income categories as shown in Table 5.1. Since
9 The Housing Element planning period differs from the RHNA projection
period—the period for which housing demand was calculated. The Housing
Element covers the planning period of January 31, 2015 through January 31,
2023.
620
B-128
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
the RHNA uses January 1, 2014 as the baseline for growth
projections for the 2014-2022 planning period, jurisdictions
may count toward the RHNA housing units developed,
under construction, or approved since January 1, 2014.
Between January 1, and May 31, 2014, building permits for
14 single-family housing units and three second units were
approved in Cupertino. In addition, six single-family homes
and seven apartments received Planning approvals (Table
5.1).
Also included in the RHNA credits are 32 second units
projected to be developed within the planning period.
As provided in Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)),
in addition to identifying vacant or underutilized land
resources, the City can address a portion of the RHNA
through an estimate of the number of second units
that may be permitted during the planning period. The
City approves an average of four second units per year.
Considering this track record, the City estimates that 32
second units will be approved over eight-year planning
period. Cupertino’s Zoning Ordinance permits second
dwelling units on lots in Single-Family Residential (R-1),
Residential Hillside (RHS), Agricultural (A), and Agricultural
Residential (A-1) Districts. Permit approval and architectural
review are done at the ministerial (building permit) level.
Consistent with Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)) and
HCD technical guidance documents, the City is applying
the second unit estimate towards its moderate income
RHNA. HCD has indicated that second-unit affordability can
be determined by examining market rates for reasonably
comparable rental properties and applying these rates to
estimate the anticipated affordability of second units. A
review of rental market conditions in Cupertino conducted
for this Housing Element found that the average cost of a
studio apartment is $1,608 and the average cost of a one-
bedroom apartment is $2,237. These rental rates are in the
621
B-129
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
range of moderate income rents as determined by HUD
(see Table 2.15: Maximum Affordable Housing Costs, Santa
Clara County, 2013). As these units are comparable in size
and occupancy to second units, it is reasonable to assume
that current rents for second units fall within affordability
levels for one-person moderate-income households.
Therefore, second units in the pipeline and the anticipated
32 second units are credited against the moderate income
RHNA. Recent research in the San Francisco Bay Area
suggest that that a sizable fraction of secondary units are
rented to acquaintances, friends or family, in some cases for
free and in other cases, for reduced rents10. This research
suggests that second units may in fact be a source of
affordable housing in the City at affordability levels lower
than the moderate-income level they are credited against.
Applying the projected 32 second units towards the
moderate income category is a conservative approach, and
is consistent with State law and HCD technical guidance
documents.
With these credits, the City has a remaining RHNA of 1,002
units: 356 extremely low/very low-income units, 207 low-
income units, 196 moderate-income units, and 243 above
moderate-income units.
10 Chapple, Karen and Jake Wegmann. Understanding the Market for Secondary
Units in the East Bay. UC Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Developmental.
Oct 2012.
622
B-130
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 5.1: REMAINING RHNA, CUPERTINO, 2014-2022
Units Constructed/Under
Construction/Permits Issued
Extremely
and Very
Low Income
(0-50% AMI)
Low Income
(51-80%
AMI)
Moderate
Income (81-
120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
Income
(121%+ AMI)
Total
Various Single-Family Units (Building Permits)---------14 14
Various Single-Family Units (Planning Permits)---------6 6
Multi-Family Units (Planning Permits)---------7 7
Second Units Permitted (Building Permits)------3*---3
Estimated Second Unit Production ------32*---32
Total ------35 27 62
2014-2022 RHNA 356 207 231 2701,064
RHNA Credits ------35 27 62
Remaining 2014-2022 RHNA356 207 196 2431,002
Source: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2014; City of Cupertino, 2014
Notes:
*These units do not have affordability restrictions. Market rate rents and sale prices for similar units fall within levels affordable to the
households earning moderate incomes (81-120% AMI) and are allocated as such.
623
B-131
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
5.3. General Plan Residential Allocations
Cupertino faces regional growth demands. It is also
undergoing a transformation from a traditional suburban
residential community to one that has more public
gathering spaces, shopping and entertainment choices,
and jobs within an urban core. How the City allocates
growth through the General Plan is critical in determining
the type of community Cupertino will be in the future.
Cupertino historically has more jobs than housing.
When this imbalance is multiplied across other adjacent
cities, regional consequences include high housing
costs, sprawl into outlying areas, congestion of the
transportation system, and increased air pollution. The
General Plan’s development allocation policies improve
the jobs/housing balance by increasing potential housing
units and decreasing non-residential square footage.
The current 2005 General Plan controls the amount of
commercial, office, hotel, and residential built in the
city through development allocations in terms of square
feet (commercial and office), rooms (hotel), and units
(residential). This allocation was updated in 2014 as part
of a comprehensive process that sought to replenish,
re-allocate, and increase citywide office, commercial, hotel,
and residential allocations in order to plan for anticipated
future development activity while keeping with the
community’s character, goals, and objectives.
5.4. Residential Capacity Analysis
Methodology
Like many cities in the Bay Area, Cupertino is largely built
out. As a result, opportunities for residential units will be
realized through the redevelopment of sites with existing
buildings. City staff undertook a deliberate site selection
process to ensure that future residential development on
624
B-132
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
the sites would: 1) have community support (see description
of community process below), 2) achieve community goals
of affordability and walkability, and 3) create a livable
environment for new residents and neighbors. To ensure
this, sites were selected based on the following criteria:
• Proximity to transportation corridors
• Proximity (preferably within walking distance) to amenities
such as schools, neighborhood services, restaurants and
retail
• Ability to provide smaller, more affordable units; sites
were selected in higher density areas to achieve this
• Create a livable community with the least impact on
neighborhoods; sites that had the most in common with
successfully developed sites were selected
• Corner lot location; such parcels provide the most
flexibility to accommodate mixed- use developments and
avoid impeding parking and connectivity between mid-
block parcels
In addition to the state-wide criteria that HCD uses to
determine site suitability, the Sustainable Communities
Strategy/One Bay Area Plan contributed additional criteria
regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG
region. The One Bay Area Plan is a long-range integrated
transportation and land-use/housing strategy through
2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area. The plan focuses
development in Priority Development Areas (PDA) which
are locally designated areas within existing communities
that have been identified and approved by local cities
or counties for future growth. These areas are typically
accessible to public transit, jobs, recreation, shopping and
other services, and absorb much of the growth anticipated
in the region. In Cupertino, a PDA is located along Stevens
Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the City of Santa
625
B-133
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Clara and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Highway 280. Key criteria in the Sustainable
Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan include:
• Location along major transportation routes with access
to transit or within ½ mile of a Valley Transit Authority-
designate PDA
• Proximity to employment and activity centers
• Proximity to amenities
With the selection criteria in mind, City staff conducted a
thorough study evaluating underutilized land in Cupertino.
These parcels included residentially zoned land as well as
other designations such as commercial and mixed use.
Community Involvement
To ensure that both community members and property
owners support of the Housing Element—and sites
inventory in particular—City staff engaged in an in-depth
community involvement process. The inventory of
residential opportunity sites was developed in consultation
with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission,
City Council, and members of the public. The Housing
Element and sites inventory was presented at a Planning
Commission and Housing Commission joint workshop, a
Housing Commission workshop, a Planning Commission
Open House and Study Session, and a City Council Study
Session. At each meeting, commissioners and council
members, as well as members of the public, discussed
the inventory. During these discussions, several sites were
removed and new sites were added based on input from
these various stakeholders. Decisions to add or remove
sites were based on realistic expectations for sites to be
redeveloped within the planning period.
In addition to consultation with various community
626
B-134
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
stakeholders, City staff reached out to individual owners
whose properties were identified as housing opportunity
sites. Each affected owner received a letter informing them
that their property had been identified by the City to be
included in its Housing Element as a housing opportunity
site. The letter provided information about the process and
the opportunity to provide feedback or express concerns.
Many property owners contacted staff to discuss inclusions,
but a few objected to the inclusion of their property in the
sites inventory. Staff also received request from property
owners to be included in the site inventory. The sites with
property owner development interest were evaluated
against the criteria described above. Sites that did not meet
the criteria were not included in the inventory. Sites where
the owner objected to inclusion were not included in the
final inventory.
While residential development may occur on other sites
not included in this inventory, the sites ultimately included
in this Housing Element are those the community believes
have the most realistic chance of redeveloping into housing
within the planning period. As a result of the community
engagement process, the sites inventory represents a list
of residential opportunity sites that the community has
thoroughly reviewed and supports.
627
B-135
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Determination of Realistic Capacity
Sites inventory capacity must account for development
standards such as building height restrictions, minimum
setbacks, and maximum lot coverage, as well as the
potential for non-residential uses in mixed-use areas. A
survey of recent developments (Table 5.2) indicates
that recent multi-family residential projects have built to
between 82 percent and 99.5 percent of the maximum
allowable density. To ensure that the sites inventory
provides a “realistic capacity” for each site, estimates for
maximum developable units on each site are conservatively
reduced by 15 percent.
TABLE 5.2 MIXED USE/MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EXAMPLES
Project Name:Rose Bowl
Mixed Use
Biltmore
Adjacency Oak Park Adobe
Terrace Metropolitan
Site Area (acres)5.9 3.24 1.6 1.0 3.3
Max. Density (dwelling units per acre)35 25 35 25 35
Max. Developable Units 205 81 56 25 116
Actual Units Developed 204 74 46 23 107
Actual/Max. Units 99.5%91.3%82%92%92%
Commercial Sq. Ft. as % of Total Sq. ft.37%2%NA 8%4%
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014
628
B-136
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Because of the desirability and high value of residential
property in Cupertino, developers are reluctant to include
ground floor commercial space in residential buildings,
even when land is zoned for mixed-use development. The
City must often encourage or request that ground-floor
commercial space be included in projects and commercial
space typically represents a small proportion of the total
development. Staff anticipates that this trend will continue,
and land zoned for mixed-use will achieve residential
densities at or above 85 percent of the maximum with
ground floor commercial space along the street frontage.
This trend is evident in the three mixed-use project
examples that contained ground floor commercial
development. The Biltmore Adjacency, Metropolitan and
Adobe Terraces projects are typical mixed-use, multi-
family developments in Cupertino. In both cases, the
commercial component represented a small portion of
the total square footage (between 2 and 8 percent). Even
with the provision of ground floor commercial space, these
developments were able to achieve 91 to 92 percent of the
maximum allowable residential units. The height limit of
developments in most of the major transportation corridors
is 45 feet at the minimum. Based on the development
experiences at the completed projects described above,
the density assumptions for mixed-use residential projects
at 85 percent of the maximum allowed is realistic.
The assumption that sites will achieve 85 percent of
the maximum allowable density is also realistic for sites
that allow for a variety of uses, including 100 percent
commercial development, in addition to residential
development and mixed-use development. This is
because of the high market value of available properties
for residential development. As discussed above,
the desirability and high value of residential property
in Cupertino encourages residential or mixed-use
629
B-137
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
development over exclusively commercial development.
All five example projects presented above were developed
in a zone that allows a mix of uses including exclusively
commercial and office development, further demonstrating
the strength of residential development over commercial
development in Cupertino.
5.5. Residential Sites Inventory
Cupertino has residential development opportunities
with sufficient capacity to meet and exceed the identified
housing need (Figure B-7). The opportunities shown in the
sites inventory consist predominantly of underutilized sites
that can accommodate 1,386 residential units on properties
zoned for densities of 20 dwelling units to the acre or more.
The sites inventory is organized by geographic area and
in particular, by mixed use corridors. As shown, a large
proportion of the near-term development potential lies
within the Heart of the City Special Area. One additional
site is located in the North De Anza Special Area.
As indicated in a market study completed in 2014, there is
a healthy demand for new housing and long-term trends
indicate market potential for additional development in
key areas throughout the city. The City has undertaken a
comprehensive General Plan Amendment that authorizes
new development capacity in the identified areas of the
City with highest demand. The market study further found
that existing demand is greatest for smaller, more affordable
units adjacent to services, retail, and entertainment options.
All sites in the Housing Element to meet the RHNA are
identified on major mixed-use corridors, close to services
and major employers.
As demonstrated previously, City leaders have a strong
record of supporting and facilitating the development of
residential projects in mixed-use areas and of intensifying
residential uses where appropriate within the context of the
630
B-138
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
general plan land use allocations. Regulatory standards,
including the revised Density Bonus Ordinance, are
intended to encourage additional residential development
on these sites. Altogether, the six sites ensure that
adequate sites beyond the remaining RHNA are provided
for in the planning period. No identified constraints on
these sites would prevent development or reuse during the
Housing Element period.
A parcel-specific listing of sites is included in Section 7.3:
Sites Inventory Table.
Heart of the City Special Area
The Heart of the City Special Area is a key mixed-use,
commercial corridor in Cupertino. Development within this
Special Area is guided by the Heart of the City Specific
Plan, which is intended to create a greater sense of
place, community identity, and a positive and memorable
experience for residents, workers and visitors in Cupertino.
The area encompasses approximately 635 acres along
Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the
eastern city limit. The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor
functions as Cupertino’s main mixed-use, commercial and
retail corridor.
A majority of the Heart of the City Special Area is located
within a Priority Development Area (PDA). PDAs are the
result of a regional initiative that identifies areas where new
development will support the day-to-day needs of residents
and workers in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by
transit. PDAs are critical components for implementing the
region’s proposed long term growth strategy. The level of
growth in each PDA reflects its role in achieving regional
objectives and how it fits into locally designated priority
growth plans. Cupertino’s PDA area, shown on Figure B-7,
includes properties within a quarter mile of Stevens Creek
Boulevard from Highway 85 to the City’s eastern border and
a portion of North and South De Anza Boulevards.
631
B-139
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North Vallco
Park:
344 Units
Heart of the
City:
1,042 Units
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Los Altos
Site 5
93 units
Site 1
235 units
Site 4
103 units
Site 6
11 units
Site 3
344 units
Site 2
600 units
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Special Areas
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
North Vallco Park
Heart of the City
Housing Elements
Sites
VTA Priority
Development Area
(PDA)
Site
units Site Number: Realistic
Capacity. Note: Realistic
capacity is 85% of maximum capacity
allowed under Alternative C
Figure B-7
Housing Element Sites to Meet the RHNA
632
B-140
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
To meet the RHNA, five sites encompassing over 92 acres
have been identified within the Heart of the City Special
Area boundaries; these sites can accommodate 1,042
units at densities greater than 20 units per acre. Four sites
are underutilized infill properties, one site is vacant. For
underutilized parcels, the age of onsite buildings and the
parcels’ improvement-to-land value (I/L) ratio suggest that
these sites are prime opportunities for redevelopment. In
addition, the redevelopment capacity of identified sites is
predicated on interest articulated by property owners and
recent development approvals in the area, including the
Metropolitan (107 units), Adobe Terrace (23 units), Main
Street (120 units), and Rose Bowl (204 units) mixed-use
projects.
Site 1 (The Oaks Shopping Center)
Site 1 is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd
between Highway 85 and Mary Avenue in the Oaks
Gateway within the Heart of the City Special Area. The
site is comprised of four parcels (with two owner entities
that function under the same ownership) totaling 7.9 acres
and is occupied by the Oaks Shopping Center. The center
has various small-scale commercial and restaurant tenants.
Although the Center is in relatively good condition, it was
originally constructed in 1976 as a single story with ample
surface parking, and has a resulting low floor-area ratio. The
I/L ratio for the consolidated property is estimated at 0.31.
The property owners are very interested in redevelopment
of the site with a mixed-use (residential and commercial)
product. The zoning for this property was revised in 2014 to
allow residential in addition to commercial uses.
The site presents a strong potential for a redevelopment
project that includes residential units based on its large
size, potential residential capacity, adjacent freeway access,
and location adjacent to residential development. A retail
633
B-141
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site 1: The Oaks Shopping Center
strategy report completed for Cupertino in 2014 identifies
the Oaks as a site well positioned for redevelopment,
perhaps as a retail-residential mixed-use project. Its location
on Stevens Creek Boulevard adjacent to Highway 85 and
in the Heart of the City District makes high-density multi-
family residential development feasible at this site. Several
relatively high-density mixed-use, residential projects are
in close proximity on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Site 1 is
located within a Priority Development Area.
The site is designated for Commercial/Office/Residential
in the General Plan, zoned Planned Development with
General Commercial and Residential (P[CG, Res]), and
allows for a maximum density of 35 units per acre. Site 1
has the potential to yield 235 units.
634
B-142
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site 2 (Vallco Shopping District )
The Vallco Shopping Mall is centrally located in the City.
The property was originally developed as an indoor mall
in the 1970s and consists of 14 parcels developed for
retail uses, anchored by Macy’s, Sears, JC Penny, and AMC
Theaters. The property has been remodeled several times
since it was built. Despite being the largest retail project
in the City, the Mall is largely vacant, save for the anchor
tenants who continue to perform well, primarily due to
low holding costs associated with the property. According
to stakeholders interviewed for a retail strategy report
completed in 2014, Vallco represents not only one of the
best-located properties in the City, but also one of the
City’s largest redevelopment opportunities.
The Vallco Shopping District is physically divided by North
Wolfe Road, but connected via an elevated bridge. The
47.83-acre site has five property owners, representing a
combination of investors and anchor tenants.
The 2014 retail strategy report also notes that there is
an oversupply of mall space in the United States, which
is affecting Vallco’s performance. The Mall operates in a
competitive environment with successful projects to the
north (Stanford Shopping Center), east (Valley Fair and
Santana Row), and south (Westgate Shopping Center). In
addition the nearby Main Street mixed-use development
will add an additional 125,000 square feet of retail,
further contributing to the market feasibility of alternate
(residential) uses on this site.
To revitalize this area, the City envisions a complete
redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a
vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for
regional visitors and the community. The site has a high
635
B-143
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site 2: Vallco Shopping District
potential for redevelopment due to expressed property
owner interest to redevelop and consolidate, high retail
vacancy rates, close proximity to major transportation
routes (freeway), and the potential to provide a
considerable number of units at the site. The high potential
development capacity and close proximity to two recently
constructed mixed-use projects (Rosebowl and Main Street)
further support redevelopment of the Vallco mall and the
inclusion of this site in the Housing Element. The General
Plan Land Use Element envisions complete redevelopment
of the property, and establishes a policy to create a specific
plan for the property to foster development of the cohesive
mixed-use district. The zoning for the site was modified
636
B-144
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
in 2014 to allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use
development.
The site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential in
the General Plan and zoned Planned Development with
Regional Shopping, Office Professional, and Residential
(P[Regional Shopping, OP, Res]) which allows for residential
uses at a maximum density of 35 units per acre. Site 2 has
the potential to yield 600 units.
Site 3 (The Hamptons)
Site 3 (The Hamptons) is discussed below under the North
Vallco Park Special Area.
Site 4 (United Furniture/East of E. Estates Drive)
Site 4 is located at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Miller Avenue and includes the properties on
both sides of Estates Drive, north of Richwood Drive. The
site is comprised of six parcels and a portion of E. Estates
Drive, totaling approximately 4.86 acres. The three parcels
on the west side of Estates Drive are occupied by an older
strip mall with a mix of occupied and vacant retail spaces.
The strip mall was built in 1960, and the I/L value of the
three parcels ranges from 0.01 to 0.28. The three parcels
are held in common ownership; lot consolidation would not
be necessary. The parcels on the west side of Estates Drive
were included in the 2007 Housing Element as a housing
site. Given the high level of expressed developer interest in
this site, three additional parcels on the east side of Estates
Drive have been added to the original site, one of which is
under common ownership with the parcels on the west side
of the site. The three parcels on the east side of Estates
Drive are currently used for commercial purposes and are
occupied by a gas station, a restaurant and a dental office.
637
B-145
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site 4: United Furniture/East of E. Estates Drive
The I/L of the three parcels east of Estates Drive ranges
from 0 to 1.6. Although one of the six parcels that comprise
the site has a higher improvement-to-land ratio, in general
the value of the land on this site significantly exceeds the
value of the buildings on the site.
Site 4 is one of the top redevelopment opportunities in the
city due to its prime location on Stevens Creek Boulevard
in the Heart of the City Special Area. Future development
on this large site could capture a portion of the road for a
cohesive development and benefit from its prime location
at the city’s core. Site 4 is located directly across from the
Vallco Shopping Mall and within one block of both the Rose
Bowl and Main Street mixed-use developments, both high-
intensity developments expected to be major community
focal points.
638
B-146
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The site also enjoys easy freeway access, is located in an
area that is best served by public transportation, and is
adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Developers
have consistently expressed interest in redeveloping this
site. Site 4 is located within a Priority Development Area.
The site is designated for Commercial/Office/Residential
and is within the Planned Development with General
Commercial and Residential (P[CG, Res)] zone which allows
for a maximum density of 25 units per acre. Site 4 has the
potential to yield 103 units.
Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments)
Site 5 contains the Glenbrook Apartments that are not
built to the maximum allowed density in the Heart of
the City Special Area. The apartment complex has large
open spaces that exceed open space requirements
established in the Zoning Code. As such, additional units
could be built on the site. Spanning 31.3 acres, the site
could accommodate 626 units under existing zoning,
which allows for a density of 20 dwelling units to the
acre. However, the Glenbrook Apartments only contains
517 units, resulting in additional potential for up to 109
residential units. Assuming Glenbrook Apartments is able
to achieve 85 percent of the site’s remaining capacity, the
realistic net yield for Site 5 is 93 new units. A similar type
of infill development that involves the expansion of garden
apartment complexes has previously been approved and
completed in Cupertino at the Markham (formerly known
as Villa Serra) and Biltmore developments. At the Biltmore,
carports were demolished and new units constructed above
ground-floor parking. New units and additional parking
were added to the Markham complex in surplus open
space and recreational areas. The Biltmore project added
29 units for a total project size of 179 units, while the Villa
Serra development added 117 units to achieve a total of
639
B-147
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site 5: Glenbrook Apartments
506 units. In both cases, existing units were not destroyed
to accommodate the expansion. Furthermore, in 2013 the
Biltmore added six units by demolishing existing carports
and has received entitlements to add seven units above
a clubhouse serving the development in an existing open
space area in 2014.
Similar to the Biltmore Apartments, the Glenbrook
Apartments complex has large areas of land dedicated to
carports. As was done in the Biltmore development, the
carport areas can be converted to ground floor parking with
new units above. Additional units could be constructed
without affecting existing residential units at the site.
This site was recommended by members of the public and
the community supports the expansion of the Glenbrook
Apartments. The trend of adding new units to existing
garden apartment complexes is expected to continue in
Cupertino due to the limited supply of vacant land and the
high demand for residential units in the city. The financial
feasibility of additional units on Site 5 is particularly strong
because the property has long-time landowners who
purchased the land when prices were much lower. Site 5
was included in the 2007 Housing Element.
640
B-148
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
The site is designated in the General Plan as Medium
Density (10 to 20 dwelling units per acre) and zoned Multi-
Family Residential (R3), allowing for a maximum density of
20 units per acre. Site 5 has the potential to yield 93 new
units.
Site 6 (Barry Swenson)
Site 6 is a vacant 0.55-acre property located along
the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, mid-block
between Finch Avenue and North Tantau Avenue. The
site is located across the street from the 17.4-acre Main
Street mixed-use project constructed in 2014. Main Street
is a high-intensity development expected to be major
community focal point. Although Site 6 is relatively small
compared to other sites included in the inventory, its
location on Stevens Creek Boulevard and in the Heart of
the City Special Area is conducive to relatively dense multi-
family residential development. Furthermore, high-density
multi-family development has been built on parcels of less
than one acre in Cupertino, including the 23-unit Adobe
Terrace project. The site is located along one of the major
transportation corridors in Cupertino, and in close proximity
to services and public transportation in the Heart of the City
Special Area. The owner of the property has expressed
interest in developing with residential uses, including
affordable products. Site 6 is located within a Priority
Development Area.
Site 6 was included in the 2007 Housing Element. The site
is designated in the General Plan for Commercial/Office/
Residential and is within the Planned Development with
General Commercial and Residential (P[CG, Res]) zone,
which allows for a maximum density of 25 units per acre.
Site 6 has the potential to yield 11 units.
641
B-149
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Site 6: Berry Swenson Property
TABLE 5.1: SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY IN HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL
AREA
Site General Plan/Zoning
Max
Density
(DUA)
Acres
Realistic
Capacity
(units)
Affordability
Level
Site 1 (The Oaks Shopping Center)C/O/R
P(CG, Res, OP)
357.9235 Very Low/Low
Site 2 (Vallco Shopping District)C/O/R
P(Regional Shopping,
OP, Res)
3547.83 600 (max)Very Low/Low
Site 4 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive)C/O/R
P(CG, Res)
254.86103 Very Low/Low
Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments)Medium Density
R3(10-20)
2031.3493 Very Low/Low
Site 6 (Barry Swenson)C/O/RP(CG, Res)250.5511 Very Low/Low
Total 92.481,042
Notes:
(a) Realistic capacity for each site reduces the maximum developable units by 15 percent.
(b) Identified capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 20 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based
on State law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), local governments may utilize “default” density standards to provide
evidence that “appropriate zoning” is in place to support the development of housing for very-low and low-income households . The default
density standard for Cupertino and other suburban jurisdictions in Santa Clara County is 20 dwelling units per acre (DUA) or more.
(c) Residential capacity for Site 5 reflects a net increase in units.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014
642
B-150
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
North Vallco Park Special Area
The North Vallco Park Special Area encompasses 240 acres
and is an important employment center for Cupertino and
the region. The area is located in the northeastern corner
of the City, bounded by Homestead Road to the north and
Interstate 280 to the south. The area is defined by Apple
Campus 2 and the North Vallco Gateway. The North Vallco
Gateway includes a medium to high-density multi-family
residential project east of Wolfe Road and two hotels and
the Cupertino Village Shopping Center west of Wolfe
Road. The North Vallco Park area is envisioned to become
a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded
by a mix of connected, high-quality and pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. Taller
heights may be allowed in the North Vallco Gateway
pursuant to the Land Use and Community Design Element.
The Apple 2 Campus is expected to be a significant
catalyst for residential development in this vicinity. The area
accordingly presents a prime opportunity for redevelopment.
Site 3 (The Hamptons)
Site 3 is located at the south-east corner of the intersection
of Pruneridge Avenue and North Wolfe Road adjacent
to the recently approved Apple Campus 2. The site is
comprised of two parcels totaling 12.44 acres and is currently
occupied with a 342-unit multi-family housing development
and surface parking lots. The site’s property owners have
expressed interest in redeveloping the site with significantly
higher residential densities than what exists today. Such a
redevelopment will create an opportunity to reduce vehicle
trips for employees living within walking and bicycling
distance to this regional employment hub. The property
owner has publically voiced interest in redevelopment of the
property to provide additional residential units.
The site has a land use designation of High Density (greater
than 35 du/ac), zoned Planned Development (P [Res]), and
643
B-151
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
allows for a maximum density of 65 units per acre. Site 3 has
the potential to yield 344 net units, for a total of 686 units
on site. The close proximity to major transportation routes
(freeway) and adjacency to a major new employment center
(Apple Campus 2), coupled with the high demand for multi-
family residential units in Cupertino, make this site ideal for
intensification.
Site 3: The Hamptons
TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY IN NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL
AREA
Site General Plan/Zoning
Max
Density
(DUA)
Acres
Realistic
Capacity
(units)
Affordability
Level
Site 3 (The Hamptons)High Density
P(Res)
6512.44344 Very Low/Low
Total 12.44344
Notes:
1. Realistic capacity for each site reduces the maximum developable units by 15 percent.
2. Identified capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 20 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based
on State law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), local governments may utilize “default” density standards to provide
evidence that “appropriate zoning” is in place to support the development of housing for very-low and low-income households . The default
density standard for Cupertino and other suburban jurisdictions in Santa Clara County is 20 dwelling units per acre (DUA) or more.
3. Residential capacity for Site 3 reflects a net increase in units.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014
644
B-152
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
5.6. Adequacy of Sites for RHNA
The sites inventory identifies capacity for 1,386 units, all of
which are on sites suitable for development of affordable
housing. Overall, identified housing sites have the ability
to adequately accommodate the remaining RHNA of 1,002
units. Table 5.3 summarizes the RHNA status.
TABLE 5.3: COMPARISON OF SITES AND RHNA
Income Category Sites Remaining
RHNA
Surplus/
Shortfall(+/-)
Extremely Low and Very Low1,386 356
Low --207
Moderate --196
Above Moderate --243
Total 1,386 1,002+384
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014
5.7. Environmental Constraints
The sites inventory analysis reflects land use designations
and densities established in the General Plan Land Use
and Community Design Element. Thus, any environmental
constraints that would lower the potential yield have already
been accounted for. Sites identified to meet the RHNA are
located in urbanized areas on previously developed sites;
as such, there are no wetlands or other important biological
issues of concern.
Any additional constraints that would occur on a more
detailed site review basis would be addressed as part of
the individual project review process. The capacity to meet
the regional share and individual income categories are not
constrained by any environmental conditions.
645
B-153
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
5.8. Availability of Site Infrastructure and
Services
Site development potential indicated in the sites inventory
is consistent with (and in most cases lower than) the
development capacity reported in the Land Use and
Community Design Element. Full urban-level services are
available throughout the city and specifically to each site in
the inventory. Such services are more than adequate for the
potential unit yield on each site. As indicated in the EIR for
the General Plan Amendment and the Housing Element,
there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the sites
identified to meet the RHNA. With regard to sewer capacity,
some capacity deficiencies exist in certain areas of Cupertino,
including sewer lines serving the City Center area and lines
on Stelling Road and Foothill Boulevard. As a result, the
Cupertino Sanitary District requires developers of substantial
projects to demonstrate that adequate capacity exists, or to
identify the necessary mitigations. Development within these
areas is reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that
adequate sewer capacity exists.
5.9. Zoning for Emergency Shelters and
Transitional and Supportive Housing
To facilitate the development of emergency housing and
comply with State law, the City amended the Zoning Code
in 2010 to address emergency shelters and transitional and
supportive housing.
Emergency Shelters
An emergency shelter is a facility that provides temporary
housing with minimal supportive services and is limited
to occupancy of six months or less. Emergency homeless
shelters are designated as a permitted use in the Quasi
Public Building (BQ) zone. The ordinance includes the
following emergency shelter operational regulations:
• The number of occupants does not exceed 25
646
B-154
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
• Adequate supervision is provided
• Fire safety regulations are met
• A management plan is provided which includes a
detailed operation plan
• Shelter is available to any individual orhousehold
regardless of their ability to pay
• Occupancy is limited to six months or less.
HE-Strategy 22 states that the City will ontinue to facilitate
housing opportunities for special needs persons by allowing
emergency shelters as a permitted use in the “BQ” Quasi-
Public zoning district.
In addition, rotating homeless shelters are also permitted
within existing church structures in the BQ zone under similar
conditions. The operation period of rotating shelters cannot
exceed two months in any one-year span at a single location.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is defined as rental housing for stays of
at least six months but where the units are re-circulated to
another program recipient after a set period. Supportive
housing has no limit on the length of stay, and is linked
to onsite or offsite services. Senate Bill 2 clarified that
transitional housing and supportive housing constitute
residential uses. Zoning ordinances must treat transitional
and supportive housing as a proposed residential use
and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other
residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In
Cupertino, transitional and supportive housing developments
are treated as residential land uses subject to the same
approval process and development standards as other
residential uses. The Zoning Code lists transitional
and supportive housing as a permitted use in all zones
allowing residential. These facilities are subject to the same
development standards and permit processing criteria
647
B-155
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
required for residential dwellings of the same type in the
same zones.
5.10. Financial Resources for Housing
The City of Cupertino has access to a variety of funding
sources for affordable housing activities. These include
programs from federal, state, local, and private resources.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program
Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program, the federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments
for funding a wide range of housing and community
development activities for low-income persons. During the
2013 fiscal year, the City of Cupertino received $342,702 in
CDBG funds. CDBG funds are used for public services, site
acquisition, housing rehabilitation, and fair housing/housing
counseling activities.
HOME Investment Partnership Program
(HOME)
The City of Cupertino is proposing to enter into a multi-city
HOME Consortium with the County of Santa Clara. If the
HOME Consortium is approved, developers of eligible
affordable housing projects within the City of Cupertino
could competitively apply annually to the County of Santa
Clara for HOME Funds for City of Cupertino affordable
housing projects. If the HOME Consortium is approved
the initial program year in which HOME funds will become
eligible to the City of Cupertino will begin July 1, 2015.
Eligible HOME activities may include, but are not limited
to acquisition, construction, rehabilitation and tenant based
rental assistance (TBRA).
Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside Funds
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing set-aside funds,
which used to be a primary local funding source for
648
B-156
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
affordable housing, are no longer available to assist in new
affordable housing development or acquisition/rehabilitation
of existing units for conversion into affordable housing. This
loss is associated with the Governor’s 2011 state budget
revisions and subsequent court cases, and as a result,
funding sources for affordable housing are significantly
more constrained. Cupertino’s Redevelopment Agency
dissolved as of February 1, 2012 according to state law. The
City elected to become a Successor to the Redevelopment
Agency (Successor Agency) in order to manage the wind-
down of remaining contracts and obligations of the former
Redevelopment Agency. The City does not have any
available housing bond funds remaining from this source nor
is it anticipated to receive program income in the future.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program
has been used in combination with City and other resources
to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental
housing for lower-income households. The program allows
investors an annual tax credit over a 10-year period, provided
that the housing meets the following minimum low-income
occupancy requirements: 20 percent of the units must be
affordable to households at 50 percent of AMI or 40 percent
of the units must be affordable to those at 60 percent of
AMI. The total credit over the 10-year period has a present
value equal to 70 percent of the qualified construction and
rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to
large investors at a syndication value.
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program
The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program was created
by the federal government, but the program is locally
administered by the County of Santa Clara to assist first-time
homebuyers in qualifying for a mortgage. The IRS allows
eligible homebuyers with an MCC to take 20 percent of
their annual mortgage interest as a dollar-for-dollar tax credit
against their federal personal income tax. This enables
649
B-157
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
first-time homebuyers to qualify for a larger mortgage than
otherwise possible, and thus can bring home ownership
within reach. In 1987, the County of Santa Clara established
an MCC Program that has since assisted over 200 low
and moderate-income first time homebuyers in Cupertino
to qualify for a mortgage. However, as housing prices
continue to rise in Cupertino, use of MCC has become less
feasible. During the last Housing Element period, the MCC
Program assisted three Cupertino low- and moderate-income
residents.
Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly known
as Section 8 Rental Assistance) is a federal program that
provides rental assistance to very-low income persons in
need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher
that pays the difference between the current fair market rent
and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30 percent of their
income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing
that may cost above the payment standard but the tenant
must pay the extra cost.
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Housing Trust Silicon Valley provides loans and grants
to increase the supply of affordable housing, assist first-
time homebuyers, prevent homelessness and stabilize
neighborhoods. The Housing Trust’s Affordable Housing
Growth Fund intakes funds from local jurisdictions and
provides matching grants for predevelopment activities,
acquisition, and construction and rehabilitation of multi-
family affordable housing developments. The City of
Cupertino has contributed to the Fund through its former
Redevelopment Agency.
Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing
Fund (AHF)
The City of Cupertino has a Below Market Rate Affordable
Housing Fund that provides financial assistance to affordable
650
B-158
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
housing projects, programs and services. The City requires
payment of an Office and Industrial Mitigation fee, which
is assessed on developers of office and industrial space
and a Housing Mitigation fee, which is assessed on
developers of market-rate rental housing to mitigate the
need for affordable housing created by new development.
Developers of for-sale housing with six or fewer units are
required to pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers
of market-rate rental units, where the units cannot be
sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to
the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be consistent with
recent court decisions and the State Costa-Hawkins Act
regarding rent control. All affordable housing mitigation
fees are deposited into the City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR)
Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). Recent funding activities
have included loans and grants to non-profit developers for
acquisition and rehabilitation activities and public services
such as landlord/tenant mediation services provided through
Project Sentinel, and assistance to very low income persons
and families provided through West Valley Community
Services. As of 2014, there is approximately $7 million in the
BMR Affordable Housing Fund.
General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG)
Program
Annually, the City of Cupertino provides approximately
$40,000 to non-profit agencies providing needed services
to Cupertino residents. HSG Program funds are proposed to
be allocated on a competitive basis toward eligible public
service activities. Recent recipients have used the funds to
provide transitional housing for domestic violence victim,
senior adult day care services and legal assistance services to
seniors.
6. ANALYSIS OF CONSISTENCY WITH
GENERAL PLAN
The City’s various General Plan components were reviewed
to evaluate their consistency with the policies and strategies
outlined in the Housing Element Update. The following
651
B-159
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
section summarizes the goals of each General Plan element
and identifies supporting Housing Element policies and
strategies. This analysis demonstrates that the policies and
strategies of this Housing Element provide consistency with
the policies set forth in the General Plan and its associated
elements. When amendments are made to the safety,
conservation, land use, or other elements of the City’s
General Plan, the housing element will be reviewed for
internal consistency.
Section 6.1. Land Use/Community Design
Goals
• Create a cohesive, connected community with a
distinctive center and an identifiable edge
• Ensure a compact community boundary that allows
efficient delivery of municipal services
• Establish a high sense of identity and community
character
• Maintain a thriving and balanced community
• Promote thriving and diverse businesses that bring
economic vitality to the community, while balancing
housing, traffic and community character impacts
• Protect hillsides and promote regional planning
coordination
• Expand City-wide access to community facilities and
services
• Protect historically and archaeologically significant
structures, sites and artifacts
• Promote a civic environment where the arts express an
innovative spirit, celebrate a rich cultural diversity and
inspire individual and community participation
• Create a full range of park and recreational resources that
652
B-160
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
link the community, provide outdoor recreation, preserve
natural resources and support public health and safety
Supporting Housing Element Policies
Policies HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, HE-5, and HE-13
Supporting Housing Element Strategies
HE Strategies 1 and 26
Section 6.2. Circulation
Goals
• Advocate for regional transportation planning decisions
that support and complement the needs of Cupertino
• Increase the use of public transit, carpools, bicycling,
walking and telecommuting
• Create a comprehensive network of pedestrian and
bicycle routes and facilities
• Increased the use of public transit service and encourage
the development of new rapid transit service
• Maintain roadway designs that accounts for the needs of
motorists, pedestrians, bicycles and adjacent land uses
• Minimize adverse traffic and circulation impacts on
residential neighborhoods
Supporting Housing Element Policies
Policy HE-3 and HE-14
Supporting Housing Element Strategies
HE Strategies 3 and 26
Section 6.3 Environmental Resources/
Sustainability
Goals
653
B-161
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
• Ensure a sustainable future for the City of Cupertino
• Reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources
• Improve energy conservation and building efficiency
• Maintain healthy air quality levels for the citizens of
Cupertino through local planning efforts
• Protect specific areas of natural vegetation and wildlife
habitation to support a sustainable environment
• Ensure mineral resource areas minimize community
impacts and identify future uses
• Ensure the protection and efficient use of water
resources
• Improve the quality of storm water runoff
• Reduce locally produced solid waste in order to reduce
energy, protect resources and meet or exceed state
requirements
• Ensure adequate sewer capacity
• Ensure adequate public infrastructure for existing uses
and planned growth
Supporting Housing Element Policies
Policies HE-10 and HE-14
Supporting Housing Element Strategies
HE Strategies 20, 21 and 26
Section 6.4 Health and Safety
Goals
• Reduce hazard risks through regional coordination and
mitigation planning
• Reduce risks associated with geologic and seismic
hazards
654
B-162
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
• Protect the community from hazards associated with
wildland and urban fires through efficient and effective
fire and emergency services
• Minimize the loss of life and property through
appropriate fire prevention measures
• Create an all-weather emergency road system to serve
rural areas
• Ensure available water service in the hillside and canyon
areas
• Ensure high quality police services that maintain the
community’s low crime rate and ensure a high level of
public safety
• Protection people and property from the risks
associated with hazardous materials and exposure to
electromagnetic fields
• Ensure a high level of emergency preparedness to cope
with both natural or human-caused disasters
• Protect people and property from risks associated with
floods
• Maintain a compatible noise environment for existing and
future land uses
• Reduce the noise impact from major streets and freeways
on Cupertino residents
• Protect residential areas as much as possible from
intrusive non-traffic noise
• Design buildings to minimize noise
Supporting Housing Element Policies
N/A
655
B-163
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Supporting Housing Element Strategies
N/A
7. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
7.1 Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11
and 12, 2013 to solicit input from stakeholders ranging
from community members, property owners, housing
developers, service providers, School Districts and the
business community. The following agencies were invited
to participate (bolded agencies and persons participated,
totaling 25 people):
Advocates for a Better Cupertino
CARe (Cupertino Against Rezoning)
CCC (Concerned Citizens of Cupertino)
Cupertino Citizens for Fair Government (CCFG)
De Anza College
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Asian American Business Council
West Valley Community Services
League of Women Voters
HBANC (Bay Area Building Industry Association)
Housing Choices Coalition
Organization of Special Needs Families
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
Live Oak Adult Day Services
656
B-164
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Maitri
Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA)
Rotary Club
Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley
Senior Housing Solutions
Charities Housing
YWCA Silicon Valley-Support Network Department
United Way Silicon Valley
Outreach and Escort
Santa Clara Family Health Foundation
Support Network for Battered Women
Institute for Age-Friendly Housing
Senior Citizens Commission
Santa Clara County Council of Churches
Mid Pen Housing
Habitat For Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
Chinese American Realtors Association
Fremont Union High School District
Cupertino-Fremont Council of PTA
Cupertino Union School District
Modena Investments LP, Sunnyvale Holding LLC
Altos Enterprises Inc., Alpha Investments & Property
Management Co.
LPMD Architects
Unaffiliated builders, lenders, and property owners
657
B-165
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
A summary of common themes from the interviews is
summarized below. All comments and ideas are reported
in aggregate and not attributed to any individual or
organization.
Housing Needs:
• Overall housing affordability and the difference
between housing demand and supply at all income
levels
• Need for diversity of affordable rental units at all
income levels and all household types
• Need to accommodate a growing aging population
• Smaller units including innovative housing models
(e.g. dorms/boarding houses, senior care homes,
efficiency studios, shared & co-housing, micro units)
Community acceptance:
• Acceptance is low due to impacts on schools, privacy,
parking, noise and traffic
• Support for mixed use development in the style of
Santana Row and Downtown Mountain View
• Improved local governmental transparency and
community development
Type of development:
• Developers and advocates felt that three to five
story development is appropriate for adding units
but community representatives are concerned about
increased height of multi-family development
658
B-166
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
Barriers to development of affordable housing include:
• Financial constraints, particularly due to the
dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies and
elimination of many federal and state funding sources
and
• Lack of community and political support for housing
Community and Business Groups:
• Housing is a “choke point” in regional economy since
it is hard to attract and retain employees in a highly
competitive housing market
• Several interviewees felt that private employers
should be obligated to provide more resources to
housing
• Many felt that while employers feel concerned about
schools and housing, they generally work to limit fees
and taxes to businesses
School Districts:
• Schools in the northern part of the City are impacted
due to higher student generation rates in existing
housing while capacity in the south of the city is
declining, likely due to aging households.
• Capacity, where needed, is being expanded by
adding new buildings or, preferably, temporary and
modular units.
• Currently using programs, centers and busing to
distribute students
• Reluctant to re-district since homeowners purchase
homes based on the school service areas
• Most of the Apple Campus 2 school impact fees will
be allocated to the Santa Clara Unified School District
659
B-167
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
while they expect that most employees who move to
the area will reside within the CUSD service
7.2. Review of Previous Housing Element
A thorough review of the City’s housing plan constitutes
an important first step in updating the Cupertino Housing
Element. This section provides an evaluation of the City’s
progress towards achieving housing goals and objectives
as set forth in the prior Housing Element, and analyzes
the efficacy and appropriateness of the City’s housing
policies and programs. This review forms a key basis for
restructuring the City’s housing plan to meet the housing
needs of the Cupertino community. Table 7.1 provides a
detailed summary of the City’s progress in implementing the
programs outlined in the 2007-2014 Housing Element and
Table 7.2 summarizes the City’s progress toward its RHNA.
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments
Policy 1: Sufficiently Residentially Zoned Land for New Construction Need
Program 1: Zoning and Land Use
Designations
Rezone one property (APN: 326-10-046)
of 7.98 acres from 10 units per acre to 25
units per acre to accommodate up to 199
units.
The City completed the rezoning of 7.98
acres of land from 10 du/ac to 25 du/ac in
2010. The City is currently updating the
Land Use Element concurrent with the
Housing Element update. The Land Use
Element update will likely result in addi-
tional sites for residential and mixed use
development to accommodate the fifth
cycle RHNA of 1,064 units.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element to reflect the need to maintain
an inventory of sites to accommodate the
new RHNA of 1,064 units.
Program 2: Second Dwelling Unit
Ordinance
Continue to implement ordinance to
achieve 25 second units
Between 2007 and 2013, 31 second units
were constructed in the City.
This program continues to be appropriate
for the City and is proposed to be includ-
ed in the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Program 3: Encourage Lot Consolidation
Continue to encourage lot consolidation
through master plans. Provide technical
assistance to property owners.
The City continues to provide assistance
to property owners regarding lot consoli-
dation.
This is an ongoing activity and is pro-
posed to be included and revised in the
2014-2022 Housing Element.
660
B-168
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households
Policy 2: Housing Mitigation Plan
Program 4: Housing Mitigation Plan –
Office and Industrial Mitigation
Continue to implement Office and
Industrial Mitigation fee program.
Between 2007 and 2013, $1,195,414
had been collected through the Housing
Mitigation Program (Office/Industrial and
Residential) and deposited to the Below
Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing
Fund (AHF).
This program represents a key financ-
ing mechanism for affordable housing in
Cupertino and is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element.
Program 5: Housing Mitigation Program –
Residential Mitigation
Continue to implement the “Housing
Mitigation” program to mitigate the need
for affordable housing created by new
market-rate residential development.
Between 2007 and 2013, 20 Below
Market Rate (BMR) units were cre-
ated through the Residential Housing
Mitigation Program:
• 17 BMR rental units (Markham)
• 3 BMR ownership units (Las Palmas)
The City contracts with West Valley
Community Services (WVCS) to admin-
ister the Below Market-Rate (BMR)
Affordable Housing Program which
includes placing eligible households in the
City’s BMR units.
Between 2007 and 2013, $1,195,414
had been collected through the Housing
Mitigation Program (Office/Industrial and
Residential) and deposited to the City’s
Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF).
This program represents a key mechanism
for affordable housing in Cupertino and
is proposed to be included and revised in
the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Program 6: Affordable Housing Fund
Provide financial assistance to affordable
housing developments. Expend housing
funds in the following manner:
• Finance affordable housing projects.
• Establish a down payment assistance
plan that may be used in conjunction
with the BMR program or to make
market rate units more affordable.
• Establish a rental subsidy program
to make market rate units more
affordable.
Between 2007 and 2013, $1,195,414
had been collected through the Housing
Mitigation Program (Office/Industrial and
Residential) and deposited to the City’s
Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF). These funds were
used to support affordable housing proj-
ects, programs and services such as:
• Project Sentinel – Landlord/Tenant
Mediation Services
• West Valley Community Services
(WVCS) – BMR Program
Administration
• 19935 Price Avenue – Acquisition of
affordable housing residential rental
property.
However, the City did not establish a
downpayment assistance program or a
rental subsidy program.
The City will continue to utilize the Below
Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing
Fund (AHF) to support affordable hous-
ing projects, programs and services. This
program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element with a revised expanded list of
potential eligible uses of funds.
661
B-169
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Policy 3: Range of Housing Types
Program 7: Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC) Program
Participate in the countywide MCC pro-
gram to assist one to two households
annually.
The County of Santa Clara continues to
operate this program. However, given the
high home prices in Cupertino, the poten-
tial of utilizing this program is limited.
As of 2013, the maximum purchase price
limits were $570,000 for resale properties
and $630,000 for new units.
This program is proposed to be included
in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as
a new program – Referral to Housing
Resources.
Program 8: Move-In for Less Program
Program is offered by the Apartments
Association.
This program offered by the Tri-County
Apartment Association was discontinued in
2010.
This program is proposed to be removed
from the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Program 9: Surplus Property for Housing
Explore opportunities on surplus proper-
ties as follows:
• In conjunction with local public
agencies, school districts and
churches, develop a list of surplus
property or underutilized property
that have the potential for residential
development.
• Encourage long-term land leases
of property from churches, school
districts corporations for construction
of affordable units.
• Evaluate the feasibility of developing
special housing for teachers or other
employee groups on the surplus
properties.
• Review housing programs in
neighboring school districts that
assist teachers for applicability in
Cupertino
As part of the 2014-2022 Housing
Element update and concurrent Land Use
Element update, the City has explored
and prioritized various vacant and under-
utilized properties with potential residen-
tial and mixed use development within
the next eight years. These properties
are included in the sites inventory for the
Housing Element
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2015-2023 Housing
Element.
Program 10: Jobs/Housing Balance
Program
Require major new office/industrial devel-
opment to build housing as part of new
development projects.
The City’s General Plan and 2007-2014
Housing Element offer adequate capac-
ity to accommodate the City’s RHNA for
the planning period. The City continues
to implement its Housing Mitigation
Program to enhance the jobs/housing bal-
ance in the community.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element as key elements of three new
programs – Land Use Policy and Zoning
Provisions, Housing Mitigation Plan –
Office and Industrial Mitigation and
Housing Mitigation Plan – Residential
Mitigation.
662
B-170
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Policy 4: Housing Rehabilitation
Program 11: Affordable Housing
Information and Support
Provide information, resources and sup-
port to developers who can produce
affordable housing
The City continues to provide informa-
tion, resources, and support to develop-
ers.
This program is proposed to be included
in the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Policy 5: Development of Affordable Housing
Program 12: Density Bonus Program
Allow for a density bonus and additional
concessions for development of 6 or
more units that provide affordable hous-
ing for families and seniors
As part of the 2015-2023 Housing
Element update, the City is also amend-
ing its Zoning Code to revise the Density
Bonus Ordinance to be consistent with
State law.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2015-2023 Housing
Element. Adoption of a new revised
Density Bonus Ordinance is anticipated to
be completed concurrent with the 2014-
2022 Housing Element.
Program 13: Regulatory Incentives for
Affordable Housing
Provide regulatory incentives for afford-
able housing, such as waiving park
dedication fees and construction tax for
affordable units, or reducing parking
requirement for mixed use developments.
The City continues to waive park dedica-
tion fees and provide parking ordinance
waivers for affordable developments.
This program is proposed to be included
in the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Program 14: Extremely Low Income
Housing
Encourage the development of adequate
housing to meet the needs of extremely
low-income households by providing
assistance and funding for affordable
housing developments
The City continues to support the
development of housing affordable to
extremely low income households.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element. The proposed revision will
include Housing for Persons with Special
Needs to be added to this program.
Program 15: Residential and Mixed Use
Opportunities in or Near Employment
Centers
Encourage mixed use development and
the use of shared parking facilities in or
near employment centers. Evaluate the
possibility of allowing residential develop-
ment above existing parking areas.
As part of the 2015-2023 Housing
Element update and concurrent Land Use
Element update, the City has explored
and prioritized various vacant and under-
utilized properties with potential residen-
tial and mixed use development within
the next eight years. These properties
are included in the sites inventory for the
Housing Element.
This program is proposed to be added
as a policy statement to Goal A: An
Adequate Supply of Residential Units for
All Economic Segments for the 2014-2022
Housing Element to encourage mixed
use development.
663
B-171
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Program 16: Expedited Permit Procedures
Expedite permit processing for housing
developments that contain at least 20
percent of units for lower-income house-
holds, or 10 percent of units for very low-
income households, or 50 percent of units
for senior citizens.
The City continues of offer expedited
permit processing for affordable housing
projects meeting the State Density Bonus
requirements.
This program is proposed to be included
but revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element as a new program - Incentives
for Affordable Housing Development
Policy 6: Tax Increment Funds
Program 17: Redevelopment Housing Set
Aside Fund
Develop policies and objectives for the
use of those Low and Moderate Income
Housing Funds.
The Redevelopment Agency was dissolved
in 2012, pursuant to AB1X26 and AB1X27.
Program is proposed to be removed from
the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Policy 7: Housing Densities
Program 18: Flexible Residential
Standards
Allow flexible residential development
standards in planned residential zon-
ing districts, such as smaller lot sizes,
lot widths, floor area ratios and set-
backs, particularly for higher density and
attached housing developments.
The City continues to offer flexible devel-
opment standards.
Policy 7 and this program are proposed
to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element under Goal A to facilitate a
range of housing options in the commu-
nity.
Program 19: Residential Development
Exceeding Maximums
Allow residential developments to exceed
planned density maximums if they pro-
vide special needs housing
The City continues to provide this regu-
latory incentive to facilitate affordable
housing for persons with special needs.
However, no development utilized this
incentive between 2007 and 2013.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element as part of a new program –
Housing for Extremely Low Income
Households and Persons with Special
Needs
Program 20: Monitor R-3 Development
Standards
Monitor the R-3 development standards
on a regular basis to ensure that the
requirements do not constrain new hous-
ing production.
The City continues to monitor its devel-
opment standards. Future residential
development is likely to focus in mixed
use areas in the City. As part of the Land
Use Element update process conducted
concurrent with the Housing Element
update, the City reviewed and proposed
modifications to development standards
to facilitate multi-family and mixed use
development.
This program is proposed to be included
in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as part
of a new program – Land Use Policy and
Zoning Provisions.
Program 21: Clarify Language of Planned
Development (P) District
Amend the zoning ordinance to clarify
that residential development in P (Res/R3)
zones will require a planned development
permit and not a conditional use permit.
The Zoning Ordinance was amended in
2010 to clarify that residential develop-
ment in the P (Res/R3) zones require a
planned development permit.
This program was completed in 2010
and is proposed to be removed from the
2014-2022 Housing Element.
664
B-172
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Goal C: Enhance Residential Neighborhoods
Policy 8: Maintenance and Repair
Program 22: Apartment Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
Provide financial assistance to eligible
very low and low-income homeowners to
rehabilitate their housing units.
The City continues to assist non-profits
with the acquisition and rehabilitation of
affordable housing units such as:
• Maitri Transitional Housing
Rehabilitation: CDBG funds were
used to rehabilitate this four-unit
transitional housing for victims of
domestic violence. Project was
completed in 2010.
• Senior Housing Solutions – 19935
Price Avenue: Acquisition and
rehabilitation of this property using
the Below Market-Rate (BMR)
Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) and
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds and was completed in
2011. This home is now occupied by
five low income seniors.
Preserving and improving the quality of
housing for lower income households is
important to the City. This program is
proposed to be included and revised in
the 2014-2022 Housing Element to incor-
porate both rehabilitation efforts for both
single-family and multi-family rehabilita-
tion.
Policy 9: Conservation of Housing Stock
Program 23: Preservation of “At Risk
Units”
Monitor owners of at-risk projects on an
ongoing basis to determine their inter-
est in selling, prepaying, terminating or
continuing participation in a subsidy pro-
gram. Work with owners, tenants, and
nonprofit organizations to assist in the
nonprofit acquisition of at-risk projects to
ensure long-term affordability of develop-
ments where appropriate.
The City did not experience a loss of any
“at risk” affordable units converting to
market-rate during the planning period
The City works to preserve its affordable
housing stock. This program is proposed
to be included and revised in the 2014-
2022 Housing Element.
Program 24: Condominium Conversions
Continue to implement to Condominium
Conversion Ordinance.
The City continues to implement the
Condominium Conversion Ordinance.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element.
665
B-173
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Program 25: Rental Housing Preservation
Program
Develop and adopt a program that would
grant approval only if at least two of the
following three circumstances exist:
• The project will comply with the City’s
BMR Program based on the actual
number of new units constructed, not
the net number of units; and/or
• The number of rental units to be
provided on the site is at least equal
to the number of existing rental units;
and/or
• No less than 20 percent of the units
will comply with the City’s BMR
Program.
The City has explored the extent to
which the proposed Rental Housing
Preservation Program is consistent with
State laws such as the Ellis Act and the
Costa Hawkins Act.
The City will continue to explore the
extent to which existing rental housing
can be preserved consistent with State
law as part of the 2014-2022 Housing
Element.
Program 26: Conservation and
Maintenance of Affordable Housing
Develop a program to encourage the
maintenance and rehabilitation of residen-
tial structures to preserve the older, more
affordable housing stock.
The City contracts with Rebuilding
Together Silicon Valley (RTSV) to provide
home safety repairs and mobility/ acces-
sibility improvements to income-qualified
owner-occupants using CDBG funds. The
focus of this program is on the correc-
tion of safety hazards. Between 2007
and 2013, 31 households were assisted
through this program.
The City recognizes the importance of
maintaining and improving its existing
housing stock. This program is proposed
to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element as a new program - Residential
Rehabilitation.
Program 27: Neighborhood and
Community Clean Up Campaigns
Continue to encourage and sponsor
neighborhood and community clean up
campaigns for both public and private
properties.
The Environmental Services division orga-
nizes an annual city-wide garage sale to
encourage reuse of items which ordinarily
might end up in the landfill. Also, the divi-
sion organizes community creek clean-up
campaigns.
This is an ongoing program and is pro-
posed to be included in the 2014-2022
Housing Element.
Policy 10: Energy Conservation
Program 28: Energy Conservation
Opportunities
Continue to enforce Title 24 requirements
for energy conservation and evaluate
utilizing suggestions as identified in the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability
element.
The City continues to enforce Title 24.This is a function of the Building Division
and is proposed to be included as a sepa-
rate housing program in the 2014-2022
Housing Element.
666
B-174
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Program 29: Fee Waivers or Reduction for
Energy Conservation
Evaluate and implement the potential to
provide incentives, such as waiving or
reducing fees, for energy conservation
improvements to residential units (exist-
ing or new).
The City adopted a Green Building
Ordinance in 2013 to facilitate energy
conservation efforts. Residential and
nonresidential new construction, addition,
and renovation are required to comply
with the Green Building Ordinance.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element.
Program 30: Energy Efficiency Audits
Offer free energy efficiency audits for
residential units under a contract with
Acterra.
Energy audits were offered through an
ARRA grant by the Public Information
Office through a contract with Actera.
The ARRA program expired in 2012. This
program is proposed to be removed from
the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Program 31: Energy Conservation in
Residential Development
Continue to encourage energy efficient
residential development and provide tech-
nical assistance to developers who are
interested in incorporating energy efficient
design elements into their program.
The City also adopted a Green Building
Ordinance in 2012 to encourage energy
conservation efforts.
This program is proposed to be included
in the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Goal D: Services for Special Needs Households
Policy 11: Special Needs Households
Program 32: Emergency Shelters
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow
permanent emergency shelter facilities in
“BQ” Quasi-Public zoning districts as a
permitted use.
The City revised the Zoning Ordinance in
2010 to permit emergency shelters in the
“BQ” Quasi-Public zoning districts as a
permitted use.
This program is proposed to be revised
in the 2015-2023 Housing Element to
remove the requirement that emergency
shelters be located in churches.
Program 33: Rotating Homeless Shelter
Continue to support the rotating emer-
gency shelter operated by West Valley
Community Services
West Valley Community Services (WVCS)
successfully managed the Rotating
Shelter Program for 18 years. The
Rotating Shelter Program is now operat-
ed through Faith in Action Silicon Valley.
The City recognizes the critical need to
provide homeless prevention and emer-
gency shelter services for the homeless
in the region. This program is proposed
to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element.
Program 34: Transitional and Supportive
Housing
Amend its zoning ordinance to com-
ply with the requirements of SB2.
Transitional and supportive housing will
be treated as residential uses and be sub-
ject to the same development standards
and restrictions that apply to similar hous-
ing types in the same zone.
The City revised the Zoning Ordinance in
2010 to provide transition and supportive
housing as a residential use to be permit-
ted in similar manners as similar uses in
the same zones.
In 2008, the City contributed $800,000 to
Maitri, a non-profit agency providing tran-
sitional housing to victims of domestic
violence, for the purchase of a four-plex
in Cupertino. The project was completed
in 2010.
The Zoning Ordinance amendment pro-
gram was completed in 2010. This pro-
gram is proposed to be removed from
the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
667
B-175
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
2007-2014 Housing Element Goals,
Policies and Programs
2007-2014 Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
Continued Appropriateness for 2014-
2022 Housing Element
Program 35: Catholic Social Services
(Single Parents)
Provide help, Catholic Social Services, to
place single parents in shared housing
situations through the Santa Clara County
Urban County programs.
Catholic Charities continues to provide
the shared housing services through the
Urban County CDBG program.
The City will continue to provide a range
of supportive services to its residents,
especially those with special needs, in
order to foster a suitable living environ-
ment. A new program is proposed to be
included and revised in the 2014-2022
Housing Element to reflect the range of
services that may be supported by the
City.
Program 36: Flexible Parking Standards
Consider granting reductions in off-street
parking on a case-by-case basis for senior
housing.
The City continues to offer reductions in
parking requirements on a case-by-case
basis for senior housing. However, no
new senior housing project was devel-
oped between 2007 and 2013.
This program is proposed to be included
in the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities
Policy 12: Housing Discrimination
Program 37: Santa Clara County Fair
Housing Consortium
Distribute fair housing materials at all
public facilities throughout the City and
also has a booth at public events to dis-
tribute materials.
The City continues to participate in the
Fair Housing Consortium. Fair housing
materials distributed by various organiza-
tions are available at public counters.
This program is proposed to be included
and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing
Element
Program 38: Fair Housing Outreach
Continue to contract with ECHO Housing
to provide fair housing outreach services.
The City continues to contract with
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
(ECHO) to provide fair housing services,
including outreach and education, coun-
seling, and investigation of fair housing
complaints. Also Project Sentinel pro-
vides tenant/landlord mediation services
under contract for the City.
This program is proposed to be included
in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as a
new program - Fair Housing Services.
Program 39: Reasonable Accommodation
Ordinance
Adopt a written reasonable accommoda-
tion ordinance to provide persons with
disabilities exceptions in zoning and land-
use for housing.
The City adopted the Reasonable
Accommodation Ordinance in 2010
This program was completed in 2010
and is proposed to be removed from the
2014-2022 Housing Element.
Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts
Policy 13: Coordination with Local School Districts
Program 40: Coordination with Local
School Districts
Form a new committee of key staff from
the City and the school districts to meet
on a bi-monthly basis or as needed to
review City planning initiatives, develop-
ment proposals and School capital facili-
ties and operating plans.
City staff continues to meet with the
school districts to discuss facility needs.
However, no formal committee was
established.
The City recognizes the importance of
addressing development impacts on the
school districts. This program is pro-
posed to be included and revised in the
2014-2022 Housing Element. In addition,
the proposed new revised program will
reflect coordination with other agencies,
organizations, and neighboring jurisdic-
tions to address regional housing issues.
668
B-176
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.2: PROGRESS TOWARD RHNA, 2007-2013
Very Low Low ModerateAbove ModerateTotal
RHNA 341 229 243 357 1170
Construction 25 23 27 587 662
% of RHNA 7.3%10.0%11.1%164.4%56.6%
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; ABAG, 2014
7.3. Parcel-Specific Sites Inventory Table
Local housing elements must identify sites that can
accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need
as well as quantify the housing unit capacity of those sites.
Moreover, the sites must be suitable, appropriate and
available within the planning period to accommodate the
housing needs of all income groups. The sites inventory must
be presented on a parcel-specific basis.
Cupertino’s sites inventory to meet the 2014-2022 RHNA
allocation identifies a total of 1,386 units. Detailed
information on each parcel included in the inventory is
presented in Table 7.3.
669
B-177
Appendix B
Housing Element Technical Report
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.3: RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY TO MEET THE 2014 RHNA
Site Identifier APN General
Pln Zoning
Max
Allowable
Density
(DUA)
Size
(Acres)
Realistic
Capacity
1: Oaks Shopping Center 326 27 040 C/O/RP(CG,Res)350.6419
1: Oaks Shopping Center 326 27 039 C/O/RP(CG,Res)355.40160
1: Oaks Shopping Center common area C/O/RP(CG,Res)350.7221
1: Oaks Shopping Center 326 27 041 C/O/RP(CG,Res)351.2035
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 107 C/O/R
P(Regional
Shopping,
OP, Res)
35
47.83600
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 080 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 082 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 081 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 101 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 106 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 104 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 105 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 100 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 092 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 099 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 094 C/O/R 35
2: Vallco Mall East and West 316 20 095 C/O/R 35
3: The Hamptons 316 06 032 High
Density
P(Res)65 6.33
3443: The Hamptons 316 06 037 High
Density
P(Res)65 6.11
4: United Furniture (East)369 06 011 C/O/RP(CG,Res)250.6213
4: United Furniture (East)369 06 007 C/O/RP(CG,Res)250.6313
4: United Furniture (East)369 06 005 C/O/RP(CG,Res)250.398
4: United Furniture 369 06 002 C/O/RP(CG,Res)25 0.9220
4: United Furniture 369 06 003 C/O/RP(CG,Res)25 0.5311
4: United Furniture 369 06 004 C/O/RP(CG,Res)251.2927
4: United Furniture NAC/O/RP(CG,Res)25 0.5011
5: Glenbrook Apartments 326 27 036 Medium
Density
R3(10-20)20 11.62
935: Glenbrook Apartments 326 27 037 Medium
Density
R3(10-20)20 19.72
6: Barry Swenson Site 375 07 001 C/O/RP(CG,Res)250.5511
Total 90.881,386
Notea: Realistic capacity for each site reduces the maximum developable units by 15 percent. Residential capacity for Sites 3 and 5 reflect the
net increase in units.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014
670
B-178
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT
TABLE 7.3: RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY TO MEET THE 2014 RHNA (CONN.)
Site Identifier Infrastructure
Capacity Current Use PDA
Potential
CEQA
Streamlining
1: Oaks Shopping CenterYes Parking VTA PDAPlan EIR
1: Oaks Shopping CenterYes Shopping center VTA PDAPlan EIR
1: Oaks Shopping CenterYes Shopping center VTA PDAPlan EIR
1: Oaks Shopping CenterYes Parking VTA PDAPlan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and West Yes Shopping center --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center, parking --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and West Yes Shopping center, parking --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Parking --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center, parking --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center, parking --Plan EIR
2: Vallco Mall East and WestYes Shopping center --Plan EIR
3: The Hamptons Yes Multi family housing ----
3: The Hamptons Yes Multi family housing ----
4: United Furniture (East)Yes Small commercial buildingsVTA PDAPlan EIR
4: United Furniture (East)Yes Gas Station VTA PDAPlan EIR
4: United Furniture (East)Yes Small commercial buildingsVTA PDAPlan EIR
4: United Furniture Yes Small commercial centerVTA PDAPlan EIR
4: United Furniture Yes Furniture store VTA PDAPlan EIR
4: United Furniture Yes Parking lot VTA PDAPlan EIR
4: United Furniture Yes ROW VTA PDAPlan EIR
5: Glenbrook ApartmentsYes Multi family housing --Plan EIR
5: Glenbrook ApartmentsYes Multi family housing --Plan EIR
6: Barry Swenson SiteYes Vacant VTA PDAPlan EIR
Notea: Realistic capacity for each site reduces the maximum developable units by 15 percent. Residential capacity for Sites 3 and 5 reflect
the net increase in units.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014
671
Prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element SitesExhibit HE-2
Site
No.Name/Type Address Size Land Use
Designation
Proposed
Zoning Priority Realistic Capacity
204
35 du/ac
187
35 du/ac
33
25 du/ac
27
25 du/ac
151
35 du/ac
96
25 du/ac
Total Units on Alternate Housing Element Sites 698
Notes:
*
Low-
Moderate*
Low-
Moderate*
6
Summerwinds & Granite
Rock/ Property Owner
Interest
1451, 1471, 1491 & 1505 S
De Anza Blvd 4.57 Commercial/
Office/ Residential P(CG, Res)
Low-
Moderate
5
Homestead Lanes +
Adjacency/ Workshop
Proposed
20916, 20956, 20990
Homestead Rd 5.1 Commercial/
Residential P(CG, Res)
4 Loree Center/ Existing HE 10029 Judy Ave, 19060
Stevens Creek Blvd 1.29 Commercial/
Office/ Residential P(CG, Res)
P(CG, Res)Low-
Moderate*3
Shan Restaurant, Q-Mart &
China Dance/ Existing HE
and Lot Consolidation
20007, 20021 Stevens Creek
Blvd & 10041 N. Blaney
Ave
1.69 Commercial/
Office/ Residential
Separate parcels on a Housing Element site shall be combined, master planned and developed under a Master Developer.
Moderate*
2 Stevens Creek Office Center/
Property Owner Interest 20823 Stevens Creek Blvd 6.31 Commercial/
Residential P(CG, Res)Moderate
1 Marina Plaza/ Property
Owner Interest 10118 Bandley Drive 6.86 Commercial/
Office/ Residential P(CG, Res)
672
ORDINANCE NO. 14-2124
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
REZONING CERTAIN SITES IN THE CITY FOR CONFORMANCE WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: Z-2013-03
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to replenish, reallocate and
increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development
activity while keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives and to consolidate
development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, under a
comprehensive community vision, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Housing Law, the City Council has directed staff to update the
Housing Element of the General Plan and make associated zoning amendments to comply with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Council’s consideration of this rezoning, and following
the Commission’s recommendation, the Council adopted Resolution No. 14-211, adopting a
General Plan Amendment covering the properties which are the subject of this rezoning
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map,
proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the Rezoning application is part of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update and Associated Rezoning, all as fully described and analyzed in the June 2014 General
Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Project Environmental
Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007), as amended by text
revisions in the August 2014 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update and
Associated Rezoning Project EIR Response to Comments Document (“Response to Comments
Document”) and the Supplemental Text Revisions dated October 8, 2014 (together, the “Final
EIR”);
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014 at a
Planning Commission Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council on October 7, 2014 at a City
Council Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given and the Planning Commission held
public hearings on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014;
673
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on October 20, 2014 the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City,
adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the
mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City
that are identified in Findings, in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented
(Resolution 6760); and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0-1 (Takahashi
absent) vote that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01), in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6761); authorize staff to
forward the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development for review and certification (GPA-2013-02); approve the prioritized list of
potential Housing Element sites in the event amendments are needed to the proposed Housing
Element sites upon HCD review, in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented
(Resolution no. 6762); approve the Zoning Map Amendments, Z-2013-03, in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6763); approve the Municipal Code
Amendments to make changes to conform to the General Plan and Housing Element and other
clean up text edits (MCA-2014-01) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented
(Resolution no. 6764); approve the Specific Plan Amendments (SPA-2014-01) in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6765); and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one
public hearing that the amendment to the Zoning map be granted and on the rest of the project
approvals; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the
public hearing on November 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-210
certifying the EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting
Mitigation Measures, and adopting of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Ordinance, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the EIR and finds that scope
of this Ordinance falls within the previously certified EIR and that the rest of the amendments
proposed in the Ordinance do not constitute a project under CEQA, are exempt and no further
environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the following:
1. That the proposed zoning is in accord with the Municipal Code and the City's Community
Vision 2040
The proposed zoning is in conformance with the General Plan since the City Council adopted
amendments to the General Plan. These changes are mere conforming changes to make the City’s zoning
map conform to the land use. Additionally, many of the changes are to property that the City acquired
and reflect the zoning designation prior to acquisition by the City.
674
2. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
As set out more fully in the City of Cupertino City Council resolution certifying that the Final
Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update, and Associated Rezoning for the City of Cupertino (the “project”) was prepared in compliance
with CEQA; and Adopting CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation
Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; the significant environmental effects of
the project have been fully analyzed and disclosed in compliance with CEQA. All mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR have been adopted and incorporated into the project to reduce the impacts of
new development to the extent feasible.
3. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities,
compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested
zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s).
The sites being rezoned have access to utilities and are compatible with adjoining land uses.
4. The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City.
The sites being rezoned will promote orderly development in the City by allowing similar land uses to be
located compatibly. They also allow the easier applicability of zoning regulations. In some cases, zoning
such as “Mini-storage” is being eliminated to allow the Light Industrial “ML” standards to be applicable
to the current use at the site.
5. That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels.
The proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare since these
are conforming changes. Additionally, where health or safety impacts have been identified mitigation
measures have been identified which would be applicable to any development on these sites.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
That after careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony, public comment, and
other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council based upon the findings described
above, the public hearing record and subject to the following, finds:
Section 1. Zoning Conformance Sites. That the property described in attached Exhibits Z-1
and Z-2 have a zoning designation as that shown and is incorporated into the Master
Zoning Map (Exhibit Z-4) of the City of Cupertino; and
Section 2. Priority Housing Sites. That the sites described in attached Exhibit Z-3 have a
certain density if the property is shown in Table HE-5 of the adopted 2014-2022 Housing
Element as a Priority Housing Site, or an alternative density if the property is not designated
as a Priority Housing Site in the adopted 2014-2022 Housing Element, all as shown in
Exhibit Z-3; and
675
Section 3. Planning Areas. That the property described in attached Exhibits Z-4a – Z-4f is
the Zoning for the properties in each of the Planning Areas identified in the General Plan
and the Master Zoning Map.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on the date that the Final
Housing Element for the City of Cupertino is adopted.
SECTION III: CEQA REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report for the Subdivision was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
INTRODUCED at a meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 10th day of November 2014 and
ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this 18th day of November
2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of
Cupertino
676
EXHIBIT Z-1
Assessor Parcel No. Existing Zoning New Zoning
326-15-110 R2-4.5 R3
326-15-111 R2-4.5 R3
326-15-108 R2-4.5 R3
326-15-073 R2-4.5 R3
326-49-036 R1 PR
326-49-040 R1-10 PR
359-25-049 R1-6 PR
357-20-027 ML-rc P(CN)
326-09-071 R3 PR
326-32-012 R2 R3
326-32-009 R2 R3
326-17-004 R1-10 PR
357-09-053 A PR
357-11-029 R1C PR
323-36-019 A1-43 BQ
Property shown on Exhibit Z-2 P(MP) P(Res)
677
_________________________ ___
Planned Development/ Residential
(P(Res)-70)
Planned Development/ Planned
Industrial Zone P(MP, Res)
Conformance Site
LEGEND________________ ___
REZONE .2 Acres_____
FROM: Planned Industrial Park,
P(MP)
TO: Planned Residential , P( Res)
EXHIBIT Z-2
678
EXHIBIT Z-3
APN Current Zoning
Zoning if selected as
a Priority Housing
Site
Zoning if NOT
selected as a Priority
Housing Site
Density if selected
as a Priority
Housing Site
Density if NOT
selected as a Priority
Housing Site
316-06-032 P(Res – 70) P(Res) P(Res) 65 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
316-06-037 P(Res – 70) P(Res) P(Res) 65 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
316-20-080 P(CG) P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-081 P(CG) P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-082 P(CG) P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-101 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-104 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-105 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-106 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-107 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional Shopping,
MP, Res)
P(Regional Shopping) 35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
326-27-039 P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG) 35 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
326-27-040 P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG) 35 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
326-27-041 P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG) 35 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
“Common Area” identified in Santa
Clara County Assessor Office Book 326,
Page 27 for Effective Roll Year 2014-
2015 surrounded by APN: 326-27-039,
326-27-040 & 326-27-041
P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG) 35 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
679
EXHIBIT Z-4
680
Partial
South De
Anza Blvd
Conceptual
Plan Area
EXHIBIT- Z-4a.
681
EXHIBIT Z-4b
LEGEND
City of Cupertino
Zoning Map – Homestead Special Area
PR
P(Res, 10-20, Mini-Stor)
P(Res 10-20)
682
EXHIBIT Z‐4c.
City of Cupertino
Zoning Map – North Vallco Special Area
LEGEND
683
EXHIBIT Z‐4d.
City of Cupertino
Zoning Map – North De Anza Special Area
LEGEND
P(CG, ML, Res 4‐10)
684
EXHIBIT Z-4e.
City of Cupertino
Zoning Map – Monta Vista Special Area
LEGEND
P(Res 4.4-7.7)
P(R1)
685
City of Cupertino
Zoning Map – South De Anza Special Area
LEGEND
P(CG,
Res
5-15)
EXHIBIT Z-4f
686
ORDINANCE NO. 14-2125
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS IN TITLE 18 AND TITLE 19, INCLUDING THE
AMENDMENT OF THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE,THE ADDITION OF A
CHAPTER IN TITLE 19 TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES IN THE GENERAL PLAN, THE
ADDITION OF A CHAPTER IN TITLE 13 TO IMPROVE READABILITY
WHEREAS pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to replenish, reallocate and
increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development
activity while keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives and to consolidate
development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, under a
comprehensive community vision, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Housing Law, the City Council has directed staff to update the
Housing Element of the General Plan and make associated zoning amendments to comply with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Council’s consideration of this rezoning, and following
the Commission’s recommendation, the Council adopted Resolution No. 14-211, adopting a
General Plan Amendment covering the properties which are the subject of this rezoning
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map,
proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the Rezoning application is part of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update and Associate Rezoning, all as fully described and analyzed in the June 2014 General
Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Project Environmental
Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007), as amended by text
revisions in the August 2014 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update and
Associated Rezoning Project EIR Response to Comments Document (“Response to Comments
Document”) and the Supplemental Text Revisions dated October 8, 2014 (together, the “Final
EIR”);
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014 at a
Planning Commission Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council on October 7, 2014 at a City
Council Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held public hearings on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014 to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on October 20, 2014 the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City,
687
- 2 -
adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the
mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City
that are identified in Findings (Resolution 6760); and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0-1 (Takahashi
absent) vote that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01)
(Resolution no. 6761); authorize staff to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for review and certification (GPA-2013-
02); approve the prioritized list of potential Housing Element sites in the event amendments are
needed to the proposed Housing Element sites upon HCD review (Resolution no. 6762);
approve the Zoning Map Amendments, Z-2014-03, in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6763); approve the Municipal Code Amendments to make
changes to conform to the General Plan and Housing Element and other clean up text edits
(MCA-2014-01) (Resolution no. 6764); approve the Specific Plan Amendments, SPA-2014-01, in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6765); and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one
public hearing to consider the amendments to the Municipal Code be granted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this
Ordinance;
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the
public hearing on November 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-210
certifying the EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting
Mitigation Measures, and adopting of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Ordinance, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the EIR and finds that scope
of this Ordinance falls within the previously certified EIR and that the rest of the amendments
proposed in the Ordinance do not constitute a project under CEQA, are exempt and no further
environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council, in enacting this Ordinance to make text
amendments to improve conformity with State Law, improve readability, consistency and
eliminate redundancies.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 13 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to include Chapter
13.08, Parkland Dedication, to be numbered and entitled to read as shown in
Attachment I
Section 2. Chapter 18.24 of Title 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment II
688
- 3 -
Section 3. Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment III.
Section 4. Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment IV.
Section 5. Chapter 19.20 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment V.
Section 6. Chapter 19.56 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment VI.
Section 7. Chapter 19.76 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment VII.
Section 8. Chapter 19.84 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment VIII.
Section 9. Chapter 19.144 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as shown in Attachment IX.
Section 10. Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to include Chapter
19.172, Below Market Rate Housing Program, to be numbered and entitled to
read as shown in Attachment X.
Section 11. Severability.
Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise
void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the
application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the
provisions hereof are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this
ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, sentence clause, phrases or portions be
declared valid or unconstitutional.
Section 12. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after adoption as
provided by Government Code Section 36937.
Section 13. Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice
of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of
this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire
text.
689
- 4 -
Section 14. Continuity.
To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions
of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those
provisions and not as amendments of the earlier provisions.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 10th day of November,
2014 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this ____ day of
___________ 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of
Cupertino
690
ATTACHMENT I
CHAPTER 13.08 PARK LAND DEDICATION/FEE
Section
13.08.010 Purpose.
13.08.020 Definitions
13.08.030 Requirements.
13.08.040 General Standard.
13.08.050 Parkland Dedication .
13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Parkland Dedication.
13.08.070 Combination of Parkland Dedication and Fee.
13.08.080 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
18.24.090 Credit for Existing Residential Units.
13.08.100 General Procedures.
13.08.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate, in the public interest, convenience, health, welfare
and safety, the provision of park and recreational facilities upon development for which
dedication of land and/or payment of a fee is required in accordance with the open space and
conservation element of the adopted General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and any
amendments.
13.08.020 Definitions
“Dwelling unit” or “unit” means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating,
cooking and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit,
occupied or intended for occupancy on a non-transient basis and having not more than one
kitchen.
13.08.030 Applicability.
Upon development of a new dwelling unit, at the option of the City, a parkland dedication, or a
payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or both, shall be required.
13.08.050 Parkland Dedication.
A. Where the City determines that a park or recreational facility is to be located in whole or in
part within the proposed development, land sufficient in topography and size shall be
dedicated per the formula below.
Parkland dedication/DU =
(Average number of persons/DU) x (Park Acreage Standard)
1000 persons
B. The Park Acreage Standard is three acres of property for each one thousand persons.
C. Parkland dedication based on development density: Table 13.08.050 indicates the average
parkland dedication required per dwelling unit based on development density per the
formula above (13.08.050.A).
691
- 6 -
Table 13.08.050: Park Land Dedication Formula Table
Density
(DU/acre)
Average number of
persons/DU
Average Parkland
Dedication/DU (in acres)
0—5 3.5 .0105
5—10 2.0 .0060
10—20 2.0 .0060
20 + 1.8 .0054
10 + 1.8 .0054
Senior Citizen Housing
Development 1.0 .0030
13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Parkland Dedication.
A. General Standard.
1. If the City determines that a parkland dedication is not required, a fee shall be paid in
lieu thereof.
2. Fees in Lieu of Land–Fifty units or Less. If a proposed development contains fifty units
or less, a fee in lieu of parkland dedication shall be paid, unless dedication is deemed
appropriate and in the public interest by the City.
B. Amount. The amount of the fee shall be equal to the fair market value of the land prescribed
for dedication pursuant to Section 13.08.050. The fee shall be calculated as follows:
In lieu fee = ((Average Parkland Dedication/DU)*(Net new dwelling units)*(Fair Market
Value of land/acre))
C. Fair Market Value of land per acre. The Department of Public Works shall establish the fair
market value of land within the City and update the value on an annual basis in the City’s
Fee Schedule. The fair market value shall be determined by reference to comparable land
within the City. As used herein, the term “comparable” means land of similar size and
development potential as the land which would otherwise be dedicated.
D. Use of Money. The money collected shall be paid to the Treasurer of the City or his or her
authorized agent. Such money shall be placed in a special revenue fund which shall be
known as the “park dedication in-lieu fee fund” and shall be used for all purposes allowed
by State Law.
13.08.070 Combination of Parkland Dedication and Fee.
A. The City shall determine whether it accepts parkland dedication, elects to require payment
of a fee in lieu, or a combination of both a parkland dedication and a fee in lieu, upon
consideration of the following:
1. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the development available for
dedication;
2. Size and shape of the development and land available for dedication;
3. Feasibility of dedication;
692
- 7 -
4. Availability of previously acquired park property.
B. The determination of the City as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall
be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive.
13.08.080 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
A. Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed
development, fifty percent credit shall be given against the requirement of land dedication
or payment of fees in lieu thereof, if the approval authority finds that it is in the public
interest to do so and that all the standards in Section 13.08.080 B, below are met and findings
in Section 13.08.080C can be made.
B. That the open space for which credit is given complies with the following standards:
1. The total usable open space acreage for the development must be equivalent to the
parkland dedication calculated pursuant to Section 13.08.050.
2. The open space must contain the mandatory elements and at least four of the six
optional elements indicated in Table 13.08.080 below and meet the following criteria:
a. The combined minimum acreage for a facility with a recreation center and children’s
play apparatus area is 1.3 acres.
b. The minimum combined acreage for a facility not including a recreation center or
children’s play area is 1.5 acres.
Table 13.08.080 – Mandatory and Optional Elements for private open space
Minimum
Acreage
Mandatory Element
Turfed playfield
The playfield shall be a single unit of land which is generally level and
free of physical barriers which would inhibit group play activities.
.50
Optional Elements
Children’s play apparatus area .15
Recreational community gardens .25
Family picnic area .25
Game court area .25
Swim pool (42’ x 75’ with adjacent deck and lawn areas) .25
Recreation center buildings and grounds .15
C. The approval authority may grant park credit for a combination of the above elements or a
combination of the above elements and other recreation improvements that will meet the
specific recreation needs of a specialized housing development, such as a senior housing
development, with occupancy controlled via a covenant with the City named as a third
party beneficiary.
693
- 8 -
D. Findings. The approval authority shall adopt the following written findings and shall
require the recordation of covenants running with the land to ensure that credited elements
are maintained, before credit is given:
1. That yards, court areas, setbacks, decorative landscape areas normally associated with
residential site design and other areas required to remain free and clear by zoning and
building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computation of such
private open space;
2. That such space is to be wholly or partially owned and maintained by the future
residents of the development and that the private ownership and maintenance of the
open space is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, conveyance or
restrictions;
3. That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by
recorded covenant, which runs with the land in favor of the future owners of property
and which cannot be eliminated without the consent of the City or its successor;
4. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and
recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography,
geology, access and location;
5. That the facilities proposed for private recreation or open space are in substantial
conformance with General Plan policies.
18.24.090 Credit for Existing Dwelling Units.
When dwelling units exist on the property where development is proposed, a credit shall be
given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof for the
number of units existing. As used herein, the term “existing” refers to units which exist at the
time of approval of the dwelling units or which were demolished within one year prior to the
submittal of an application for development of the dwelling units.
13.08.100 General Procedures.
A. At the time of approval of the dwelling units, the approval authority shall determine
whether a parkland dedication or a fee in lieu thereof is required unless a parkland
dedication or fee has already been provided.
B. At the time of building permit application, land shall be dedicated to the City or the fee in
lieu thereof shall be paid.
C. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the
City prior to approval of the building permits and shall be recorded simultaneously with
the issuance of final occupancy.
D. If parkland dedication is required, the design of the park shall be reviewed and approved
and construction shall be completed prior to occupancy of the development.
694
ATTACHMENT II
- 9 -
CHAPTER 18.24: DEDICATIONS AND RESERVATIONS
Section
Article I. Dedication of Streets, Alleys, Rights-of-Way and Easements.
18.24.010 Dedication of Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Rights-of-way or Easements.
Article II. Park Land Dedication.
18.24.020 Purpose.
18.24.030 Requirements.
18.24.040 General Standard.
18.24.050 Dedication of Land.
18.24.060 Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication.
18.24.070 Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication.
18.24.080 Subdividers Not Within General Plan.
18.24.090 Determination of Land or Fee.
18.24.100 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
18.24.110 Credit for Existing Residential Units.
18.24.120 Procedure.
18.24.130 Commencement of Development.
Article III. School Site Dedication.
18.24.140 General.
18.24.150 Procedure.
18.24.160 Payments to Subdivider for School Site Dedication.
18.24.170 Exemptions.
Article IV. Reservations.
18.24.180 General.
18.24.190 Standards for Reservation of Land.
18.24.200 Procedure.
18.24.210 Payment to Subdivider.
18.24.220 Termination.
Article V. Waiver of Direct Street Access.
18.24.230 Waiver of Direct Street Access.
695
- 10 -
Article I. Dedication of Streets, Alleys, Rights-of-Way and Easements.
18.24.010 Dedication of Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Rights-of-way or Easements.
A. As a condition of approval of a final map or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate or
make an irrevocable offer of dedication of all parcels of land within the subdivision that are
needed for streets and alleys, including access rights and abutters’ rights; drainage; public
utility easements; bicycle paths, transit facilities, solar access easements, park land, fire
stations, libraries, access to public resources and other public easements as required.
B. Improvements shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.32, Subdivision Improvements, of this
title.
Article II. Park Land Dedication.
18.24.020 Purpose.
This section is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the Government Code. The park
and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of a fee is required by
this chapter are in accordance with the open space and conservation element of the adopted
General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and any amendments.
18.24.030 Requirements.
A. As a condition of approval of a final subdivision map or parcel map, the subdivider shall
dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park or
recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formula contained in
this chapter.
B. The provisions of this chapter are not applicable to the following land use categories:
1. Commercial or industrial subdivisions;
2. Condominium conversion projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the
subdivision of air space in an existing apartment building which is more than five years
old when no new dwelling units are added;
3. Convalescent hospitals and similar dependent care facilities.
18.24.040 General Standard.
The Parkland Dedication standard shall be as identified in the City’s General Plan and Chapter
13.08.
18.24.050 Dedication of Land.
A. Where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the open space and
conservation element of the General Plan of the City, and is to be located in whole or in part
within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future need of the residents of
the subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for a local park sufficient in size and
topography to serve the residents of the subdivision.
B. The formula for determining acreage to be dedicated shall be pursuant to Section 13.08.050.
696
- 11 -
18.24.060 Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication.
A. General Formula. If there is no park or recreation facility designated in the open space and
conservation element of the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the
proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the
subdivision, the subdivider shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee pursuant to the
formula in Section 13.08.060.
B. Fees in Lieu of Land–Fifty Parcels or Less. If the proposed subdivision contains fifty parcels
or less, the subdivider shall pay a fee in lieu of dedication, unless dedication is deemed
appropriate and in the public interest by the City. .
C. Fair Market Value of land per acre. The Fair Market Value of land per acre shall be
established pursuant to Section 13.08.050C.
D. Use of Money. The money collected shall be paid and used pursuant to Section 13.08.060D.
18.24.070 Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee.
In subdivisions of over fifty parcels, the subdivider shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in
lieu thereof in accordance with the following formula:
A. When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is proposed in the open space and
conservation element of the General Plan as the site for a local park, the portion shall be
dedicated for local park purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section
18.24.060, shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required to be
dedicated pursuant to Section 18.24.050, Dedication of Land.
B. When a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the
City and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision to complete the site,
the remaining portion shall be dedicated and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.24.060, shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land which would
otherwise have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 18.24.050, Dedication of
Land, the fees to be used for the improvement of the existing park and recreational facility
or for the improvement of other local parks and recreational facilities in the area serving the
subdivision.
18.24.080 Subdividers Not Within General Plan.
Where the proposed subdivision lies within an area not included but to be included within the
City’s General Plan, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu, or both, in accordance
with the adopted park and recreational principles and standards of the City’s General Plan and
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
18.24.090 Determination of Land or Fee.
A. If the relationship between a proposed subdivision containing fifty parcels or more and the
open space and conservation element is unclear, the City Council shall determine whether it
697
- 12 -
accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee, by consideration of the
standards identified in Section 13.08.070.
B. The determination of the City as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall
be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive.
18.24.100 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed
subdivision, a credit shall be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of
fees in lieu thereof, pursuant to requirements of Section 13.08.080.
18.24.110 Credit for Existing Residential Units.
Where any lot or lots of a proposed subdivision contains existing residential units, a credit shall
be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof for each
lot which contains residential unit or units. As used herein, the term “existing” refers to a
residential unit or units which exist at the time of the recordation of a final map or which were
demolished within one year prior of the tentative map application.
18.24.120 Procedure.
A. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall determine
pursuant to Section 18.24.100 the land to be dedicated and/or fees to be paid by the
subdivider.
B. At the time of the filing of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall dedicate the
land/or pay the fees as previously determined by the City Council.
C. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the
City prior to approval of the final subdivision map and shall be recorded simultaneously
with the final subdivision map.
18.24.130 Commencement of Development.
At the time of approval of the final subdivision map, the City Council shall specify when
development of the park or recreational facilities shall be commenced.
Article III. School Site Dedication.
18.24.140 General.
Unless otherwise prohibited by law, as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map, a
subdivider who develops or completes the development of one or more subdivisions within a
school district shall dedicate to the school district such lands as the City Council shall deem to
be necessary for the purpose of constructing thereon schools necessary to assure the residents of
the subdivision adequate elementary school service.
18.24.150 Procedure.
The requirement of dedication shall be imposed at the time of approval of the tentative map. If
within thirty days after the requirement of dedication is imposed by the City the school district
698
- 13 -
does not offer to enter into a binding commitment with the subdivider to accept the dedication,
the requirement shall be automatically terminated. The required dedication may be made any
time before, concurrently with, or up to sixty days after the filing of the final map on any
portion of the subdivision.
18.24.160 Payments to Subdivider for School Site Dedication.
The school district shall, if it accepts the dedication, repay to the subdivider or his or her
successors the original cost to the subdivider of the dedicated land, plus a sum equal to the total
of the following amounts:
A. The cost of any improvements to the dedicated land since acquisition by the subdivider;
B. The taxes assessed against the dedicated land from the date of the school district’s offer to
enter into the binding commitment to accept the dedication;
C. Any other costs incurred by the subdivider in maintenance of such dedicated land,
including interest costs incurred on any loan covering such land.
18.24.170 Exemptions.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to a subdivider who has owned the land
being subdivided for more than ten years prior to the filing of the tentative maps.
Article IV. Reservations.
18.24.180 General.
As a condition of approval of a map, the subdivider shall reserve sites, appropriate in area and
location, for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or other public uses according to
the standards and formula contained in this article.
18.24.190 Standards for Reservation of Land.
Where a park, recreational facility, fire station, library, or other public use is shown on an
adopted specific plan or adopted general plan containing a community facilities element,
recreation and parks element and/or a public building element, the subdivider may be required
by the City to reserve sites as so determined by the City or County in accordance with the
definite principles and standards contained in the above specific plan or General Plan. The
reserved area must be of such size and shape as to permit the balance of the property within
which the reservation is located to develop in an orderly and efficient manner. The amount of
land to be reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the subdivider
economically unfeasible. The reserved area shall conform to the adopted specific plan or
General Plan and shall be in such multiples of streets and parcels as to permit an efficient
division of the reserved area in the event that it is not acquired within the prescribed period.
18.24.200 Procedure.
The public agency for whose benefit an area has been reserved shall, at the time of approval of
the final map or parcel map, enter into a binding agreement to acquire reserved area within two
years after the completion and acceptance of all improvements, unless the period of time is
extended by mutual agreement.
699
- 14 -
18.24.210 Payment to Subdivider.
The purchase price shall be the market value at the time of the filing of the tentative map plus
the taxes against such reserved area from the date of the reservation and any other costs
incurred by the subdivider in the maintenance of the reserved area, including interest costs
incurred on any loan covering the reserved area.
18.24.220 Termination.
If the public agency for whose benefit an area has been reserved does not enter into a binding
agreement, the reservation of the area shall automatically terminate.
Article V. Waiver of Direct Street Access.
18.24.230 Waiver of Direct Street Access.
A. The City may require as a condition of approval of any subdivision the waiver of direct
access rights to proposed or existing streets from any property within the subdivision and
abutting thereon.
B. Any waiver shall become effective in accordance with its provisions and shall be contained
in the owner’s certificate of the final map or parcel map.
700
ATTACHMENT III
- 15 -
CHAPTER 19.08: DEFINITIONS
Section
19.08.010 Purpose and Applicability.
19.08.020 General Rules for Construction of Language.
19.08.030 Definitions.
19.08.010 Purpose and Applicability.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote consistency and precision in the interpretation of
zoning regulations. The meaning and construction of words and phrases defined in this chapter
shall apply throughout the zoning regulations, except where the context of such word or
phrases clearly indicates a different meaning or construction.
19.08.020 General Rules for Construction of Language.
The following general rules of construction shall apply to the text of the zoning regulations:
A. The particular shall control the general.
B. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of any provision and
any caption or illustration, the text shall control.
C. The word “shall” is always mandatory and not discretionary. The word “may” is
discretionary.
D. References in the masculine and feminine genders are interchangeable.
E. Words used in the singular include the plural, and the plural includes the singular, unless
the context clearly indicates the contrary.
F. The words “activities” and “facilities” include any part thereof.
G. Unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary, the following conjunctions shall be
interpreted as follows:
1. “And” indicates that all connected items or provisions shall apply;
2. “Or” indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply singly or in any
combination;
3. “Either . . . or” indicates that the connected items or provisions shall apply singly but not
in combination.
H. The words “lot” and “parcel” are interchangeable.
I. The word “building” includes the word “structure.”
J. All public officials, bodies, and agencies to which reference is made are those of the City
unless otherwise indicated.
K. “City” means the City of Cupertino.
701
- 16 -
19.08.030 Definitions.
Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this
section.
A. “A” Definitions:
“Abandon” means to cease or discontinue a use or activity without intent to resume, but
excluding temporary or short-term interruptions to a use or activity during periods of
remodeling, maintaining, or otherwise improving or rearranging a facility, or during normal
periods of vacation or seasonal closure.
“Abutting” means having property or district lines in common.
“Accessory building” means a building which is incidental to and customarily associated with a
specific principal use or facility and which meets the applicable conditions set forth in Chapter
19.100, Accessory Buildings/Structures.
“Accessory structure” means a subordinate structure, the use of which is purely incidental to
that of the main building and which shall not contain living or sleeping quarters. Examples
include a deck, tennis courts, trellis or car shelter. Fences eight feet or less are excluded.
“Addition” means any construction which increases the size of a building or facility in terms of
site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area ratio.“Adjacent property” means
property that abuts the subject property, including property whose only contiguity to the
subject site is a single point and property directly opposite the subject property and located
across a street.
“Adult bookstore” means a building or portion thereof used by an establishment having as a
substantial or significant portion of its stock in trade for sale to the public or certain members
thereof, books, magazines, and other publications which are distinguished or characterized by
their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to “specified sexual activities” or
“specified anatomical areas,” as hereinafter defined.
“Adult cabaret” means a building or portion thereof used for dancing purposes thereof or area
used for presentation or exhibition or featuring of topless or bottomless dancers, strippers, male
or female impersonators or similar entertainers, for observations by patrons or customers.
“Adult motion picture theater” means a building or portion thereof or area, open or enclosed,
used for the presentation of motion pictures distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
matter depicting, describing or relating to “specified sexual activities” or “specified anatomical
areas,” as hereinafter defined, for observation by patrons or customers.
“Advertising statuary” means a structure or device of any kind or character for outdoor
advertising purposes which displays or promotes a particular product or service, but without
name identification.
“Aerial” means a stationary transmitting and/or receiving wireless communication device
consisting of one or any combination of the elements listed below:
702
- 17 -
1. “Antenna” means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may be
attached to a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio or
microwave frequency signals.
2. “Mast” means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod which supports an antenna.
3. “Tower” means a vertical framework of cross elements which supports either an antenna,
mast or both.
4. “Guy wires” means wires necessary to insure the safety and stability of an antenna, mast or
both. “Affordable units” means housing units in which the rent does not exceed thirty
percent of the HUD income limits for lower and very low income households for the Santa
Clara County Metropolitan Statistical Area, adjusted for household size.
“Affordable housing cost” means the amount set forth in the Health and Safety Code Section
50052.5, as may be amended.
“Affordable rent” means the amount set forth in the Health and Safety Code Section 50053, as
may be amended.
“Agriculture” means the tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture, agriculture,
livestock farming, dairying, or animal husbandry, including slaughterhouses, fertilizer yards,
bone yard, or plants for the reduction of animal matter or any other similar use.
“Alley” means a public or private vehicular way less than thirty feet in width affording a
secondary means of vehicular access to abutting property.
“Alteration”, for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any permanent change to a sign.
“Alteration” means any construction or physical change in the arrangement of rooms or the
supporting members of a building or structure, or change in the relative position of buildings or
structures on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building or structure.
1. “Incidental alteration” means any alteration to interior partitions or interior supporting
members of a structure which does not increase the structural strength of the structure; any
alteration to electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, ventilating, or other utility
services, fixtures, or appliances; any addition, closing, or change in size of doors or
windows in the exterior walls; or any replacement of a building facade which does not
increase the structural strength of the structure.
2. “Structural alteration” means any alteration not deemed an incidental alteration.
“Amusement park” means a commercial facility which supplies various forms of indoor and
outdoor entertainment and refreshments.
Animal:
1. Animal, Adult. “Adult animal” means any animal four months of age or older.
2. Animal, Large. “Large animal” means any equine, bovine, sheep, goat or swine or similar
domestic or wild animal, as determined by the Planning Commission.
3. Animal, Small. “Small animal” means animals which are commonly found in single-family
residential areas such as chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, dogs, cats, etc.
703
- 18 -
“Animal care” means a use providing grooming, housing, medical care, or other services to
animals, including veterinary services, animal hospitals, overnight or short-term boarding
ancillary to veterinary care, indoor or outdoor kennels, and similar services.
“Apartment” means a room or a suite of two or more rooms which is designed for, intended
for, and occupied by one family doing its cooking there.
“Apartment house” means a building designed and used to house three or more families, living
independently of each other.
“Apartment project” means a rental housing development consisting of two or more dwelling
units.
“Approval Body” means the Director of Community Development and his/her designee, the
Planning Commission or City Council depending upon context.
“Architectural feature” means any part or appurtenance of a building or structure which is not
a portion of the living area of the building or structure. Examples include: cornices, canopies,
eaves, awnings, fireplaces, or projecting window elements. Patio covers or any projection of the
floor area shall not constitute an architectural projection.
“Architectural projection,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any permanent extension
from the structure of a building, including the likes of canopies, awnings and fascia.
“Atrium” means a courtyard completely enclosed by walls and/or fences.
“Attic” means an area between the ceiling and roof of a structure, which is unconditioned (not
heated or cooled) and uninhabitable.
“Automotive service station” means a use providing gasoline, oil, tires, small parts and
accessories, and services incidental thereto, for automobiles, light trucks, and similar motor
vehicles. Automotive maintenance and repair (minor) may be conducted on the site. The sale
of food or grocery items on the same site is prohibited except for soft drinks and snack foods,
either from automatic vending machines or from shelves. The sale of alcoholic beverages on the
site is governed by Chapter 19.132, Concurrent Sale of Alcoholic Beverages and Gasoline.
“Automotive repair and maintenance (minor)” means the supplying of routine automotive
services such as lubrication, engine tune-ups, smog certificates, servicing of tires, brakes,
batteries and similar accessories, and minor repairs involving engine accessories. Any repair
which requires the engine, drive train, transmission assembly, exhaust system, or drive train
parts to be removed from a motor vehicle or requires the removal of internal parts shall not be
considered minor. Body and paint shop operations are not minor repairs or maintenance.
“Average slope” means the ratio between vertical and horizontal distance expressed in percent;
the mathematical expression is based upon the formula described below:
S =
I x L x 100
A
S = Average slope of ground in percent; L = Combined length in feet of all contours on parcel;
I = Contour interval in feet; A = Area of parcel in square feet.
704
- 19 -
B. “B” Definitions:
“Banner” means a temporary display consisting of fabric, canvas, plastic or paper material
which is attached to a building, vehicle, pole or other form of support.
“Basement” means any floor below the first story in a building that is fully submerged below
grade except for lightwells required for light, ventilation and emergency egress. A basement
may have a maximum exterior wall height of two feet between natural grade and ceiling.
“Block” means any lot or group of contiguous lots bounded on all sides by streets, railroad
rights-of-way, or waterways, and not traversed by any street, railroad right-of-way or
waterway.
“Boarding house” means any building used for the renting of rooms or providing of table board
for from three to five persons, inclusive, over the age of sixteen years, who are not members of
the same family.
“Building” means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or
occupancy when any portion of a building is completely separated from every other portion by
a “Fire Barrier” as defined by the California Building Code, then each portion shall be deemed
to be a separate building.
1. “Attached building” means buildings which are structurally connected by any structural
members or wall, excluding decks, patios or fences.
“Building coverage” means that portion of the net lot area encompassed within the outermost
wall line which defines a building enclosure.
“Building frontage” means the length or the surface of the building wall which faces, and is
visible to the general public from, a private or public right-of-way or driveway.
“Business” or “commerce” means the purchase, sale or other transaction involving the handling
or disposition of any article, substance or commodity for profit or livelihood, including, in
addition, office buildings, offices, shops for the sale of personal services, garages, outdoor
advertising signs and structures, hotels and motels, and recreational and amusement
enterprises conducted for profit.
“Business or trade school” means a use, except a college or university, providing education or
training in business, commerce, language, or similar activity or pursuit, and not otherwise
defined as a home occupation.
C. “C” Definitions:
“Canopy” means any roof-like structure, either attached to another structure or freestanding, or
any extension of a roof line, constructed for the purpose of protection from the elements or
aesthetic purposes in connection with outdoor living.
“Car shelter” means a roofed structure or a part of a building not enclosed by walls, intended
and designed to accommodate one or more vehicles.
“Caretaker” means a person or persons employed for the purpose of protecting the principal
use of the property or structure.
705
- 20 -
“Centerline” means the centerline as established by the County Surveyor of Santa Clara County,
the City Engineer, or by the State Division of Highways of the State of California.
“Changeable copy sign” means any sign, or portion, which provides for each manual changes to
the visible message without changing structural surfaces, including the likes of theater
marquees and gasoline service station price signs, but excluding electronic readerboard signs
and signs which display the current time or temperature.
“Change of face” means any changes to the letter style, size, color, background, or message.
“Change of use” means the replacement of an existing use by a new use, or a change in the
nature of an existing use, but not including a change in ownership, tenancy or management
where the previous nature of the use, line of business, or other function is substantially
unchanged.
“Child” means a person who is under eighteen years of age.
“Child day care facility” means a facility, licensed by the State or County, which provides non-
medical care to children in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for
sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a
twenty-four-hour basis. Child day care facility includes day care centers, employer sponsored
child-care centers and family day care homes.
“Church” means a use providing facilities for organized religious worship and religious
education incidental thereto, but excluding a private educational facility. A property tax
exemption obtained pursuant to Section 3(f) of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of
California and Section 206 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, or
successor legislation, constitutes prima facie evidence that such use is a church as defined in this
section.
“College” or “university” means an educational institution of higher learning which offers a
course of studies designed to culminate in the issuance of a degree or defined by Section 94110
of the Education Code of the State of California, or successor legislation.
“Collocation” means the placement of aerials and other facilities belonging to two or more
communication service providers on a single mast or building.
“Commercial recreation” means a use providing recreation, amusement, or entertainment
services, including theaters, bowling lanes, billiard parlors, skating arenas, and similar services,
operated on a private or for-profit basis, but excluding uses defined as outdoor recreation
services.
“Community center” means a place, structure, area, or other facility used for and providing
religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and
designated to accommodate and serve a significant segment of the community.
“Commercial district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means an area of land designated
for commercial use in the current Cupertino General Plan.
“Common interest development” means the following, all definitions of which are based upon
Civil Code Section 4100 or subsequent amendments:
706
- 21 -
1. A condominium project,
2. A community apartment project,
3. A stock cooperative, or
4. A planned development.
“Community organization” means a nonprofit organization based in the City and whose
activities benefit the City, its residents, employees, or businesses.
“Concession” means a benefit offered by the City to facilitate construction of eligible projects as
defined by the provisions of this chapter. Benefits may include, but are not limited to, priority
processing, fee deferments and waivers, granting of variances, and relaxation of otherwise
applicable permit conditions or other concessions required by law.
“Condominium conversion” or “Conversion” means a change in the type of ownership of a
parcel (or parcels) of land, together with the existing attached structures, to that defined as a
common interest development, regardless of the present or prior use of such land and
structures and whether substantial improvements have been made or are to be made to such
structure.
“Condominium project” or “project” includes the real property and any structures thereon, or
any structures to be constructed thereon, which are to be divided into condominium ownership.
“Condominium units” or “units” means the individual spaces within a condominium project
owned as individual estates.
“Congregate residence” means any building or portion which contains facilities for living,
sleeping and sanitation, as required by the California Building Code and may include facilities
for eating and cooking for occupancies other than a family. A congregate residence may be a
shelter, convent or monastery but does not include jails, hospitals, nursing homes, hotels or
lodging houses.
“Convalescent facility” means a use other than a residential care home providing inpatient
services for persons requiring medical attention, but not providing surgical or emergency
medical services.
“Convenience market” means a use or activity that includes the retail sale of food, beverages,
and small personal convenience items, including sale of food in disposable containers primarily
for off-premises consumption, and typically found in establishments with long or late hours of
operation and in relatively small buildings, but excluding delicatessens and other specialty food
shops and establishments which have a sizable assortment of fresh fruits, vegetables, and fresh-
cut meats.
“Corner triangle” means a triangular-shaped area bounded by the following, unless deemed
otherwise by the City Engineer:
1. The intersection of the tangential extension of front and street side property lines as formed
by the intersection of two public rights-of-way abutting the said property lines; and
707
- 22 -
2. The third boundary of the triangular-shaped area shall be a line connecting the front and
side property lines at a distance of forty feet from the intersection of the tangential extension
of front and side property lines.
“Corner triangle,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a triangular-shaped area of land
adjacent to an intersection of public rights-of-way, as further defined in Cupertino Standard
Details Drawings Nos. 7-2 and 7-4. (See Appendix A, Cupertino Standard Detail 7-2; Corner
Triangle–Controlled Intersections, and B, Cupertino Standard Detail 7-4; Corner Triangle–
Uncontrolled Intersections for details.)
“Court” means an open, unoccupied space, other than a yard, on the same lot with a building or
buildings and which is bounded on two or more sides by such building or buildings, including
the open space in a house court or court apartment providing access.
“Covered parking” means a carport or garage that provides full overhead protection from the
elements with ordinary roof coverings. Canvas, lath, fiberglass and vegetation are not
ordinarily roof coverings and cannot be used in providing a covered parking space.
D. “D” Definitions:
“Day care center” means any child day care facility, licensed by the State or County, other than
a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, and extended day care
facilities.
Day Care Home, Family. “Family day care home” means a home, licensed by the State or
County, which regularly provides care, protection and supervision for fourteen or fewer
children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than twenty-four hours per day, while
the parents or guardian are away, and includes the following:
1. “Large-family day care home,” which means a home which provides family day care for
seven to fourteen children, inclusive, including children under the age of ten years who
reside at the home, as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.465;
2. “Small-family day care home,” which means a home which provides family day care to
eight or fewer children, including children under the age of ten years who resides at the
home, as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.44.
“Decorative statuary,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any structure or device of any
kind or character placed solely for aesthetic purposes and not to promote any product or
service.
“Demonstrated safety” means a condition requiring protection from the threat of danger, harm,
or loss, including but not limited to the steepness of a roadway or driveway that may create a
hazardous parking situation in front of a gate.
“Demonstrated security” means a condition requiring protection from the potential threat of
danger, harm or loss, including but not limited to a location that is isolated and invisible from
public view or that has experienced documented burglary, theft, vandalism or trespassing
incidences.
708
- 23 -
“Density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential
density in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.56. as of the date of the project
application.
“Developer” means the owner or subdivider with a controlling proprietary interest in the
proposed common interest development, or the person or organization making application, or a
qualified applicant who has entered into a development agreement pursuant to the procedures
specified in Chapter 19.144.
“Development agreement” means a development agreement enacted by legislation between the
City and a qualified applicant pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5.
"Development standard" means a site or construction regulation, including, but not limited to, a
setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that
applies to a development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan,
charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
“District” means a portion of the property within the City within which certain uses of land,
premises and buildings are permitted and certain other uses of land, premises and buildings are
prohibited, and within which certain yards and other open spaces are required and certain
building site areas are established for buildings, all as set forth and specified in this title.
“Drinking establishment” means an activity that is primarily devoted to the selling of alcoholic
beverages for consumption on the premises.
“Drive-through establishment” means an activity where a portion of retailing or the provision
of service can be conducted without requiring the customer to leave his or her car.
“Driveway” means any driveway that provides direct access to a public or private street.
Driveway, Curved. “Curved driveway” means a driveway with access to the front property
line which enters the garage from the side at an angle of sixty degrees or greater to the front
curbline and which contains a functional twenty-foot-deep parking area that does not overhang
the front property line.
“Duplex” means a building, on a lot under one ownership, containing not more than two
kitchens, designed and used to house not more than two families living independently of each
other.
“Dwelling unit” means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating, cooking
and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit, occupied
or intended for occupancy by one family on a nontransient basis and having not more than one
kitchen.
E. “E” Definitions:
“Economically feasible” means when a housing project can be built with a reasonable rate of
return. The housing developer’s financial ability to build the project shall not be a factor.
709
- 24 -
Emergency Shelter:
“Emergency shelter, rotating” means a facility that provides temporary housing with minimal
supportive services and meets criteria in Section 19.76.030(2).
“Emergency shelter, permanent” means a permanently operated facility that provides
temporary housing with minimal supportive services and meets criteria in Section19.76.030(3).
“Employee Housing” means accommodations for employees as defined by Health and Safety
Code 17008, as may be amended.
“Enclosed” means a covered space fully surrounded by walls, including windows, doors and
similar openings or architectural features, or an open space of less than one hundred square feet
fully surrounded by a building or walls exceeding eight feet in height.
“Entry feature” means a structural element, which leads to an entry door.
“Equestrian center” means a facility for the shelter, display, exhibition, keeping, exercise or
riding of horses, ponies or mules, or vehicles drawn by such animals, with related pasture
lands, corrals and trails.
“Equipment yard” means a use providing for maintenance, servicing or storage of motor
vehicles, equipment or supplies; or for the dispatching of service vehicles; or distribution of
supplies or construction materials required in connection with a business activity, public utility
service, transportation service, or similar activity, including but not limited to, a construction
material yard, corporation yard, vehicular service center or similar use.
F. “F” Definitions:
“Facility” means a structure, building or other physical contrivance or object.
1. “Accessory facility” means a facility which is incidental to, and customarily associated with
a specified principal facility and which meets the applicable conditions set forth in Chapter
19.80.
2. “Noncomplying facility” means a facility which is in violation of any of the site
development regulations or other regulations established by this title, but was lawfully
existing on October 10, 1955, or any amendment to this title, or the application of any
district to the property involved by reason of which the adoption or application the facility
becomes noncomplying. (For the definition for “nonconforming use” see the definition
“use” in this chapter.)
3. “Principal facilities” means a main building or other facility which is designed and
constructed for or occupied by a principal use.
“Family” means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide
single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. “Family” shall not be construed to include a
fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house, or
institution of any kind.
710
- 25 -
“Fence” means a man-made structure which is designed, intended or used to protect, defend or
obscure the interior property of the owner from the view, trespass or passage of others upon
that property.
“Fence height” means the vertical distance from the highest point of the fence (excluding post
caps) to the finish grade adjoining the fence. In a case where the finish grade is different for each
side of the fence, the grade with the highest elevation shall be utilized in determining the fence
height.
“First floor” means that portion of a structure less than or equal to twenty feet in height,
through which a vertical line extending from the highest point of exterior construction to the
appropriate adjoining grade, passes through one story.
“Flag” means any fabric, banner, or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, or symbols,
used as a symbol of a government, political subdivision, or other entity.
“Floor area” means the total area of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of
exterior walls, and including the following: 1. Halls; 2. Base of stairwells; 3. Base of elevator
shafts; 4. Services and mechanical equipment rooms; 5. Interior building area above fifteen feet
in height between any floor level and the ceiling above; 6. Basements with lightwells that do not
conform to Section 19.28.060I; 7. In all zones except residential, permanently roofed, but either
partially enclosed or unenclosed building features used for sales, service, display, storage or
similar uses.
“Floor area” shall not include the following: 1. Basements with lightwells that conform to
Section 19.28.060I; 2. Lightwells; 3. Attic areas; 4. Parking facilities, other than residential
garages, accessory to a permitted conditional use and located on the same site; 5. Roofed
arcades, plazas, walkways, porches, breezeways, porticos, courts and similar features not
substantially enclosed by exterior walls.
“Floor area ratio” means the maximum ratio of gross floor area on a site to the total site area.
“Foot-lambert” means a unit measurement of the brightness of light transmitted through or
reflected from an object or surface.
“Freeway” means any public roadway so designated by the State of California.
“Front wall” means the wall of a building or other structure nearest the street upon which the
building faces, but excluding certain architectural features as defined in this chapter.
G. “G” Definitions:
“Garage” means an accessory building (completely enclosed) or an attached building used
primarily for the storage of motor vehicles.
“Gasoline service station” means any place of business which offers for sale any motor vehicle
fuel to the public.
“Grade” or “finished grade” means the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation of the
finished surface of the ground paving, or sidewalk, excluding areas where grade has been
raised by means of a berm, planter box, or similar landscaping feature, unless required for
711
- 26 -
drainage, within the area between the building and the property line, or when the property line
is more than five feet from the building, between the building and a line five feet from the
building.
“Gross lot area” means the horizontal area included within the property lines of a site plus the
street area bounded by the street centerline up to thirty feet distant from the property line, the
street right-of-way line and the extended side yard to the street centerline.
“Guest room” means a room which is intended, arranged or designed to be occupied by
occasional visitors or nonpaying guests of the occupants of the dwelling unit in which the room
is located, and which contains no kitchen facilities.
H. “H” Definitions:
“Habitable floor” means the horizontal space between a floor area of at least seventy square feet
and the ceiling height measuring at least seven feet six inches above it, except for a kitchen
which shall have a ceiling height not less than seven feet above the floor.
“Habitable space” means space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms,
toilet compartment, closets, halls, storage or utility space and similar areas are not considered
habitable space.
“Heavy equipment” means any mechanical or motorized device that is not a vehicle or a
commercial vehicle as defined in 19.08.030(V), including, but not limited to, a backhoe, cement
mixer, crane, ditch witch, dozer, earth mover, generator, grader, tractor or any similar device.
“Height” means a vertical distance measured parallel to the natural grade to the highest point
of exterior construction, exclusive of chimneys, antennas or other appurtenances, except that
entry features are measured to the top of the wall plate.
Height restriction shall be established by establishing a line parallel to the natural grade.
“Height”, for purposes of
the Accessory Buildings/
Structures, encompasses the
entire wall plane nearest the
property line, including
roof, eaves, and any portion
of the foundation visible
above the adjoining finished
grade.
“Home occupation” means a
business, profession,
occupation or trade activity
which is performed by the
resident(s) of a dwelling unit
within that dwelling unit, or a yard area or garage associated with that dwelling unit, or a yard
area or garage associated with that unit, for purposes of generating income, by means of the
Height Limit for Entry Features
712
- 27 -
manufacture, and/or sale of goods and/or services, but which activity is clearly incidental to the
use of the dwelling for residential purposes.
“Hospital” means a facility for providing medical, psychiatric or surgical services for sick or
injured persons, primarily on an inpatient basis, and including ancillary facilities for outpatient
and emergency treatment, diagnostic services, training, research, administration, and service to
patients, employees or visitors.
“Hotel” means a facility containing rooms or groups of rooms, generally without individual
kitchen facilities, used or intended to be used by temporary overnight occupants, whether on a
transient or residential occupancy basis, and whether or not eating facilities are available on the
premises. Hotel includes motel, motor hotel, tourist court, or similar use, but does not include
mobilehome parks or similar uses.
“Household pets” means small animals commonly found in residential areas such as chickens,
ducks, geese, rabbits, dogs, and cats, but excluding animals such as any bovine or equine
animal, or any goat, sheep or swine. This title does not regulate the keeping of small household
pets, such as fish, birds or hamsters, which is incidental to any permitted use. However, no
animal including household pets may be kept, maintained and/or raised for commercial
purposes except where permitted with required permits.
“Household type” means whether the occupants of the housing units are very low income,
lower income, moderate income, or senior citizens.
“Housing development” means, for the purposes of Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, a
development project for five or more residential units. For the purposes of that chapter,
"housing development" also includes a subdivision or common interest development, approved
by the City that consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project
to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or
the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in Government
Code Section 65863.4(d), where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in
available residential units.
I. “I” Definitions:
“Industrial district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means all ML districts and any other
zoning classifications which are consistent with the industrial designation of the Cupertino
general plan.
“Institutional district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means all BQ, PR, FP, and BA
districts and other zoning classifications and uses which are considered institutional in nature
and are consistent with the institutional or quasi-public designation of the general plan.
J. “J” Definitions:
“Junkyard” means the use of more than two hundred square feet of the area of any lot for the
storage or keeping of junk, including scrap metals or other scrap material, and/or for the
dismantling or wrecking of automobiles or other vehicles or machinery.
713
- 28 -
K. “K” Definitions:
“Kitchen” means an area in habitable space used for the preparation of food and including at
least three of the following: 1. Cooking appliance(s) or provision for a cooking appliance (such
as 220V outlets, gas connections and space for appliances between counters; 2. Counter; 3.
Refrigerator; and 4. Sink.
L. “L” Definitions:
“Landscaping” means an area devoted to or developed and maintained with native or exotic
planting, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials, decorative
outdoor landscape elements, pools, fountains, water features, paved or decorated surfaces of
rock, stone, brick, block or similar material (excluding driveways, parking, loading or storage
areas), and sculptural elements.
“Late evening activities” means an activity which maintains any hours of operation during the
period of eleven p.m. to seven a.m.
“Legal substandard lot” means any parcel of land or lot recorded and legally created by the
County or City prior to March 17, 1980, which lot or parcel is of less area than required in the
zone; or lots or parcels of record which are reduced to a substandard lot size as a result of
required street dedication unless otherwise provided in the City of Cupertino General
Plan. The owner of a legally created, substandard property which is less than six thousand
square feet but equal to or greater than five thousand square feet may utilize such parcel for
residential purposes. The owner of a legally created parcel of less than five thousand square
feet may also develop the site as a single-family residential building site if it can be
demonstrated that the property was not under the same ownership as any contiguous property
on the same street frontage as of or after July 1, 1984.
“Lightwell” means an excavated area required by the Uniform Building Code to provide
emergency egress, light and ventilation for below grade rooms.
“Liquor store” means a use requiring a State of California “off-sale general license” (sale for off-
site consumption of wine, beer and/or hard liquor) and having fifty percent or more of the total
dollar sales accounted for by beverage covered under the off-sale general license.
“Living space” means habitable space and sanitation.
“Loading space” means an area used for loading or unloading of goods from a vehicle in
connection with the use of the site on which such space is located.
“Lodging” means the furnishing of rooms or groups of rooms within a dwelling unit or an
accessory building to persons other than members of the family residence in the dwelling unit,
for overnight occupancy on a residential occupancy basis, whether or not meals are provided to
the person. Lodging shall be subject to the residential density requirements of the district in
which the use is located.
“Lodging unit” means a room or group of rooms not including a kitchen, used or intended for
use by overnight occupants as a single unit, whether located in a hotel or a dwelling unit
providing lodging where designed or used for occupancy by more than two persons; each two-
714
- 29 -
person capacity shall be deemed a separate lodging unit for the purpose of determining
residential density; each two lodging units shall be considered the equivalent of one dwelling
unit.
“Lot” means a parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels or portions by description,
as on a subdivision or record of survey map, or by metes and bounds, for purpose of sale, lease
or separate use.
1. “Corner lot” means a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets, or bounded on
two or more adjacent sides by street lines.
2. “Flag lot” means a lot having access to a street by means of a private driveway or parcel of
land not otherwise meeting the requirement of this title for lot width.
3. “Interior lot” means a lot other than a corner lot.
4. “Key lot” means the first lot to the rear of a corner lot, the front line of which is a
continuation of the side line of the corner lot, and fronting on the street which intersects or
intercepts the street on which the corner lot fronts.
“Lot area” means the area of a lot measured horizontally between boundary lot lines, but
excluding a portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a front lot line
and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any natural watercourse,
river, stream, creek, waterway, channel or flood control or drainage easement and excluding
any portion of a lot within a street right-of-way whether acquired in fee, easement or otherwise.
“Lot coverage” means the following:
1. “Single-family residential use” means the total land area within a site that is covered by
buildings, including all projections, but excluding ground-level paving, landscape features,
lightwells, and open recreational facilities.
2. “All other uses except single-family residential” means the total land area within a site that
is covered by buildings, excluding all projections, ground-level paving, landscape features,
and open recreational facilities.
“Lot depth” means the horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the
midpoint of the rear lot line, or to the most distant point on any other lot line where there is no
clear rear lot line.
“Lot line” means any boundary of a lot.
1. “Front lot line” means on an interior lot, the lot line abutting a street, or on a corner lot, the
shorter lot line abutting a street, or on a flag lot, the interior lot line most parallel to and
nearest the street from which access is obtained.
2. “Interior lot line” means any lot line not abutting a street.
3. “Rear lot line” means the lot line not intersecting a front lot line which is most distant from
and the most closely parallel to the front lot line. A lot bounded by only three lot lines will
not have a rear lot line.
4. “Side lot line” means any lot line which is not a front or rear lot line.
5. “Street lot line” means any lot line abutting a street.
715
- 30 -
“Lot of record” means a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the office of the County
Recorder, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds which has been recorded.
“Lot width” means the horizontal distance between side lot lines, measured at the required
front setback line.
“Lower-income household” means a household whose gross income does not exceed that
established by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5, as may be amended.
M. “M” Definitions:
“Major renovation,” for purposes of Chapter 19.116, Conversions of Apartment Projects to
Common Interest Development, means any renovation for which an expenditure of more than
one thousand dollars was made. “Major repair,” for purposes of Chapter 19.116, Conversions of
Apartment Projects to Common Interest Development, means any repair for which an
expenditure of more than one thousand dollars was made.
“Manufacturing” means a use engaged in the manufacture, predominantly from previously
prepared materials, of finished products or parts, including processing fabrication, assembly,
treatment, packaging of products, but excluding basic industrial processing of extracted or raw
materials, processes utilizing inflammable or explosive material (i.e., materials which ignite
easily under normal manufacturing conditions), and processes which create hazardous or
commonly recognized offensive conditions.
“Massage” means any method of pressure on or friction against or stroking, kneading, rubbing,
tapping, pounding, vibrating or stimulating the external parts of the human body with the
hands or with any mechanical or electrical apparatus or other appliances or devices with or
without such supplementary aides as rubbing alcohol, liniment, antiseptic, oil, powder, cream,
lotion, ointment or other similar preparations.
“Massage parlor” means a building or portion thereof, or a place where massage is
administered for compensation or from which a massage business or service for compensation
is operated which is not exempted or regulated by the Massage Establishment Ordinance as
contained in Title 9, Health and Sanitation of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 9.06.
“Maximum allowable residential density,” for purposes of Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, means
the maximum density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general
plan. For purposes of that Chapter, if the maximum density allowed under the zoning
ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general
plan, the general plan density shall prevail.
“Minor change” means an alteration or modification of an existing plan, development or project
which is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and
design of the plan, development or project with no change proposed for the use of the land in
question, no change proposed in the character of the structure or structures involved, and no
variance required.
716
- 31 -
“Mobilehome” means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed or used as semi-
permanent housing, designed for human habitation, for carrying persons and property on its
own structure, and for being drawn by a motor vehicle, and shall include a trailer coach.
“Mobilehome park” means any area or tract of land where lots are sold, rented, or held out for
rent to one or more owners or users of mobilehomes, excluding travel-trailers, for the purpose
of permanent or semi-permanent housing.
“Moderate income household” means a household whose gross income does not exceed that
established by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended.
“Multiple-family use” means the use of a parcel for three or more dwelling units which may be
in the same building or in separate buildings on the same parcel.
N. “N” Definitions:
“Natural grade” means the contour of the land prior to improvements or development, unless
otherwise established by a city approved grading plan that is part of a subdivision map
approval.
“Nightclub” means an establishment providing alcoholic beverage service and late evening
(past eleven p.m.) entertainment, with or without food service.
O. “O” Definitions:
“Office” means:
1. “Administrative or executive offices” including those pertaining to the management of
office operations or the direction of enterprise but not including merchandising or sales
services.
2. “Medical office” means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventative or
corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories,
and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice
by the State of California and including services related to medical research, testing and
analysis.
3. “Professional offices” such as those pertaining to the practice of the professions and arts
including, but not limited to, accounting, architecture, dentistry, design, engineering,
including associated testing and prototype development, but excluding product
manufacturing and/or assembly, law and medicine, but not including sale of drugs or
prescriptions except as incidental to the principal uses and where there is external evidence
of such incidental use.
4. “Office district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means those buildings or groups of
buildings for which the permitted uses are professional offices, is within an OA or OP zone
or which are designated for offices on the general plan.
“Offset” means the indentation or projection of a wall plane.
“Open” means a space on the ground or on the roof of a structure, uncovered and unenclosed.
717
- 32 -
“Organizational documents” means the declaration of restrictions, articles of incorporation,
bylaws and any contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of all or any part of a
common interest development.
“Outdoor recreation use” means a privately owned or operated use providing facilities for
outdoor recreation activities, including golf, tennis, swimming, riding or other outdoor sport or
recreation, operated predominantly in the open, except for accessory or incidental enclosed
services or facilities.
P. “P” Definitions:
“Park” means any open space, reservation, playground, swimming pool, golf course, recreation
center, or any other area in the City owned or used by the City or County and devoted to active
or passive recreations.
“Parking area” means an unroofed, paved area, delineated by painted or similar markings,
intended and designed to accommodate one or more vehicles.
“Parking facility” means an area on a lot or within a building, or both, including one or more
parking spaces, together with driveways, aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, clearances and
similar features, and meeting the requirements established by this title. Parking facility
includes parking lots, garages and parking structures.
1. “Temporary parking facility” means parking lots which are not required under this title
and which are intended as interim improvements of property subject to removal at a later
date.
“Parking space” means an area on a lot or within a building, used or intended for use for
parking a motor vehicle, having permanent means of access to and from a public street or alley
independently of any other parking space, and located in a parking facility meeting the
requirements established by this title. Parking space is equivalent to the term “parking stall”
and does not include driveways, aisles or other features comprising a parking facility as
previously defined in this chapter.
“Pennant” means any lightweight plastic, fabric, or other material, whether or not containing a
message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire, or string, usually in a series, designed to
move in the wind.
“Permit” means a permit issued by the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review
Committee, Director of Community Development, or any other decision body as empowered by
the Cupertino Municipal Code, approving architecture, site improvements, buildings,
structures, land and/or uses. Permits may include but shall not be limited to Administrative
Approvals, Two-story Permits, Minor Residential Permits, Architectural and Site Approvals,
Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Exceptions, Variances or Subdivision Maps.
“Person” means an individual, group, partnership, firm, association, corporation, trust,
governmental agency, governmental official, administrative body, or tribunal or any other form
of business or legal entity.
718
- 33 -
“Personal fitness training center” means a facility providing space and equipment, with or
without supervision, for group or individual athletic development, increased skill development
in sports activity, or rehabilitative therapy for athletic injury.
“Perspective drawing” means a rendering of a three-dimensional view depicting the height,
width, depth, and position of a proposed structure in relation to surrounding properties and
structures when viewed from street level.
“Picnic area” means a facility providing tables and cooking devices for preparation and
consumption of meals out of doors or within an unenclosed shelter structure.
“Practice range” means a facility providing controlled access to fixed or movable objects which
are used to test and measure accuracy of discharge from a weapon.
“Private educational facility” means a privately owned school, including schools owned and
operated by religious organizations, offering instruction in the several branches of learning and
study required to be taught in the public schools by the Education Code of the State of
California.
“Project improvements” means all public road improvements, undergrounding utility
improvements, and improvements to the on-site utility networks as required by the City of
Cupertino for a common interest development.
“Projection” means architectural elements, not part of the main building support, that
cantilevers from a single building wall or roof, involving no supports to the ground other than
the one building wall from which the element projects.
“Promotional Device” means any sign, display, fixture, placard, vehicle or structure that uses
color, form, graphic, symbol, illumination or writing to advertise a special event or the opening
of a new business.
“Property” means real property which includes land, that which is affixed to the land, and that
which is incidental or appurtenant to the land as defined in Civil Code Sections 658 through
662.
1. Property, Adjoining. “Adjoining property” means any unit of real property, excluding
lands used as public streets, sharing one or more common points with another property.
“Provider” means a person who operates a child day care home and is licensed by the State of
California.
“Public dancehall” is a building or portion used for dancing purposes to and in which the
general public is admitted and permitted to dance, upon payment of any fee other than
compensation, or upon payment of a charge for admission, or for which tickets or other devices
are sold, or in which a charge is made for the privilege of dancing with any other person
employed for such purpose by the operator of the establishment, including but not limited to
taxi dances, but excluding restaurants, hotel rooms and nightclubs in which the dancing is
incidental only to other entertainment.
719
- 34 -
Q. “Q” Definitions:
“Qualified applicant” is a person who has a legal or equitable interest in real property which is
the subject of a development agreement, determined pursuant to Section 19.116.070. Qualified
applicant includes an authorized agent.
“Qualifying resident,” for purposes of Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, of this Code, means a
senior citizen or other persons eligible to reside in a senior citizen housing development.
R. “R” Definitions:
“Recreational open space” means open space within a common interest development (exclusive
of required front setback areas) which shall be used exclusively for leisure and recreational
purposes, for the use and enjoyment of occupants (and their visitors) of units on the project and
to which such occupants (and their visitors) have the right of use and enjoyment. Accessory
structures such as swimming pools, recreational buildings and landscaped areas may be
included as open space.
“Recyclable materials” means discards or waste materials that may be separated or mixed,
collected and processed, and used as raw materials for new products. For purposes of this
chapter, recyclable material does not include hazardous materials.
“Recycling center” means a facility for the collection and/or processing of recyclable materials.
Recycling center does not include storage containers or processing activity located on the
premises of a commercial or manufacturing use and use solely for the recycling of material
generated by that business or manufacturer.
1. “Recycling center, Certified” or “Certified Processor” means a recycling facility certified by
the California Department of Conservation as meeting the requirements of the California
Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986.
2. “Recycling center, Mobile” means an automobile, truck, trailer or van licensed by the
Department of Motor Vehicles, which is used for the collection of recyclable material. A
mobile recycling center also means the bins, boxes or containers transported by trucks, vans,
or trailers and used for the collection of recyclable materials. A mobile recycling center may
consist of an enclosed vehicle such as box cab or enclosed semi-trailer or an open vehicle
such as a flatbed trailer with bins or boxes to contain recyclable materials.
“Recycling facilities” may include the following:
1. “Collection facility” means a facility for the acceptance (donation, redemption or sale) of
recyclable materials from the public. Such a facility does not use power-driven processing
equipment except as indicated in Chapter 19.108, Beverage Container Redemption and
Recycling Centers. Collection facilities may include the following:
a. Reverse vending machine(s);
b. Small collection facilities which occupy an area of not more than five hundred square
feet, and may include:
i. A mobile recycling unit,
720
- 35 -
ii. Bulk reverse vending machine or a grouping of reverse vending machines occupying
more than fifty square feet,
iii. Kiosk type units and bulk vending machines,
iv. Unattended containers placed for the donation of recyclable materials;
c. Large collection facilities which may occupy an area of more than five hundred square
feet, or is on a separate property not appurtenant to a host use, and may include
permanent structures.
2. “Processing facility” means a building or enclosed space use for the collection and
processing of recyclable materials. Processing means the preparation of material for efficient
shipment or to an end-user’s specifications, by such means as baling, briquetting,
compacting, flattening, grinding, crushing, mechanical sorting, shredding, cleaning, and
remanufacturing. Processing facility includes the following:
a. A light processing facility occupies an area of under forty-five thousand square feet of
gross collection, processing and storage area and has up to two outbound truck
shipments per day. Light processing facilities are limited to baling, briquetting,
crushing, compacting, grinding, shredding and sorting of source-separated recyclable
materials and repairing of reusable materials sufficient to qualify as a certified
processing facility. A light processing facility shall not shred, compact, or bale ferrous
metals other than food and beverage containers.
b. A heavy processing facility is any processing facility other than a light processing
facility.
“Religious institution” means a seminary, retreat, monastery, conference center, or similar use
for the conduct of religious activities including accessory housing incidental thereto, but
excluding a private educational facility. Any use for which a property tax exemption has been
obtained pursuant to Section 3(f) of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California and
Section 206 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, or successor legislation,
or which is used in connection with any church which has received such an exemption, shall be
prima facie presumed to be a religious institution.
“Research and development” means a use engaged in study, design, analysis and experimental
development of products, processes or services, including incidental manufacturing of products
or provisions of services to others.
“Residential care facility” means a building or portion designed or used for the purpose of
providing twenty-four-hour-a-day nonmedical residential living accommodations pursuant to
the Uniform Building, Housing and Fire Codes, in exchange for payment of money or other
consideration, where the duration of tenancy is determined, in whole or in part, by the
individual resident’s participation in group or individual activities such as counseling, recovery
planning, medical or therapeutic assistance. Residential care facility includes, but is not limited
to, health facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code (H&SC Section 1250 et seq.),
community care facilities (H&SC Section 1500 et seq.), residential care facilities for the elderly
(H&SC Section 1569 et seq.) or facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped
721
- 36 -
(W&I Code Section 5000 et seq.), alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities
(H&SC Section 11384.11), and other similar care facilities.
“Residential district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means the R1, RHS, R2, R3, R1C, A,
and A1 zoning classifications which are consistent with the residential designation of the
Cupertino general plan.
Restaurant:
1. Restaurant, Fast-Food. “Fast-food restaurant” means a retail food service establishment in
which prepared foods or beverages are served or sold on or in disposable containers,
including those establishments where a substantial portion of the patrons may serve
themselves and may consume the food and beverages off-site. A separate bar facility for
serving alcoholic beverages is not permitted. Any area, tables or rooms reserved for serving
alcoholic beverages shall be considered a separate bar facility. Specialty food stores, such as
ice cream stores, bakeries or shops, shall not be considered fast-food restaurants.
2. Restaurant, Full Service. “Full-service restaurant” means any restaurant which is not a fast-
food restaurant. Alcoholic beverages may be served with meals at a customer’s dining
table; however, a separate bar facility for serving alcoholic beverages is not permitted
without a use permit.
“Reverse vending machine(s)” means an automated mechanical device which accepts one or
more types of empty beverage containers, including, but not limited to aluminum cans, glass
and plastic bottles, and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less
than the containers redemption value, as determined by the State. A reverse vending machine
may sort and process containers mechanically provided that the entire process is enclosed
within the machine. In order to accept and temporarily store all three container types in a
proportion commensurate with their relative redemption rates, and to meet the requirements of
certification as a recycling center, multiple grouping of reverse vending machines may be
necessary.
1. A bulk reverse vending machine is a reverse vending machine that is larger than fifty square
feet; is designed to accept more than one container at a time; and will pay by weight instead
of by container.
“S” Definitions:
“Screened” means shielded, concealed, and effectively hidden from view at an elevation of up
to eight feet above ground level on adjoining parcels, or from adjoining parcels, within ten feet
of a lot line, by a fence, wall, hedge, berm, or similar structure, architectural or landscape
feature, or combination thereof.
“Second dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which
provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as
the single-family dwelling is situated.
722
- 37 -
“Senior citizens” means:
1. Persons at least sixty-two years of age; or
2. Persons at least fifty-five years of age in a senior citizen housing development, in accordance
with State and federal law.
“Senior citizen housing development” means a housing development with at least thirty-five
dwelling units as defined in the Civil Code Section 51.3, or a mobilehome park that limits
residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76
or 799.5 of the Civil Code, as may be amended. “Setback line” means a line within a lot parallel
to a corresponding lot line, which is the boundary of any specified front, side or rear yard, or
the boundary of any public right-of-way or private road, whether acquired in fee, easement, or
otherwise, or a line otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structures or
uses. Where no minimum front, side or rear yards are specified, the setback line shall be
coterminous with the corresponding lot line.
Setback Area, Required. “Required setback area” means open space, unoccupied and
unobstructed from the ground upward, except as provided in this title, between the lot line and
the setback line on the same parcel.
1. Setback Area, Required Front Yard. “Required front-yard setback area” means the setback
area extending across the front of a lot between the front lot line and the setback line. Front
yards shall be measured either by a line at right angles to the front lot line, or by a radial line
in the case of a curved front lot line, except flag lots which is the area extending across the
full extent of the buildable portion of the flag lot measured from the property line which is
parallel to and nearest the street line and at which point the lot width equals a minimum of
sixty feet. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to modify the
provisions of this definition when it improves the design relationship of the proposed
buildings to adjacent buildings or parcels.
2. Setback Area, Required Rear Yard. “Required rear-yard setback area” means the area
extending across the full width of the lot between the rear lot line and the nearest line or
point of the main building.
3. Setback Area, Required Side Yard. “Required side-yard setback area” means the area
between the side lot line and the nearest line of a building, and extending from the front
setback line to the rear setback line.
“Shopping center” means a group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned or
managed as a unit, with off-street parking provided on the parcel.
“Shopping center,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a retail entity encompassing
three or more tenants within a single building or group of buildings, but within which
individual business located in defined tenant spaces are owned and managed separately from
the shopping center management.
“Sidewalk site triangle” is a triangular shaped area described in Cupertino Standard Detail 7-6.
(See Appendix C, Cupertino Standard Detail; Sidewalk Site Triangle (Sidewalk Clearance at
Driveway)
723
- 38 -
“Sign” means any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form, graphic,
illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, or identify the purpose
of a person or entity, to communicate information of any kind to the public.
1. “Animated sign” means any sign which projects action, motion or the illusion thereof,
changes intensity of illumination or changes colors, including the likes of balloons, banners
and flags, and blowing or air-powered attractions, but excluding electronic readerboard
signs and signs that display the current time or temperature.
2. “Blade sign” means a pedestrian oriented sign, adjacent to a pedestrian walkway or
sidewalk, attached to a building wall, marquee, awning or arcade with the exposed face of
the sign in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the building wall.
3. “Development Identification Sign” means a ground sign at the major entry to a residential
development with twenty units or more meant to identify the name and address of the
development.
4. “Directional sign” means any sign which primarily displays directions to a particular area,
location or site.
5. “Directory sign” means any outdoor listing of occupants of a building or group of buildings.
6. “Electronic readerboard sign” means an electronic sign intended for a periodically-changing
advertising message.
7. “Freeway oriented sign” means any sign which is located within six hundred sixty feet and
visible from a freeway right-of-way as defined by Section 5200 of the California Business
and Professions Code.
8. “Garage sale signs” means any sign used for advertising a garage or patio sale as defined in
Chapter 5.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
9. “Ground sign” means any sign permanently affixed to the ground and not supported by a
building structure. The height of thesign shall be measured from the grade of the adjoining
closest sidewalk to the top of the sign including trim.
10. “Identification sign” means any sign whose sole purpose is to display the name of the site
and the names of the occupants, their products or their services.
11. “Illegal sign” means any sign or advertising statuary which was not lawfully erected,
maintained, or was not in conformance with the provisions of this title in effect at the time
of the erection of the sign or advertising statuary or which was not installed with a valid
permit from the City.
12. “Illuminated sign” means any sign utilizing an artificial source of light to enhance its
visibility.
13. “Informational sign” means any sign which promotes no products or services, but displays
service or general information to the public, including the likes of hours of operation, rest
room identifications and hazardous warnings.
14. “Landmark sign” means an existing, legal non-conforming ground sign that has a
distinctive architectural style.
724
- 39 -
15. “Nonconforming sign” means any sign or advertising statuary that was legally erected and
had obtained a valid permit in conformance with the ordinance in effect at the time of the
erection of the sign but which became nonconforming due to the adoption of the ordinance
codified in this title.
16. “Obsolete sign” means any sign that displays incorrect or misleading information, promotes
products or services no longer available at that site or identifies departed occupants.
17. “Off-site sign” means any sign not located on the premises of the business or entity
indicated or advertised by the sign. This definition shall include billboards, poster panels,
painted bulletins and other similar advertising displays.
18. “On-site sign” means a sign directing attention to a business, commodity, service or
entertainment conducted, sold or offered upon the same premises as those upon which the
sign is maintained.
19. “Political sign” means a temporary sign that encourages a particular vote in a scheduled
election and is posted prior to the scheduled election.
20. “Portable Sign or Display” means any outdoor sign or display not permanently attached to
the ground or a structure on the premises it is intended to occupy and displayed only
during business hours. Portable sign or display includes A-frames, flower carts, statues,
and other similar devices used for advertising as determined by the Director.
21. “Project announcement sign” means any temporary sign that displays information pertinent
to a current or future site of construction, including the likes of the project name,
developers, owners and operators, completion dates, availability and occupants.
22. “Projecting sign” means any sign other than a wall sign that is attached to and projects from
a structure or building face or wall.
23. “Real estate sign” means a temporary sign indicating that a particular premises is for sale,
lease or rent.
24. “Roof sign” means a sign erected between the lowest and highest points of a roof.
25. “Street address sign” means any sign that displays only the street address number(s) of the
site and, at the option of the property owner, the street name.
26. “Temporary Sign” means any sign, display, banner or promotional device which is
designed or intended to be displayed only during the allowable business hours or for short
periods of time as specified by the Director of Community Development.
27. “V-shaped signs” means any sign consisting of two vertical faces, or essentially vertical faces,
with one common edge and which appears as the letter V when viewed directly from above.
28. “Vehicle sign” means a sign painted on or attached to an operable or movable vehicle; in the
case of motor vehicles, “operable” shall be defined as having a valid license plate.
29. “Wall sign” means any sign that is attached, erected or painted on a structure attached to a
building, a canopy structure, or the exterior wall of a building with the exposed face of the
sign parallel to the wall.
725
- 40 -
30. “Window sign” means any sign that is intended to be read from outside of the structure or
painted on a window facing a public street, parking lot, pedestrian plaza or walkway
accessible to the public. .
“Sign Area” for an individually lettered sign without a background, is measured by enclosing
the sign copy with a continuous perimeter in simple rectilinear forms. (See Appendix D for
examples of sign area calculation)
The sign area for a sign with borders and/or background is measured by enclosing the exterior
limits of the border or background with a single continuous perimeter. The necessary supports,
uprights, and/ or the base on which such sign is placed, shall be excluded from the sign area.
When a sign is separated by thirty-six inches or more, the area of each part may be computed
separately.
“Single-family use” means the use of a parcel for only one dwelling unit.
“Specialty food stores” means uses such as bakeries, donut shops, ice cream stores, produce
markets and meat markets, or similar establishments where food is prepared and/or sold
primarily for consumption off the premises.
“Site,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a piece of land as shown on a subdivision
map, record of survey map or assessor’s parcel map, which constitutes one development site
and which may be composed of a single unit of land or contiguous units under common
ownership, control, or development agreement.
“Special event,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance means a temporary promotional event
including, but not limited to, a special sale on merchandise or services, or grand openings.
“Special Event Banner” means any temporary sign constructed of pliable materials such as
canvas, fabric, vinyl plastic or similar materials which will withstand exposure to wind and rain
without significant deterioration, and which does not require a building permit for its
construction, or installation outside of a building.
“Specified anatomical areas” means:
1. Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttocks and
female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and
2. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
“Specified sexual activities” means:
1. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
2. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or sodomy;
3. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breast.
“Story” means that portion of a building, excluding a basement, between the surface of any
floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the space
between the floor and the ceiling next above it.
726
- 41 -
“Street” means a public or private thoroughfare the design of which has been approved by the
City which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including avenue, place,
way, drive, lane, boulevard, highway, road, and any other thoroughfare except an alley as
defined in this chapter.
1. Street, Public. “Public street” means all streets, highways, lanes, places, avenues and
portions and including extensions in the length and width, which have been dedicated by
the owners to public use, acquired for public use, or in which a public easement for
roadway purposes exists.
“Street frontage,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means the length of a site along or
fronting on a public or private street, driveway or other principal thoroughfare, but does not
include such length along an alley, watercourse, railroad right-of-way or limited access
roadway or freeway.
“Structure” means that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any
piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner.
1. Structure, Recreational. “Recreational structure” means any affixed accessory structure or
portion, which functions for play, recreation or exercise (e.g., pool slides, playhouses, tree
houses, swings, climbing apparatus, gazebos, decks, patios, hot tubs and pools) but does not
include portable play structures, such as swings or climbing apparatus.
“Structurally attached” means any structure or accessory structure or portion thereof, which is
substantially attached or connected by a roof structure or similar physical attachment.
“Supportive housing” (per Government Code Section 65582(f), as may be amended) means
housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is
linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the
housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when
possible, work in the community.
S. “T” Definitions:
“Target population” (per Government Code Section 65582(g), as may be amended) means
persons with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or
AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services
provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5
(commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code).
“Transient” means any individual who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by
reason of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for a period of thirty
consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days, and including
any individual who actually physically occupies the premises, by permission of any other
person entitled to occupancy.
“Transitional housing” (per Government Code Section 65582(h), as may be amended) means
buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program
requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to
727
- 42 -
another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be
no less than six months from the beginning of assistance.
“Trim” means the molding, battens, cappings, nailing strips, lattice and platforms which are
attached to a sign.
T. “U” Definitions:
“Use” means the conduct of an activity, or the performance of a function or operation, on a
parcel or in a building or facility.
1. “Accessory use” means a use which is incidental to and customarily associated with a
specified principal use.
2. “Conditional use” means a use listed by the regulations of any particular district as a
conditional use within that district, and allowable solely on a discretionary or conditional
basis, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit, and to all other regulations established
by this title.
3. “Nonconforming use” means a use which is not a permitted use or conditional use
authorized within the district in which it is located, but which was lawfully existing on
October 10, 1955; or the date of any amendments thereto, or the application of any district to
the property involved, by reason of which adoption or application the use became
nonconforming. (See “noncomplying facilities” in this chapter for a definition.)
4. “Permitted use” means a use listed by the regulations of any particular district as a
permitted use within that district, and permitted therein as a matter of right when
conducted in accord with the regulations established by this title.
5. “Principal use” means a use which fulfills a primary function of a household, establishment,
institution, or other entity.
“Useable rear yard” means that area bounded by the rear lot line(s) and the rear building line
extended to the side lot lines. The side yard adjacent to a proposed minor addition (e.g.,
addition equaling ten percent or less of the principal structure) may be included in calculation
of usable rear yard area.
U. “V” Definitions:
“Variance application” means an application for which an exception process is not identified in
the Municipal Code.
“Vehicle” means any boat, bus, trailer, motor home, van, camper (whether or not attached to a
pickup truck or other vehicle), mobilehome, motorcycle, automobile, truck, pickup, airplane,
boat trailer, truck tractor, truck trailer, utility trailer or recreational vehicle, or parts, or any
device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a public
street, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power.
1. Vehicle, commercial. “Commercial vehicle” means a vehicle of a type required to be
registered under the California Vehicle Code used or maintained for the transportation of
persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the
transportation of goods.
728
- 43 -
2. Vehicle, Recreation. “Recreation vehicle” means a vehicle towed or self-propelled on its own
chassis or attached to the chassis of another vehicle and designed or used for temporary
dwelling, recreational or sporting purposes. The term recreation vehicle includes, but is not
limited to, trailers, motor coach homes, converted trucks and buses, and boats and boat
trailers.
“Very low income household” means a household whose gross income does not exceed that
established by Health and Safety Code Section 50105, as may be amended.
“Visual privacy intrusion” means uninterrupted visual access from a residential dwelling or
structure into the interior or exterior areas of adjacent residential structures, which area is either
completely or partially private, designed for the sole use of the occupant, and/or which serves
to fulfill the interior and/or exterior privacy needs of the impacted residence or residences.
V. “W” Definitions:
None.
W. “X” Definitions:
None.
X. “Y” Definitions:
“Yard” means an area within a lot, adjoining a lot line, and measured horizontally, and
perpendicular to the lot line for a specified distance, open and unobstructed except for activities
and facilities allowed therein by this title.
1. “Front yard” means a yard measured into a lot from the front lot line, extending the full
width of the lot between the side lot lines intersecting the front lot line.
2. “Rear yard” means a yard measured into a lot from the rear lot line, extending between the
side yards; provided that for lots having no defined rear lot line, the rear yard shall be
measured into the lot from the rearmost point of the lot depth to a line parallel to the front
lot line.
3. “Side yard” means a yard measured into a lot from a side lot line, extending between the
front yard and rear lot line.
Y. “Z” Definitions:
None.
729
ATTACHMENT IV
- 44 -
CHAPTER 19.12 – ADMINISTRATION
Section
19.12.010 Purpose and intent.
19.12.020 Applicability of Regulations.
19.12.030 Approval Authority
19.12.040 Authority of the Director of Community Development.
19.12.050 Authority of the Design Review Committee.
19.12.060 Authority of the Planning Commission.
19.12.070 Authority of the City Council.
19.12.080 Application Process
19.12.090 Action by Director.
19.12.100 Decision
19.12.110 Noticing.
19.12.120 Action by Director of Community Development — Administrative.
19.12.130 Action by Design Review Committee and Planning Commission.
19.12.140 Action by City Council.
19.12.150 Notice of Decision and Reports.
19.12.160 Effective date.
19.12.170 Appeals
19.12.180 Expiration, Extension and Revocation.
19.12.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the Administration section is to establish procedures for the
discretionary review of development in the city in order to ensure that new development and
changes to existing developments comply with city development requirements and policies. This
chapter establishes the procedures for review of applications before the approval authorities for
each type of project and the process for appeals of any requirement, decision or determination
made by any Approval Body.
19.12.020 Applicability of Regulations.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, Development Review is required for all zoning map
and text amendments, new construction, modifications to building exteriors or site
improvements, and changes in Land Use, including, but not limited to, the following:
A. In the A, A1, R1 and RHS Zones, the following activities:
730
- 45 -
1. Conditional uses in accord with Chapter 19.20, Chapter 19.24, Chapter 19.28, Chapter,
19.32, Chapter 19.36, Chapter 19.40 and Chapter 19.44;
2. Removal of protected trees identified in Chapter 14.18;
3. Projects in R1 zones identified in Section 19.28.040;
4. Height Exceptions identified in Section 19.24.070(B)(3);
5. Hillside Exceptions identified in Section 19.44.070 and Chapter 19.48;
6. Parking Exceptions identified in Chapter 19.124;
7. Fence Exceptions identified in Chapter 19.48
8. Variance to all other zoning regulations
B. In R2, R3, R1C and all Commercial, Industrial, Office, Planned Community Districts and other
non-residential zoning districts:
1. New structures or property development, including signs and sign programs.
2. Building additions, exterior modifications to existing structures including signs and sign
programs, and site changes (including, but not limited to, new or modified landscaping,
tree removals, fencing, changes to parking lot space striping or circulation);
3. Changes in property or building use that involve exterior modifications;
4. Exceptions or modifications to the development's required and/or existing parking;
5. Conditional uses in accord with Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.64, Chapter 19.68, Chapter
19.72, Chapter 19.76, Chapter 19.80, Chapter 19.84, Chapter 19.88, Chapter 19.92, Chapter
19.96, Chapter 19., Chapter 19.128, Chapter 19.116, Chapter 19.132, Chapter 19.136;
19.12.030 Approval Authority
Table 19.12.030 shows the approval authority, Noticing Radius, Expiration Date and Extension
Dates for different types of Permits.
731
- 46 -
Table 19.12.030: Approval Authority
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
General Plan Amendment
Major F - - R F PH CA. Govt.
Code 65350-
65362
Yes - CA. Govt.
Code
65350-
65362
Minor G
- - R F PH Yes -
Zoning Map Amendments
Major F - - R F PH CA. Govt.
Code 65853
- 65856
Yes -
19.152.020 Minor G
- - R F PH Yes -
Zoning Text Amendments
- - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65853
- 65856
- - 19.152.030
Specific Plans
- - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65350-
65362
- -
20.04.030
Development Agreements
- - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65867
Yes -
19.144.120
Development Permits
Major F, H - - F/R A1/F PM 19.12.110/
300’
Yes 2 years
19.156.050 Minor G F - A1 A2 PM Yes 2 years
732
- 47 -
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
Conditional Use Permits
Major F, H, I F - A1/F/R A1/A2/F PH CA. Govt.
Code 65905
Yes 2 years
19.156.050 Minor G, I F - A1/F/R A1/A2/F PH Yes 2 years
Temporary F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year None
19.160.030
Density Bonus (Residential) R F Based on concurrent application 19.52
Adult-Oriented Commercial
Activity (CUP) - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65905/
300’
Yes 2 years
19.128.030
&
19.128.040
Architectural and Site Approval
Major J F - A1 A2 PM 19.12.110/
Adjacent
Yes 2 years 19.168.030 Minor K F - A1 A2 PM Yes 2 years
Amendment
Major F, H - - F A1 PM/PH 19.12.110/
300’
Yes 2 years 19.44,
19.156,
19.164 Minor G F - A1 A2 PM/PH Yes 2 years
Minor Modification F - A1 A2 - None No 2 years 19.164
Hillside Exception/ Height
Exception / Heart of the City
Exception I
- - F A1 PH 19.12.110/
300’ Yes 2 years
19.40.080,
19.24.070,
19.136.090
Variance F - A1 A2 PH CA. Govt.
Code 65905 Yes 2 years 19.156.060
Status of non-conforming Use - - F A1 PH 19.12.110/
300’ Yes - 19.140.110
733
- 48 -
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
Wireless Antennas I
F - F/ A1 A2 Varies I
Depends on
application
type
Yes 2 years
19.136.090
Signs
Permits F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.104
Neon, Reader board &
Freeway Oriented Signs I - F F A1 L PM 19.12.110/
300’ No 1 year 19.104
Programs F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.104
Exceptions I - F - A1 L PM 19.12.110/
Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.104.290
Parking Exceptions I
F F A1 A1 L /A2 Varies M
19.12.110/
Adjacent/
300’ N
Yes 1 year
19.124.050
Fence Exceptions - F - A1 L PM 19.12.110/
Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.48.060
Front Yard Interpretation F - A1 A2 PM 19.12.110/
Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.08
R1 Ordinance Permits
Two-story I F F F/A1 A1 L /A2 Varies I 19.12.110/
Adjacent
Yes 1 year
19.28.140 Minor Residential F - A1 A2 CP No 1 year
Exceptions I - F - A1 L PM Yes 1 year
Protected Trees
Tree Removal F - A1 A2 CP Adjacent/
Depending Yes 1 year 14.18.180
734
- 49 -
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
on type of
application
Heritage Tree Designation &
Removal - - F A1 PM 19.12.110/
300’ Yes -
14.18
Tree Management Plan F - A1 A2 - None No - 14.18
Retroactive Tree Removal F - A1 A2 - None No - 14.18
Reasonable Accommodation F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.52.050
Extensions O
Parking, Fence & Sign
Exceptions & Front Yard
Interpretations
F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year
Neon, Reader board &
Freeway Oriented Signs F A1 A2 - None No 1 year
Two Story Permits, Minor
Residential Permits and
Exceptions
F A1 A2 - None No 1 year
Tree Removals F - A1 A2 - - No 1 year
All other projects F - A1 A2 - 19.12.110/
None No 2 years
Key:
R—Review and recommendation body F — Final decision-making body unless appealed
A1 —Appeal Body on first appeal A2 — Appeal body on second appeal
PH – Public Hearing PM – Public Meeting
CP – Comment Period
735
- 50 -
Notes:
A. Permits can be processed concurrently with other applications, at the discretion of the
Director of Community Development.
B. Projects with combined applications shall be processed at the highest level of approval in
conformance with Section 19.04.090.
C. Public Hearing: Projects types that need noticing pursuant to the CA Government Code;
Public Meeting: Project types that need only a mailed notice and no newspaper notices;
Comment Period: Project types that need only a mailed notice and do not need a public
hearing or public meeting.
D. Noticing Radius of an application in a combined application shall correspond to the
maximum noticing radius required for any one of the applications.
E. Expiration date of an application in a combined application shall correspond to the maximum
expiration date allowed for any one of the development applications (not including
Subdivision Map Act applications, General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map or Text
Amendments.)
F. Major General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Permit application -
for more than ten thousand square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or
other non-residential use, or greater than six residential units
G. Minor General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Permit application -
for ten thousand square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other
non-residential use, or six or less residential units.
H. City Council review for applications with new development greater than fifty thousand square
feet of commercial, and/or greater than one hundred thousand square feet of industrial and/or
office and/or other non-residential use, and/or greater than fifty residential units.
Planning Commission review for all other applications.
I. Please see specific zoning district regulations or chapters in this title that apply to the subject
property or project for approval authority.
J. Major Architectural and Site Approval application - architectural and site approval for all
projects that are not a Minor Architectural and Site Approval application.
K. Minor Architectural and Site Approval application - single family home in a planned
development zoning district, minor building architectural modifications, landscaping, signs
and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where
review is required and minor modifications of duplex and multi-family buildings.
L. Appeals of Design Review Committee decisions shall be heard by the City Council.
M. Parking Exceptions approved by the Director of Community Development need a comment
period.
Parking Exceptions approved by the Design Review Committee need a public meeting.
N. Parking Exceptions in Single-family residential (R1) zones and Duplex (R2) zones need
adjacent noticing.
All other Parking Exceptions need notices within three hundred feet of the exterior boundary
of the subject property.
O. Application must be filed prior to expiration date of permit. Permit is extended until decision
of the Approval Body on the one-time extension.
736
- 51 -
19.12.040 Authority of the Director of Community Development.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the Director of Community Development is as follows:
A. Grant any permits which are authorized to be issued by the Director pursuant to Section
19.12.030 and any other provisions of this code;
B. Grant parking exceptions for projects that are reviewed in conjunction with permits which
are authorized to be issued by the Director of Community Development pursuant to Section
19.12.030;
C. Grant a variance from site development regulations and parking and loading regulations
(except those handicapped parking regulations mandated by State law) applicable within
any zoning district established by this title;
D. Grant a variance from the special conditions of approval that apply to site development and
parking and loading regulations (including conditions attached to planned developments)
applicable within any zoning district established by this title.
E. Grant a request for reasonable accommodation made by any person with a disability, when
the strict application of the provisions within residential districts acts as a barrier to fair
housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.52.
F. Make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this title, and any
chapter therein, consistent with the legislative intent. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation
of the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in
writing for review of the interpretation.
G. May refer an application to another Approval Body for review, decision or
recommendation.
19.12.050 Authority of the Design Review Committee.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the Design Review Committee is as follows:
A. Grant any permits and exceptions which are authorized to be issued by the Design Review
Committee pursuant to Section 19.12.030 and any other provisions of this code;
B. Grant parking exceptions for projects that are in conjunction with permits which are
authorized to be issued by the Design Review Committee pursuant to Section 19.12.030.
19.12.060 Authority of the Planning Commission.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the Planning Commission is as follows:
A. Grant any permits which are authorized to be issued by the Planning Commission pursuant
to Section 19.12.030 and any other provisions of this code;
B. Grant parking exceptions for projects that are in conjunction with permits which are
authorized to be issued by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 19.12.030;
737
- 52 -
C. Make recommendations to the City Council on applications in which it is a recommending
body; and
D. Decide on appeals of decisions pursuant to Section 19.12.030.
19.12.070 Authority of the City Council.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the City Council is as follows:
A. Grant any permits which are authorized to be issued by the City Council pursuant to
Section 19.12.030 and any other provisions of the code;
B. Decide on appeals of decisions pursuant to Section 19.12.030.
19.12.080 Application Process
The following provisions outline the requirements for the filing of applications for permits,
entitlements, amendments, and approvals. Unless otherwise specified in this title, all
applications for permits, entitlements, amendments and approvals required by this title shall be
filed in compliance with this section.
Applications for permits, permit modifications, amendments and other matters pertaining to
this Chapter shall be filed with the Director of Community Development with the following:
A. An application for permit may be made by the owner of record, his or her agent, lessee(s) of
property, or person(s) who have contracted to purchase or lease property contingent upon
their ability to acquire the necessary permit under this title and who have written
authorization from the property owner to make an application.
B. Application shall be made on a form provided by the City, and shall contain the following,
unless waived by the Director of Community Development based on the scope of the
proposed project:
1. A complete legal description of the subject property and map showing the location of
the property for which the permit is sought;
2. A preliminary title report of the subject property;
3. The proposed site development plan indicating: the location of all buildings and
structures; the location and types of land uses; paved areas, such as roadways,
driveways and walkways; and general landscaping scheme;
4. Architectural drawings of the proposed development, building additions or other
structures. Drawings shall indicate building height, colors, materials, window treatment
and other architectural features;
5. Maps showing the locations of buildings;
6. Renderings showing building heights and square footages;
7. Maps showing the precise location of roads, streets, alleys and access points;
8. A traffic analysis, if required;
738
- 53 -
9. A construction plan,
10. Any property/development with a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) or Architectural
Review Board (ARB) shall provide a letter of approval from said HOA Board or ARB.
11. The Director of Community Development may reasonably require additional
information which is pertinent and essential to the application.
12. Zoning Map or Text Amendments shall also include information required per Chapter
19.152.
a. Zoning applications for Planned Development Zoning Districts shall also include
information required per Section 19.80.040;
b. Zoning applications for Multi-Family (R3) Residential shall also include information
required per Section 19.36.040; and
c. Zoning applications for Residential Single-family Cluster (R1C) initiated by a
property owner, or his or her designee, shall also include items identified in Section
19.44.050H.
13. Planned Development Permit and Development Permit applications shall also include
information required per Section 19.156.010:
14. Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall also include information required per
Section 19.156.020.
15. Density Bonus Permit applications shall also include information required per Section
19.56.060.
16. Conversion of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments applications shall
also include information required per Section 19.116.050.
17. Sign Permit Applications should also include information required per Section
19.104.040.
C. Application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part
of which shall be returnable to the applicant.
19.12.090 Action by Director.
Upon receipt of an application for a permit, the Director of Community Development shall:
A. Within thirty days determine whether the application is complete or needs additional
information and shall inform the applicant.
B. Not later than a period stipulated in Section 19.12.100, Decision, below:
1. Set a date for a public hearing or public meeting upon the matter at a regular or special
meeting of the approval authority for the project for applications that require a public
hearing or public meeting, or
2. Send notice in accord with the requirements of 19.12.110(D) for applications that do not
need a public hearing or public meeting.
739
- 54 -
19.12.100 Decision
Unless postponed or continued with the mutual consent of the Director of Community
Development and the applicant and written confirmation from the applicant, a decision shall be
rendered:
A. No later than sixty (60) days following the date the application is deemed complete and
either categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the
adoption of a negative declaration or one hundred and eighty (180) days of certification of
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
B. Notwithstanding the above, no later than one hundred and fifty (150) days upon receipt of a
complete application for a new personal wireless communication facility or ninety (90) days
upon receipt of an application for collocation of a personal wireless communication
facility/antennas.
19.12.110 Noticing.
A. Notice of Public Hearing: Noticing shall be provided in conformance with applicable
California Government Code Sections, as may be amended from time to time, for
applications that need a public hearing.
B. Notice of Public Meeting: For projects requiring notice of a public meeting, notice shall be
provided in conformance with California Government Code Section 65091, as may be
amended from time to time, as follows:.
1. Written notice by first class mail to:
a. Each owner of record of real property within the noticing radius per Section
19.12.030 of the exterior boundary of the property for which the application is made
as the owner of record is shown in the last tax assessment roll;
b. Owner(s) of subject site or his or her authorized agent
c. Project applicant(s)
d. Any individual or entity that has filed a written request with the City Clerk
requesting notification of public hearings
e. Local agencies expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other
essential facilities or services to the proposed project;
2. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered pursuant to
subsection C1 above is greater than one thousand, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice,
the Director may provide published notice as provided in Government Code Section
65091 (a)(4).
3. The notice shall contain information pursuant to Government Code Section 65094.
C. Notice of Comment Period: For projects requiring notice of a comment period, notice shall
be mailed in accord with 19.12.110C(1)(a)-(d), fourteen calendar days prior to the date of
action on the application.
1. For permits issued pursuant to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential, the mailed
notice shall include a copy of the site plan and elevation plans of the proposed project.
740
- 55 -
2. For permits issued pursuant to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, the mailed notice shall
include a copy of the site plan and tree replacement/mitigation plan.
D. The City may also give notice of public hearings/public meetings in any other manner it
deems necessary or desirable. If the Director of Community Development believes the
project may have impacts beyond the range of the mailed notice, particularly on nearby
residential areas, the Director, in his or her discretion, may expand noticing beyond the
stated requirements in Section 19.12.030.
Compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall constitute a good-faith effort
to provide notice, and the failure to provide notice, and the failure of any to receive notice,
shall not prevent the City from proceeding with a hearing, meeting or from taking any
action nor affect the validity of any action. Typographical and/or publishing errors shall
not invalidate the notice nor any City action related to the notice.
E. Posted Site Notice:
1. Applicants shall install notice(s) on the subject site that is/are clearly visible from the
street in accord with the requirements of Table 19.12.030.
a. Applicants must install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site.
b. For all applications other than Two Story Permits, Residential Design Review and
Tree Removal applications in R1 or R2 zones, if the subject site has more than one
property line abutting a street, the applicant may be required to install more than
one notice.
2. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least 2 feet tall and 3 feet wide, firmly
attached to a 5 foot tall post.
3. The notice shall be placed the same number of days prior to the decision/public hearing
as required for the public hearing or mailed notices per Section 19.12.110 A – C and shall
remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period
has passed.
4. The notice shall contain the following:
a. The general location of the property, by text or diagram;
b. A brief general description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at
the sole discretion of the City;
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
d. A deadline for the submission of public comments;
e. If proposing a physical alteration to an existing building or new buildings, at least
one of the following visual representations of the proposed project:
i. A color perspective drawing or three-dimensional (3-D) photographic simulation
of the proposed project, in a size deemed appropriate by the Director of
Community Development.
741
- 56 -
ii. For Two Story Permits and Residential Design Review applications, a color or
black and white perspective drawing or three-dimensional (3-D) photographic
simulation of the proposed project, at least 11 inches by 17 inches in size.
iii. Visual Representation is not required for applications that do not have a material
change in the physical appearance of the property.
19.12.120 Action by Director of Community Development — Administrative.
A. For applications requiring Administrative approval with a public meeting, public hearing or
comment period, the Director of Community Development or his or her designee may,
subject to the requirements of Section 19.12.100, Decision:
1. Issue his or her decision at the conclusion of the public meeting, public hearing or
comment period;
2. Continue the item for additional public hearings, public meetings or comment period; or
3. Defer action by taking the item under advisement and issuing the decision no later than
thirty (30) days following the public meeting, public hearing or comment period.
B. No additional noticing is required if a project is continued.
C. For applications where a public meeting or public hearing is required to be held before the
Director of Community Development, the meeting shall be held in the same manner as a
Design Review Committee meeting.
19.12.130 Action by Design Review Committee and Planning Commission.
A. For applications where the Design Review Committee or Planning Commission is the
Approval Body, it shall render a decision, which is supported by the evidence contained in
the application or presented at the meeting, at the meeting, or at a subsequent meeting after
conclusion of the public hearing or public meeting, subject to the requirements of Section
19.12.100, Decision.
B. For zoning map amendments, on the basis of evidence and testimony presented to the
Planning Commission at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may determine that
the public interest will be served, either by revising the area being considered for
reclassification to include properties not originally part of the application, or by giving
consideration to district classifications not originally requested by the application. The
Planning Commission may, solely at its option, consider additional properties or district
classifications, or both.
C. For applications requiring City Council approval, the reviewing body shall forward its
written findings, determinations and recommendation to the City Council for final action,
subject to the requirements of Section 19.12.100, Decision.
742
- 57 -
19.12.140 Action by City Council.
A. Upon receipt of a recommendation of the reviewing body, the City Council may by
resolution approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the reviewing body,
subject to the requirements of Section 19.12.100, Decision.
B. Upon final approval of a zoning or prezoning application, the City Council shall enact an
ordinance zoning or prezoning the subject property or properties, incorporating within the
ordinance:
1. A Conceptual development plan, if required, and
2. Conditions of approval.
C. For a Development Agreement, the City Council shall enact an ordinance that shall refer to
and incorporate the text of the Development Agreement by reference.
D. For applications requiring City Council approval, the City Council shall issue its decision at
the conclusion of the public hearing or public meeting.
19.12.150 Notice of Decision and Reports.
A. Notice of decision:
1. The decision for applications approved with a public meeting or public hearing shall be
mailed to the property owner and applicant at the address shown on the application.
2. The decision for applications approved with a notice period shall be mailed to the
property owner and the applicant at the address shown on the application and any
person who has commented on the proposed project within the notice period.
3. The decision shall contain the following:
a. Applicable findings;
b. Any reasonable conditions or restrictions deemed necessary to secure the purpose of
this title and to assure operation of the development and/or use in a manner
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the
general vicinity; and
c. Reporting/monitoring requirements deemed necessary to mitigate any impacts and
protect the health, safety and welfare of the city.
4. The decision of the Director of Community Development, Design Review Committee or
Planning Commission shall be final unless appealed in accord with Section 19.12.170,
Appeals. A decision of the City Council shall be final.
B. Reports: The Director of Community Development shall endeavor to forward reports,
within five calendar days from the date of the decision, to the:
1. Planning Commission and the City Council of a decision by the Director of Community
Development
743
- 58 -
2. Planning Commission and the City Council of a decision by the Design Review
Committee.
3. City Council of a decision by the Planning Commission.
19.12.160 Effective date.
A. A permit approved by the City Council shall take effect ten days following the date that the
findings are adopted.
B. Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance/Map Amendments, and
Development Agreements shall become effective thirty (30) days following the final date of
action (e.g., adoption) by the City Council.
C. All other permits shall take effect fourteen calendar days following the date that the
findings are adopted by the appropriate Approval Body, unless an appeal is filed as
provided in Section 19.12.170.
19.12.170 Appeals
A. An appeal may be filed by any person, firm or corporation aggrieved or affected by any
grant, denial, modification or revocation of any permit, or any determination or
interpretation related to any provision of this title.
B. Filing:
1. An appeal shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the City and shall be filed during
regular office hours with the City Clerk within fourteen calendar days after the City
decision or if a notice of decision is not required, from the date of the decision or
determination, under this title. An appeal not filed within such time shall be barred. The
appeal shall state the grounds and basis thereof.
2. Appeals under this chapter are subject to an appeal fee as prescribed by resolution of the
City Council.
C. Noticing: Notice of hearing shall be given in the same manner in which the original notice
was given. If a project with no noticing is appealed, appropriate noticing shall be
determined by the Director of Community Development.
D. Appeal hearing body shall be determined in accord with Section 19.12.030, Approval
Authority.
E. Decision of the appeal hearing body: The decision or determination of the appeal hearing
body on any appeal shall be final and effective immediately.
F. Notice of Decision: Notice of the appeal hearing body’s decision shall be mailed to the
original applicant, to the person filing the appeal, and to any other person who has filed a
written request with the City Clerk.
19.12.180 Expiration, Extension and Revocation.
A. Expiration.
744
- 59 -
1. Approval on a permit or variance shall become null and void and of no effect, within the
time frame specified in Section 19.12.030 following its issuance, unless a shorter or
longer time period is specifically prescribed in the conditions of permit or variance,
unless:
a. A building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number
issued.) In the event that a building permit expires for any reason, the permit shall
become null and void.
b. The permit or variance has been used A permit or variance shall be deemed to be
"used" when actual substantial and continuous activity has taken place upon the
land subject to the permit or variance or, in the event of the erection or modification
of a structure or structures, when sufficient building activity has occurred and
continues to occur in a diligent manner.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, if the use for which a conditional use
permit was granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more,
the permit becomes null and void.
3. Unless a variance or exception has expired pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, it
shall continue to exist for the life of the existing structure or such structure as may be
constructed pursuant to the approval unless a different time period is specified in its
issuance. A variance or exception from the parking and loading regulations, and a sign
exception shall be valid only during the period of continuous operations of the use
and/or structure for which the variance or exception was issued.
B. Extensions. A permit or variance may, in accord with Section 19.12.030, Approval Authority,
be extended, one-time only, for the time frame specified in Section 19.12.030, upon timely
submittal of an application with the Director of Community Development prior to
expiration.
C. Revocation
1. Process. In any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence
indicates that the conditions of a permit or variance have not been implemented, or
where the permit or variance is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare, the Director shall set a date for a public hearing before the
decision maker granting the original permit or variance, and notice a public hearing in
accordance with Section 19.12.110, Noticing, of this code.
2. Findings: A permit may be revoked or modified if any one of the following findings can
be made:
i. That the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud;
ii. That the improvement, use or activity authorized in compliance with the permit had
ceased or was suspended for one year or more;
iii. That one or more of the conditions of the permit have not been met; or
iv. That the owner or occupant of the property is conducting the use or any associated
or other use of the property in violation of the law.
745
- 60 -
v. In the case of revocation of a sign permit, the sign was abandoned for a period of
thirty days.
746
ATTACHMENT V
- 61 -
CHAPTER 19.20 - PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND EXCLUDED USES IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Section
19.20.010 Applicability of Regulations
19.20.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones
19.20.010 Applicability of Regulations
No building or structure or land shall be used in an A, A-1, R-1, RHS, R1C, R-2, or R-3 zoning district, otherwise than in
conformance with the provisions of this chapter.
19.20.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones
Table 19.20.020 sets forth the Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential zones
Table 19.20.020 – Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
1. Agriculture, horticulture, viticulture and forestry, including the
following and similar uses: P P - - - - -
a. Field and truck crops, including drying and storage, P P - - - - -
b. Orchards and vineyards, including bottling and storage, P P - - - - -
c. Tree farms, botanical conservatories and arboreta, P P - - - - -
d. Barns and sheds, P P - - - - -
e. Keeping of draft animals, animals providing products used on
the property, P P - - - - -
f. Livestock ranches and dairy farms depending mainly on
grazing on the property, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
g. Processing of dairy products produced on the property, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
h. Poultry raising and hatcheries, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
i. Apiaries, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
747
- 62 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
j. Nurseries, greenhouses and landscaping gardens, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
k. Boarding kennels, CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC - - - - -
l. Animal breeding; P CUP –
Admin. - - - - -
2. Fur farms - CUP -
PC - - - - -
3. Retail sale of wine, fruit or berries produced on the property; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
4. Single-family dwelling unit with not more than one dwelling
unit per lot/defined air space for condominiums; P P P P P - -
5. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story
limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter,
provided that the Planning Commission determines that the
structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts,
shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to
the surrounding area;
- - CUP -
PC - - - -
6. Employee housing:
a. For six or fewer employees in each dwelling unit on each lot P P P P P P P
b. With no more than 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units/ spaces
designed for use by a single family or household on each lot
P P - CUP-
Admin. - - -
7. A second dwelling unit
a. Which conforms to the requirements of Chapter 19.112; P P P P - - -
b. Which requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter
19.112;
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. - - -
8. Multiple-family residential dwellings - - - - - - P
9. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted
uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter
19.100 of this title;
P P P P P P P
748
- 63 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
10. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the
neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards;
P P P P P P CUP –
CC
11. Temporary buildings for construction purposes (including
trailers) for a period not to exceed the duration of such
construction;
- - - - - - P
12. Home occupations;
a. When accessory to permitted use and otherwise conforming to
the provisions of Chapter 19.120 of this title; P P P P P P P
b. Requiring a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 19.120
of this title;
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
13. Small-family day care home per dwelling unit; P P P P P P P
14. Large-family day care home per dwelling unit;
a. Which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.124,
and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large-
family day care home.
The Director of Community Development or his or her designee
shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure
compliance with the parking and proximity requirements;
P P P P P P CUP –
Admin.
b. Which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use.
The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by
CA Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46 (3);
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
15. Residential care facility with six or fewer residents, not including
the provider, provider family or staff , provided that the facility
obtains any license, if required, issued by appropriate State
and/or County agencies and/or departments;
P P P P P P P
749
- 64 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
16. Residential care facility, in each dwelling unit, with seven or
greater residents, not including the provider, provider family or
staff, and is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the
property boundary of another residential care facility, provided
that the facility obtains any license, if required, issued by
appropriate State and/or County agencies and/or departments;
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP –
PC *
CUP -
PC
CUP –
PC
17. Congregate residence, in each dwelling unit:
a. With six or fewer residents P P P P P P P
b. With seven or greater residents which is a minimum distance of
one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate
residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of
usable rear yard area per occupant
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC *
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
18. Transitional housing located in housing of a type permitted in
the zone; P P P P P P P
19. Supportive housing located in housing of a type permitted in the
zone; P P P P P P P
20. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products:
a. Recreational for personal use; P P P P P P -
b. Limited to maximum of ten percent of the lot area and for
consumption by occupants of the site; - - - - - - P
c.
Produce grown on site may be sold if the business activity is
conducted in a manner consistent with Chapter 19.120, Home
Occupations;
- - - P - - -
d. Commercial purposes; See #1 See #1 - CUP –
Admin. - - -
21. Limited commercial recreation uses, such as riding clubs and
related stables and trails, golf courses, swimming and picnic
grounds,
- - - CUP -
PC
- - -
22. Golf courses and driving ranges; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
750
- 65 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
23. Commercial swimming pools and picnic areas; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
24. Temporary uses subject to regulations established by Chapter
19.156
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
25. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features
that require variation from setbacks upon a determination by the
Director that the design feature, or features, will not result in
privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other
adverse impacts to the surrounding area.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. - CUP –
Admin.
- - -
26. Transmission lines, transformer stations, television and radio
towers, and other public utility and communication structures;
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC - - - - -
27. Adult (over 4 months of age) household pets per dwelling unit,
limited as follows:
a. No specified number P P - - - - -
b. Maximum of four, provided no more than two adult dogs or
cats may be kept on the site - - P - P P P
c. Limited to one per three thousand square feet of lot area, except:
- - - P † - - -
1. Dogs are limited to a maximum of two on lots less than one
acre and four for lots greater than one acre,
2. The number of geese, ducks, chickens, rabbits and other farm
animals are not limited on a site greater than one acre
28. Litter of dogs or cats up to four months of age:
a. No specified number P P - P - - -
b. Maximum of one - - P - P P P
29. Large animals, provided no animals are kept, maintained and
raised for commercial purposes, limited as follows:
See #1 See #1 - P † - - -
a.
Two large animals for the first 40,000 square feet of land area,
except mules and donkeys which require 80,000 square feet for
the first animal,
751
- 66 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
b. One additional large animal for each additional 20,000 square
feet of land area,
c.
One additional large animal if said animal is raised for a 4H
project, a project sponsored by a recognized agricultural
organization or a school project,
30. The keeping of any animal not otherwise permitted above in #27,
28, and 29; - - - CUP –
Admin. - - -
31. Riding academies, commercial stables, and the boarding of
horses;
CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
32. Noncommercial stables, and the keeping of riding horses:
a. Limited to three horses on each lot at any time except that
additional foals may be retained for a period of six months; P P - - - - -
b. In excess of the number permitted in 32(a) CUP –
CC
CUP –
CC - - - - -
33. Cemeteries, crematoriums, mausolea, and columbariums CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
34. Mines, quarries and gravel pits; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
35. Guest ranches; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
36. Public and quasi-public buildings and uses. CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
37. Hog farms; Ex Ex - - - - -
38. Cattle farms mainly depending upon feed brought onto the
property; Ex Ex - - - - -
39. Slaughterhouses, fertilizer yards, feed yards, boneyards or plants
for the reduction of animal matter; Ex Ex - - - - -
40. Commercial feed sales; Ex Ex - - - - -
41. Other semiagricultural uses mainly depending upon raw
materials, semifinished products, or feed brought on to the
property;
Ex Ex - - - - -
752
- 67 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
42. Other agricultural uses which, in the opinion of the Director of
Community Development, create a private or public nuisance. Ex Ex - - - - -
Key:
P – Permitted Use
- – Not Allowed
CUP – Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development
CUP – PC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission
CUP – CC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council
* May be permitted in locations where the use is compatible with existing and planned uses within the development area
in the opinion of the Director of Community Development,
† The required lot area for a large animal shall not be included in the required lot area for a household pet or vice versa,
except that a maximum of two household pets may be kept with large animals,
All animals must be kept and maintained in accordance with other Cupertino or Santa Clara County codes and
ordinances,
Ex - Excluded Uses
753
ATTACHMENT VI
- 68 -
CHAPTER 19.56: DENSITY BONUS
Section
19.56.010 Purpose.
19.56.020 Applicability of Regulations.
19.56.030 Density Bonus.
19.56.040 Incentives/Concessions.
19.56.050 General Requirements.
19.56.060 Application Requirements.
19.56.070 Findings.
19.56.010 Purpose.
The density bonus ordinance codified in this chapter is intended to comply with the State
Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, which provides that a local agency shall
adopt an ordinance specifying how the agency will comply with that section.
19.56.020 Applicability of Regulations.
A. Housing developments resulting in a net increase of at least five units (excluding density
bonus units) are eligible for a density bonus as provided in this chapter, when the applicant
for the housing development agrees or proposes at least one of the following:
1. Construct:
a. Ten percent of the total units affordable to lower income households at affordable
rent or affordable housing cost; or
b. Five percent of the total units affordable to very low income households at affordable
rent or affordable housing cost; or
c. Ten percent of the total units proposed in a common interest development for sale to
moderate income households, provided that all units in the development are offered
to the public for purchase; or
d. A senior citizen housing development.
2. Donate land in accordance with Section 19.56.030C;
3. Provide affordable housing in a condominium conversion project in accordance with
Section 19.56.030E.
B. In addition to meeting the requirements of 19.56.020A, housing developments which
include a child care facility in accordance with Section 19.56.030D, is entitle to an additional
density bonus;
C. An applicant may also submit a proposal for specific incentives or concessions to be granted
in conjunction with the density bonus, as provided in Section 19.56.040;
754
- 69 -
D. The granting of a density bonus, incentive or concession, in and of itself, shall not require a
general plan amendment, zone change, or other discretionary approval and shall be
reviewed concurrently with the review of the housing development.
19.56.030 Density Bonus
A. Housing developments that meet the criteria in Section 19.56.020A(1) are eligible for a
maximum density bonus as set forth in Table 19.56.030.
Table 19.56.030: Density Bonus Calculations
Percentage of Affordable Units
Provided in Income Category
Very Low Income
Units
Low Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
5% 20% - -
6% 22.5% - -
7% 25% - -
8% 27.5% - -
9% 30% - -
10% 32.5% 20% 5%
11% 35% 22% 6%
12% 35% 23% 7%
13% 35% 25% 8%
14% 35% 26% 9%
15% 35% 28% 10%
16% 35% 29% 11%
17% 35% 31% 12%
18% 35% 32% 13%
19% 35% 34% 14%
20% 35% 35% 15%
21% 35% 35% 16%
22% 35% 35% 17%
23% 35% 35% 18%
24% 35% 35% 19%
25% 35% 35% 20%
26% 35% 35% 21%
27% 35% 35% 22%
28% 35% 35% 23%
29% 35% 35% 24%
30% 35% 35% 25%
31% 35% 35% 26%
32% 35% 35% 27%
33% 35% 35% 28%
34% 35% 35% 29%
755
- 70 -
Percentage of Affordable Units
Provided in Income Category
Very Low Income
Units
Low Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
35% 35% 35% 30%
36% 35% 35% 31%
37% 35% 35% 32%
38% 35% 35% 33%
39% 35% 35% 34%
40% 35% 35% 35%
B. Senior housing developments are entitled to a maximum density bonus of 20 percent
provided the development comprises of at least 35 units, conforms with Civil Code Section
51.3 and the units are reserved for qualifying residents. The development does not have to
provide affordable units.
C. Donation of Land:
1. When an applicant donates land to the City in accordance with the requirements of
Section 19.56.020C(2), the development shall be entitled to a 15 percent density bonus.
The development is entitled to an additional one percent density bonus for the donation
of land that would allow the development of an additional one percent of affordable
units above the minimum requirements in Section 19.56.020C(2), up to a maximum of 35
percent.
2. The donation of land must meet the following requirements:
a. The land shall be donated and transferred no later than the date of approval of the
application.
b. The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are
sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households in
an amount not less than 10 percent of the number of residential units of the proposed
development.
c. The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit
development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate General Plan designation, is
appropriately zoned with appropriate development standards for development at the
density described in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3), and is or will be served
by adequate public facilities and infrastructure.
d. The transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building
permits, necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the
transferred land not later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map,
parcel map, or residential development application, except that the City may subject
the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by
Government Code Section 65583.2(i) if the design is not reviewed by the City prior to
the time of transfer.
756
- 71 -
e. The land shall be transferred to the City or to a housing developer approved by the
City. The City may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the
developer.
f. The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if
the City agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed
development.
g. A proposed source of funding for the very low income units shall be identified not
later than the date of approval of the proposed development.
h. The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction
ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with Government Code
Section 65915(c)(1) or (2), as applicable.
D. Provision of Child Day Care Facilities
1. When a housing development is proposed that contains affordable housing as provided
in Section 19.56.030A and includes a child day care facility that will be located on the
premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the City shall grant either of the
following, except as specifically stated elsewhere:
a. An additional density bonus in residential square footage that is equal to or greater
than the square footage of the child day care facility.
b. An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic
feasibility of the construction of the child day care facility in accordance with Section
19.56.040.
2. The City shall also require that as a condition of approving the housing development:
a. The child day care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long
as or longer than the period of time during which the affordable units are required to
remain affordable.
b. Of the children who attend the child day care facility, the children of very low income
households, lower income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a
percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are
required for very low income households, lower income households, or families of
moderate income.
3. Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, the City shall not be required to
provide a density bonus or concession for a child day care facility if the City finds, based
upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child day care facilities.
E. Condominium Conversions
1. When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees
to provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to
low or moderate income households, or 15 percent of the total units of the proposed
condominium project to lower income households, and agrees to pay for the reasonably
necessary administrative costs incurred by the City, the City shall either:
757
- 72 -
a. Grant a density bonus of 25 percent over the number of apartments to be provided
within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion; or
b. Provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. This shall not require the City
to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation but may include
the reduction or waiver of requirements which the City might otherwise apply as
conditions of conversion approval.
2. The City may place such reasonable conditions on the granting of a density bonus or
other incentives of equivalent financial value as the City finds appropriate, including but
not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to subsequent
purchasers who are persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income
households.
3. An application shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives under this
section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for
which a density bonus or other incentives were previously provided under Government
Code Section 65915.
4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the City to approve a proposal to
convert apartments to condominiums.
F. Density Bonus Calculations:
1. A density bonus may be selected from only one income or development category listed
above, except that density bonuses for land donation may be combined with others, up to
a maximum of 35 percent, and an additional square-foot bonus may be granted for a
child day care facility as provided in Section 19.56.030C.
2. In determining the number of density bonus units to be granted, any fractions of density
bonus units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
3. Density bonus units authorized by this section shall not be included when determining
the number of affordable units, required to qualify for the density bonus. In determining
the number of affordable units, any fractions of affordable units shall be rounded up to
the next whole number.
4. An applicant may request a lower density bonus than the housing development is
entitled to, but no reduction will be permitted in the percentage of required affordable
units as shown in Section 19.56.020.
5. Regardless of the affordable units, no housing development will be entitled to a density
bonus of more than 35 percent unless approved by the City pursuant to Section
19.56.030F(7).
6. The City, at its discretion, may grant additional density bonuses. While the maximum
density bonus, the City is required to provide pursuant to State Law, is thirty-five (35)
percent; this is not the maximum amount that an applicant may obtain. An applicant may
negotiate with the City to obtain a density bonus higher than the maximum set forth in
758
- 73 -
Table 19.56.030 in exchange for including even more affordable units than are provided
in the table and/or the provision of other amenities or considerations.
7. For purposes of calculating a density bonus, the residential units do not have to be based
upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in
geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the affordable
units are located.
19.56.040 Incentives and Concessions.
A. A housing development is eligible for Incentives and Concessions as shown in Table
19.56.040A. Incentives and Concessions must be selected from only one category (very low,
low, or moderate). No incentives are available for land donation or for a senior citizen
housing development that is not affordable. Condominium conversions and day care
centers may have one incentive or a density bonus, at the City's option, but not both.
Table 19.56.040A: Incentives and Concessions Calculations:
Unit Type Percent of
Affordable Units
Number of
Incentives/Concessions
Very Low Income
Units
5% or greater 1
10% or greater 2
15% or greater 3
Low Income Units
10% or greater 1
20% or greater 2
30% or greater 3
Moderate Income
Units
10% or greater 1
20% or greater 2
30% or greater 3
B. For purposes of this chapter, permissible concessions and incentives include, but are not
limited to:
1. A reduction of development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or
architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved
by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing
with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including but not
limited to, a reduction in setback requirements, square footage or parking requirements,
such that the reduction or modification results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and
actual cost reductions.
2. Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial,
office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development, and
if the commercial, office, industrial or other land uses are compatible with the housing
project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing
project will be located;
759
- 74 -
3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the City, which
result in identifiable financially sufficient and actual cost reductions.
C. Nothing in this section requires the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing
development, including but not limited to the provision of financial subsidies, publicly
owned land by the City or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. The City, at its sole
discretion, may choose to provide such direct financial incentives;
D. An applicant may submit to the City a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development
standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a
development meeting the criteria outlined in Section 19.56.020 at the densities or with the
concessions or incentives permitted under this chapter. A proposal for the waiver or
reduction of development standards shall neither reduce nor increase the number of
incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled. The applicant shall bear the
burden of demonstrating that the development standards that are requested to be waived
will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development
with the density bonuses and incentives.
E. If the housing development is eligible for density bonus as provided in Section 19.56.020,
upon request of the applicant, the maximum off-street parking standards that can be
applied, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking are indicated in Table 19.56.040B.
These may include tandem and uncovered parking spaces.
Table 19.56.040B: Off-street parking standards with
Number of bedrooms Maximum number of off-street parking spaces
0 – 1 One (1)
2 – 3 Two (2)
4 + Two and one-half (2.5)
F. A housing development which requests incentives or concessions must show that the
requested concessions are required to provide for affordable rents or affordable housing
costs, as applicable.
19.56.050 General Requirements.
A. Affordable for-sale and rental low and very low income units must remain affordable to low
or very low income households, as applicable, for thirty years or for a longer period of time
if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance
program, or rental subsidy program. Affordable for-sale moderate income units must
remain affordable to moderate-income households for the duration required by the City’s
Residential Housing Mitigation Program or for a longer period of time if required by a
construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or
rental subsidy program. Sales price for for-sale affordable very low, low, and moderate
income units shall be set at affordable housing cost. Rents for affordable low and very low
income rental units shall be set at an affordable rent.
760
- 75 -
B. The affordable dwelling units and land dedication that qualify a housing development for a
density bonus may also be used to meet the below-market-rate housing provisions of the
City’s Residential Housing Mitigation Program, provided that the affordable units and land
dedication comply with the requirements of both Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, and the
Residential Housing Mitigation Program regarding the required number of affordable units,
required level of affordability, and term of affordability so as to provide the greatest
affordability to the most households for the longest term.
C. Unless otherwise governed by other funding sources, first priority for the affordable units
will be given to individuals who reside, work, go to school, or have family in the City of
Cupertino.
D. A master regulatory agreement shall be made between the developer and the City which
indicates the household type, number, location, size and construction scheduling of all
affordable units, and such information as shall be required by the City for the purpose of
determining the developer's compliance with this chapter. The regulatory agreement shall
be recorded against the housing development prior to final or parcel map approval or,
where a map is not being processed, prior to issuance of any building permits, and shall be
binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
E. Affordable units in a project and phases of a project shall be constructed concurrently with
or prior to the construction of market-rate units.
F. Affordable units shall be provided as follows:
1. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the project;
2. Affordable units shall be identical with the design of any market rate rental units in the
project with the exception that a reduction of interior amenities for affordable units will
be permitted upon prior approval by the City Council as necessary to retain project
affordability.
G. The developer shall submit a project financial report (pro forma) demonstrating that the
requested incentives or concessions are required to provide for affordable rents or
affordable housing costs, as applicable. The City may retain a consultant to review the
financial report. The cost of the consultant shall be borne by the developer with the
following exception:
1. If the applicant is a nonprofit organization, the cost of the consultant may be paid by the
City upon prior approval of the City Council.
H. All affordable units shall be occupied by the household type specified in the written
agreement required under Section 19.52.050C. The developer’s obligation to maintain these
units as affordable housing shall be evidenced by the master regulatory agreement which
shall be recorded as deed restriction running with the land.
I. Prior to the rental or sale of any affordable unit, the City or its designee, shall verify the
eligibility of the prospective tenant or buyer.
761
- 76 -
J. The City may establish fees associated with the setting up and monitoring of affordable
units.
K. For rental affordable very low and low income units:
1. The owner shall obtain and maintain on file certifications by each household.
Certification shall be obtained immediately prior to initial occupancy by each household
and annually thereafter, in the form provided by the City or its designee. The owner
shall obtain updated forms for each household on request by the City, but in no event
less frequently than once a year. The owner shall maintain complete, accurate and
current records pertaining to the housing development, and will permit any duly
authorized representative of the City to inspect the records pertaining to the affordable
units and occupants of these units.
2. The owner shall submit an annual report to the City, on a form provided by the City.
The report shall include for each affordable unit the rent, income, and family size of the
household occupying the unit.
3. The owner shall provide to the City any additional information required by the City to
insure the long-term affordability of the affordable units by eligible households.
19.56.060 Application Requirements.
A. An applicant may submit a preliminary proposal for housing development pursuant to this
chapter prior to the submittal of any formal application.
B. All requests pursuant to this Chapter shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the
application for the first discretionary permit or other permit required for the housing
development and shall be process concurrently with the discretionary application following
the review process as set forth for permits in Chapter 19.12, Administration of the Cupertino
Municipal Code established by the City. The applicant shall provide additional information
as specified in this chapter, specifically:
1. Provide a written statement specifying the desired density increase, incentives and any
waivers requested, proposed rent schedules and/or sales prices, and the type, location,
size and construction scheduling of all dwelling units;
2. Submit a project financial report (pro forma) demonstrating that the requested
incentives will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to
the housing development and they are required to provide for affordable rents or
affordable housing costs, as applicable. The pro forma shall include the capital costs,
operating expenses, return on investment, loan-to-value ratio and the debt coverage
ratio including the contribution(s) provided by any applicable subsidy program(s), as
required;
3. An appraisal report indicating the value of the density bonus and of the
incentive(s)/concession(s);
762
- 77 -
4. A use of funds statement identifying the financial gaps for the housing development
with the affordable housing units. The analysis shall show how the funding gap relates
to the incentive(s)/concession(s);
5. For any requested waiver of a development standard, evidence that the development
standard for which the waiver is requested will have the effect of physically precluding
the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives
requested.
6. If a mixed use building or project is proposed as an incentive, evidence that non-
residential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and that the non-
residential land uses are compatible with the development and the existing or planned
development in the area.
7. If a density bonus is requested for a land donation, the location of the land to be
dedicated, proof of site control, and evidence that each of the requirements included in
Section 19.56.030C can be met.
8. If a density bonus or incentive is requested for a child care facility, evidence that all of
the requirements in Section 19.56.030D can be met.
9. If a density bonus or incentive is requested for a condominium conversion, evidence that
all of the requirements in Section 19.56.030E can be met.
10. Any other information requested by the Director of Community Development to
determine if the required findings can be made.
19.56.070 Findings.
A. Before approving an application that includes a request for a density bonus, incentive,
parking reduction and/or waiver pursuant this chapter, the decision-making body shall
make the following findings, as applicable:
1. A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives,
parking reductions or waivers requested.
2. A finding that any requested incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient,
and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and documentation
provided.
3. If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all the
requirements included in Section 19.56.030C have been met.
4. If the density bonus or incentive is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care
facility, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030D have been
met.
5. If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that
all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030E have been met.
6. If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all the requirements
included in Section 19.56.040B(2) have been met.
763
- 78 -
7. If a waiver is requested, a finding that the development standards for which the waiver
is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the
housing development with the density bonus and incentives permitted.
B. If the findings required by subsection (A) of this section can be made, the decision-making
body may deny an application for an incentive or waiver requested pursuant to Section
19.56.040 only if it makes one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of
application, supported by substantial evidence:
1. That the incentive is not required to provide for affordable rents or affordable sales
prices; or
2. That the incentive or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the
California Register of Historic Resources; or
3. That the incentive or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health
or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the residential project
unaffordable to low and moderate income households. For the purpose of this
subsection, "specific adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the
residential project was deemed complete; or
4. That the incentive or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.
C. If the findings required by subsection (A) of this section can be made, the decision-making
body may deny an application for a density bonus or incentive that is based on the
provision of child care only if it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that
the city already has adequate child care facilities.
764
ATTACHMENT VII
- 79 -
CHAPTER 19.76: PUBLIC BUILDING (BA), QUASI PUBLIC BUILDING (BQ)
ANDTRANSPORTATION (T) ZONES
Section
19.76.020 Applicability of Regulations.
19.76.030 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in BA, BQ and T Zones.
19.76.040 Permits Required for Development.
19.64.050 Application Requirements.
19.64.060 Site Development Regulations.
19.76.010 Purpose.
The BA, BQ and T zoning districts are designed to accommodate governmental, public utility,
educational, religious, community service, transportation, or recreational facilities in the City.
19.76.020 Applicability of Regulations.
The specific regulations of this chapter shall apply to all BA, BQ and T zoning districts.
19.76.030 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in BA, BQ and T Zones.
Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses that may be conducted from property zoned Public
Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ), and Transportation (T) are identified in Table
19.76.030, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Public, Quasi-Public and
Transportation Zoning Districts.
Table 19.76.030 – Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in BA, BQ and T Zones
Zoning Districts BA BQ T Uses
1. Buildings and other uses on land owned or utilized by a federal,
state, county, or city government or authority, or by a special
district created for public purposes under the laws of the State of
California are permitted in a BA zone.
P -
-
2. Rotating emergency shelter provided that the following conditions
are met:
a. Shelter is located within an existing church structure;
b. The number of occupants does not exceed twenty-five;
c. The hours of operation do not exceed six p.m. to seven a.m.;
d. Adequate supervision is provided;
e. Fire safety regulations are met; and
f. Operation period does not exceed two months in any twelve-
month period at any single location.
- P
-
3. Permanent emergency shelter provided the following conditions
are met:
a. Section 19.76.030(2)(b),(d), (e);
- P -
765
- 80 -
Zoning Districts BA BQ T Uses
b. A management plan is provided which includes a detailed
operation plan;
c. Shelter is available to any individual or household regardless
of their ability to pay; and
d. Occupancy is limited to six months or less.
4. Public utility companies regulated by the Public Utility
Commission for uses restricted to administrative and office
buildings, communication equipment buildings, including
parking, landscaping and maintenance within an enclosed area or
storage yard;
- CUP -
PC
-
5. Religious, civic, and comparable organizations, for uses restricted
to church buildings, community halls, administrative buildings,
schoolrooms, recreational facilities, and athletic fields, convents,
seminaries, and similar uses customarily associated with churches,
including parking and landscaping areas;
- CUP
– PC -
6. Child care facility, residential care facilities, congregate residence,
hospitals, vocational and specialized schools; - CUP
– PC -
7. Lodges, clubs, country clubs, including accessory uses such as
swimming pools, picnic areas, golf courses, driving tees or ranges,
miniature golf courses (all uses to be restricted to members of the
above organizations and their guests);
- CUP
– PC -
8. Large-family daycare home; - CUP
– PC -
9. Airports, airfields and helicopter terminals, including
administration and service buildings, maintenance and storage
yards
- - CUP
– PC
10. Railroads, including terminals and stations, freight yards,
marshaling yards, storage yards, administrative and service
buildings
- - CUP
– PC
11. Bus terminals and stations, including administration and service
buildings, maintenance and storage yards - - CUP
– PC
12. Freeways, expressways, and other roads with limited or controlled
access, including administrative buildings and maintenance yards - - CUP
– PC
Key:
P – Permitted Use
- – Not Allowed
CUP – Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development
CUP – PC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission
CUP – CC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council
Ex - Excluded Uses
766
- 81 -
19.76.040 Permits Required for Development.
Prior to the erection of a new building or structure or enlargement or modification of an existing
building, structure, or site (including landscaping and lighting) in a BA. BQ or T zoning district,
the applicant for a building permit must obtain permits in accord with Chapter 19.12.
19.64.050 Application Requirements.
Prior to the issuance of development permits, or any amendment thereto, an application shall
be made that, in addition to the requirements in Chapter 19.12, shall include a development
plan. The plan shall include:
A. Types and heights of buildings/structures and location of areas where buildings are to be
placed;
B. A proposed system of public and private streets, including cross-sections for all types of
streets;
C. Landscape plans;
D. Parking and loading plans as required by this title;
E. Any other information, which the Director of Community Development requires in order to
evaluate the effects of the proposed facilities on the surrounding areas.
19.64.060 Site Development Regulations.
A. Maximum Height of Buildings and Structures. The height of buildings in BA, BQ and T
zone districts is regulated by the development plan.
B. Setbacks and Screening.
1. There are no minimum setbacks in BA, BQ or T zoning districts; provided, however, that
the Planning Commission may establish minimum setbacks with respect to each
individual application for a development permit or a conditional use permit in order to
provide adequate light, air and visibility at intersections, and to provide general
conformity with adjacent and nearby zones and lots, or to promote the general
excellence of the development;
2. Adequate screening to limit noise, to reduce glare of lights, and to prevent obnoxious
emissions shall be provided when deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
767
ATTACHMENT VIII
- 82 -
CHAPTER 19.84: PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND EXCLUDED USES IN OPEN SPACE, PARK AND RECREATION AND
PRIVATE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICTS
Section
19.84.010 Applicability of Regulations
19.84.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation Zones
19.84.010 Applicability of Regulations
No building or structure or land shall be used in an OS, PR and FP zoning district, otherwise than in conformance with the
provisions of this chapter.
19.84.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation Zones
Table 19.84.020 sets forth the Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation
zones.
Table 19.84.020 – Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation Zones
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
A. Low-intensity recreational uses such as hiking, birdwatching, walking, picnicking and other
similar activities P P -
B. Minor maintenance of vegetation such as mowing or trimming P P P
C. Incidental gardening P P P
D. The erection or maintenance of minor structures, such as fences, gates, culverts and drainage
ditches. P P P
E. Any legal nonconforming use as provided for in Chapter 19.140 of the City’s Ordinance Code P P P
F. Temporary uses subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.160 CUP –
Admin P CUP-
Admin
G. Noncommercial stables for riding horses CUP –
Admin - -
768
- 83 -
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
H. Artificial or constructed pools, ponds, lakes or streams CUP -
Admin P CUP –
PC
I. Playgrounds CUP -
Admin P CUP -
PC
J. Any other use which is compatible with open space or park and recreation and otherwise is in
conformance with the purposes of the OS or PR zoning districts
CUP -
Admin P -
K. Parks, and recreation facilities, as regulated by Title 13 of this code - P -
L. Agricultural activities for educational and recreational purposes, such as community
gardens and hobby farms - P -
M. Single-family residences for the purpose of housing a caretaker for the park. The residence may
take the form of a mobilehome as well as a permanent residential structure. - P -
N. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming
with the provisions of Chapter 19.92 of this title P P P
O. Parking facilities as necessary for park usage - P -
P. Outdoor Uses:
1. Equestrian center including riding academies, stables and horse rental,
2. Practice range for archery or firearms,
3. Golf course with or without driving range,
4. Swim and racquet club,
5. Swimming, diving or related sports center,
6. Picnic areas,
7. Racquet sports center for tennis, racquetball, badminton and similar activities,
8. Specialty outdoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses:
a. Roller skating,
b. Skateboarding,
c. Lawn bowling, bocce ball,
d. Miniature golf,
-
-
CUP –
PC
769
- 84 -
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
e. Waterslide,
9. Commercial athletic field for one or more of the following or similar uses:
a. Baseball, softball or batting cage training,
b. Football
c. Soccer,
d. Volleyball,
e. Field hockey,
f. Basketball,
10. Amusement parks with or without rides or live entertainment,
11. Bicycle motocross course/go-cart track or similar specialty raceway, but excluding facilities
for racing of automobiles or motorcycles,
12. Air sports field for hang gliding, ultralight aircraft or ballooning, but excluding common
carrier passenger aircraft service,
13. Other outdoor recreation uses which are found by the Director of Community Development
to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subdivision;
-
-
-
-
CUP –
PC
CUP -
PC
Q. Indoor Uses:
1. Museums and galleries,
2. Theaters for film, stage or music entertainment,
3. Specialty indoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses:
a. Bowling,
b. Video games,
c. Pool, billiards,
d. Martial arts,
e. Ice or roller skating rink,
4. Personal fitness or sports training center with primary location of facilities and equipment
enclosed within a structure,
5. Dancehall or facility for dance instruction,
6. Other indoor recreation uses which are found by the City Council or Planning Commission
to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subsection.
- - CUP -
PC
770
- 85 -
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
R. Subsidiary Uses:
1. Competition and tournament facilities, including stadium seating, concession stands and box
office/ticket sales for on-premises events only,
2. Restaurant without separate bar facility,
3. Repair shop, servicing equipment associated with the activities authorized under the
principal use permit,
4. Retail sales of equipment and supplies customarily associated with the activities authorized
under the principal use permit,
5. Caretaker’s or security officer’s residence
6. Other uses deemed by the Planning Commission or City Council to be subsidiary to the
principal use authorized on the site.
- - CUP -
PC
S. Card Clubs and similar businesses operating games of chance - - Ex
T. Nightclubs - - Ex
U. Other uses which are found by the Director of Community Development to be in conflict with
the objective of the FP zoning district - - Ex
Key:
P – Permitted Use
- – Not Allowed
CUP – Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development
CUP – PC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission
CUP – CC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council
Ex - Excluded Uses
771
ATTACHMENT IX
- 86 -
CHAPTER 19.144: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Section
19.144.020 Purpose of Development Agreement.
19.144.030 Authority for Adoption.
19.144.040 Application Requirements.
19.144.050 Qualification as an Applicant.
19.144.060 Proposed Form of Development Agreement.
19.144.070 Contents of a Development Agreement.
19.144.080 Consistency with General and Specific Plans.
19.144.090 Public Hearing and Ordinance Required.
19.144.110 Findings.
19.144.120 Irregularity in Proceeding.
19.144.140 Time for and Initiation of Review.
19.144.150 Finding of Compliance–Appeal.
19.144.160 Finding of Noncompliance–Appeal.
19.144.170 Appeal of Determination.
19.144.190 Cancellation or Modification by Mutual Consent.
19.144.200 Cancellation by the City.
19.144.210 Rights of the Parties after Cancellation or Termination.
19.144.220 Rules Affecting Development Agreement.
19.144.230 Separate Procedure.
19.144.240 Effect of Development Agreement.
19.144.250 Construction.
19.144.260 Execution and Recordation of Development Agreement, Amendment or
Cancellation.
19.144.270 Judicial Review–Time Limitation.
19.144.010 Findings and Declaration of Intent.
A. The California Legislature in Section 65864 of the Government Code has found that the lack
of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources,
escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage
investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum
efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. The City Council
finds and determines that under appropriate circumstances, development agreements will
772
- 87 -
strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive
planning by providing a greater degree of certainty in that process, reduce the economic
costs of development, allow for the orderly planning of public improvements and services
and the allocation of costs therefor in order to achieve the maximum utilization of public
and private resources in the development process, and assure, to the extent feasible, that
appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment of the City are achieved. .
The City Council further finds that the lack of public facilities, including, but not limited to,
streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, is a serious
impediment to the development of new housing.
B. The City Council further finds and determines that the public safety, health, convenience,
comfort, prosperity and general welfare will be furthered by the adoption of this chapter in
order to provide a mechanism for the enactment of development agreements to accomplish
the foregoing purposes and aims and the realization of the benefits.
19.144.020 Purpose of Development Agreement.
Development agreements enacted pursuant to this chapter are to ensure to the applicant for a
development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the
project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to specified
conditions of approval, in order to implement the intent of the City Council in enacting this
title. Development agreements will also ensure that all conditions of approval, including the
construction of off-site improvements made necessary by such land developments, will proceed
in an orderly and economical fashion to the benefit of the City.
19.144.030 Authority for Adoption.
This chapter is adopted under the authority of Government Code Sections 65864 through
65869.5.
19.144.040 Application Requirements.
An application for a development agreement shall include, in addition to the requirements of
Chapter 19.12, Administration, a development agreement proposal as described in 19.144.060,
Proposed Form of Development Agreement.
19.144.050 Qualification as an Applicant.
Only a qualified applicant may file an application to enter into a development agreement. The
Director of Community Development shall require an applicant to submit proof of his or her
interest in the real property and of the authority of the agent to act for the applicant. This proof
may include a title report, policy or guarantee, issued by a title company licensed to do business
in the State evidencing the requisite interest of the applicant in the real property. B. Other
Parties. In addition to the City and developer, any federal, State or local governmental agency
or body may be included as a party to any development agreement. Any additional party shall
be made a party to the development agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Exercise
of Powers Act (Government Code Section 6500, et seq.) providing for joint powers agreements,
or provisions of other applicable federal, State or local law, in order to create a legally binding
agreement between such parties.
773
- 88 -
19.144.060 Proposed Form of Development Agreement.
Each application shall be accompanied by the form of development agreement proposed by the
City. This requirement may be met by designating the City’s then standard form of
development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney and including specific proposals for
changes in or additions to the language of the standard form. The City’s Proposed Form of
Development Agreement shall include the following:
A. The parties to the development agreement;
B. The nature of the applicant’s legal or equitable interest in the real property constituting such
applicant as a qualified applicant under this chapter;
C. A description of the development project sufficient to permit the development agreement to
be reviewed under the applicable criteria of this chapter. Such description may include, but
is not limited to, references to site and building plans, elevations, relationships to adjacent
properties and operational data. Where appropriate, such description may distinguish
between elements of the development project which are proposed to be fixed under the
development agreement, those which may vary and the standards and criteria pursuant to
which the same may be reviewed;
D. An identification of the approvals and permits for the development project enacted to the
date of or contemplated by the development agreement;
E. The duration of the development agreement;
F. The permitted uses of the property;
G. The maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for dedications of
land for public purposes;
H. A program and criteria for periodic review under this chapter;
I. Appropriate provisions guaranteeing or securing performance of the development
agreement on the part of the developer;
J. Specific standards for periodic review of a development agreement;
K. Specific standards to insure compliance by the parties to a development agreement;
L. The Development Agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a
specified time and that the project or any phase shall be commenced within a specified time
and that the project and any phase be completed within a specified time.
M. Information required in accord with Section 19.140.070, Content of a Development
Agreement;
N. Any other relevant information which may be deemed necessary by the Director of
Community Development pursuant to this chapter.
774
- 89 -
19.144.070 Contents of a Development Agreement.
A. A development agreement shall specify its duration, the permitted uses of the property, the
density and/or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
B. A development agreement shall attach and incorporate by reference all conditions of
approval imposed by the City with respect to the development project.
C. All development agreements shall contain an indemnity and insurance clause in form and
substance acceptable to the City Attorney, requiring the developer to indemnify the City
against claims arising out of the development process and limiting the developer’s sole
remedy to specific performance and thereby eliminating any potential damages to be paid
by the City under the development agreement; provided, that, these provisions do not
violate applicable law or constitute a joint venture, partnership or other participation in
business affairs of developer by the City.
D. All development agreements, or any part of development agreements, may be subject to
subsequent condemnation proceedings by the City.
E. Community Benefits: At the discretion of the City Council, additional heights over the base
height standard in gateways and nodes identified in the Special Areas Map (Fig. X of the
General Plan) may be approved as shown in the Community Form Map (Fig. Y of the
General Plan). In order to obtain additional height, a development should include the
following community benefits.
1. Ground floor retail component; and
2. One or more of the following benefits equivalent to at least 15% of the increase in value
of the site attributed to the increase in height, based on a pro-forma, prepared by the
developer and peer-reviewed by the City. The cost to the City of the peer-review shall be
paid for by the developer:
a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements
i. New or expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
ii. Transit improvements and/or amenities including adaptive traffic signal
management systems;
iii. Participation in a community shuttle program (to provide connections to major
employment and community nodes, including community facilities and
shopping).
b. Public Entity or Facilities: Provide land or space for public entities, such as schools.
c. Senior Housing. Provide at least 15% of housing for seniors, if the proposed project
includes a residential component and is not already targeted towards seniors.
d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities
i. Construction of a new, or expansion to, a community facility (e.g. recreation
center, teen facility, etc.)
775
- 90 -
ii. Construction of a new, or expansion of, a community gathering space (e.g.
meeting/conference space, cultural center or museum).
e. Parks and Open Space
i. New publicly accessible park and/or open space within a project in excess of
park dedication requirements.
ii. Dedication of land for a new or expanded park outside the project boundary in
excess of park dedication requirements.
f. Cash-in-Lieu Contribution. A Cash-in-Lieu contribution is a contribution made to
the City by a developer or applicant and is equivalent to at least 15% of the increase
in value of the site attributed to the increase in height achieved through the
Community Benefits Program. The funds are allocated exclusively for purchase of
land, capital improvements or operations related to items a, b, d, e, and towards the
construction of affordable housing. All Cash-in-Lieu Contributions shall be made to
the City.
19.144.080 Consistency with General and Specific Plans.
Before the City Council may approve the development agreement, it must find that its
provisions are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans of the City. If
the City Council approves the development agreement in the form recommended by the
Planning Commission, without further findings, then it shall be deemed to have also adopted
the findings of the Planning Commission.
19.144.090 Public Hearing and Ordinance Required.
A development agreement is a legislative act and shall be enacted by ordinance only after a
public hearing before the City Council. The ordinance shall refer to and incorporate by
reference the text of the development agreement.
19.144.110 Findings.
A. Development Agreement shall be enacted by ordinance by the City Council upon making
the following findings:
B. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the
General plan and any applicable specific plan;
C. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use
district in which the real property is or will be located;
D. Is in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare and good land
use practice;
E. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare;
F. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of
property values; and
G. Will promote and encourage the development of the proposed project by providing a
greater degree of requisite certainty.
776
- 91 -
19.144.120 Irregularity in Proceeding.
Formal rules of evidence or procedure which must be followed in a court of law shall not be
applied in the consideration of a proposed development agreement under this chapter and the
provisions of Chapter 19.12, Administration, shall provide the procedure for such
consideration. No action, inaction or recommendation regarding the proposed development
agreement shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by a court on the ground of the improper
admission or rejection of evidence or by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or
omission (“error”) as to any matter pertaining to the application, notice, finding, record,
hearing, report, recommendation, or any matters of procedure whatever unless after an
examination of the entire case, including the evidence, the court finds that the error complained
of was prejudicial and that by reason of the error the complaining party sustained and suffered
substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if the error has not
occurred or existed. There is no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury resulted if
error is shown.
19.144.140 Time for and Initiation of Review.
The Director of Community Development shall review the development agreement annually in
order to ascertain the good faith compliance by the developer with its terms. The Developer
shall submit documentation as required by the Director of Community Development to
demonstrate good faith compliance by the developer of the terms of the development
agreement. The time for review may be modified by the City Council at any time upon
reasonable notice to the developer, and the development agreement may prescribe a procedure
and standards and different times for review of compliance with its terms; provided, however,
that a development agreement shall in any event be reviewed for compliance at least once every
twelve months.
19.144.150 Finding of Compliance–Appeal.
If the Director of Community Development finds good faith compliance by the developer with
the terms of the development agreement, he or she may issue a certificate of compliance, which
shall be in recordable form and may be recorded by the developer in the official records. The
issuance of a certificate of compliance by the Planning Director and the expiration of the appeal
period hereinafter specified without appeal, or the confirmation by the City Council of the
issuance of the certificate on such appeal, shall conclude the review for the applicable period
and such determination shall be final.
19.144.160 Finding of Noncompliance–Appeal.
If the Planning Director, on basis of substantial evidence, finds the developer has not complied
in good faith with the terms of the development agreement, he or she may specify in writing to
the developer the respects, in which developer has failed to comply. The Director of
Community Development shall also specify a reasonable time for the developer to meet the
terms of compliance. If such areas of noncompliance are not perfected within the reasonable
time limits as prescribed, the development agreement shall be subject to modification or
cancellation by the City Council.
777
- 92 -
19.144.170 Appeal of Determination.
Any interested person may file an appeal of the issuance of a certificate of compliance to the
City Council within ten days after the certificate’s issuance. The developer may also file an
appeal to the City Council of the finding of the Director of Community Development of
noncompliance within ten days after the giving of notice of such determination. All appeals
before the City Council shall be conducted pursuant to a noticed hearing in the same manner as
any other appeal before the City Council, at which evidence shall be taken and findings made.
19.144.190 Cancellation or Modification by Mutual Consent.
Any development agreement may be canceled or amended by mutual consent of the parties, but
only in the manner provided in California Government Code Section 65868. Any proposal to
cancel or amend a development agreement shall be heard and determined in accordance with
the same procedures specified by this chapter for approval of a development agreement.
19.144.200 Cancellation by the City.
A. The City Council shall conduct a noticed hearing on the recommendations of the Director of
Community Development at which the developer and any other interested person shall be
entitled to submit evidence and testimony as may be germane to the issue of the developer’s
good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the City Council
finds, based on substantial evidence, noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the
development agreement, it may either cancel the development agreement upon giving sixty
days’ notice to the developer, or in its discretion, may allow the development agreement to
be continued by imposition of new terms and conditions intended to remedy
noncompliance. The City Council may impose conditions to the action it takes as it
considers necessary to protect the interests of the City. The decision of the City Council shall
be final.
B. Any cancellation or imposition of new terms and conditions pursuant to this section shall be
noticed in accordance with the procedures specified in Chapter 19.12, Administration of this
code.
19.144.210 Rights of the Parties after Cancellation or Termination.
In the event that a development agreement should be canceled, or otherwise terminated, unless
otherwise agreed, all rights of the developer, property owner or successors in interest under the
development agreement shall terminate. Any and all benefits, including money or land,
received by the City shall be retained by the City. Notwithstanding the above provision, any
termination of the development agreement shall not prevent the developer from completing
and occupying a building or other improvements authorized pursuant to a valid building
permit previously approved by the City or under construction at the time of termination, but
the City may take any action permitted by law to prevent, stop, or correct any violation of law
occurring during and after construction, and the developer or any tenant shall not occupy any
portion of the project or any building not authorized by a previously issued building permit. As
used herein, “construction” means work under a valid building permit, and “completing”
means completion for beneficial occupancy for developer's use, or if a portion of the project is
intended for use by a lessee or tenant, then for such portion “completion” means completion
778
- 93 -
except for interior improvements such as partitions, duct and electrical runouts, floor coverings,
wall coverings, lighting, furniture, trade fixtures, finished ceilings, and other improvements
typically constructed by or for tenants of similar buildings. All such uses shall, to the extent
applicable, be deemed nonconforming uses and shall be subject to the nonconforming use
provisions of the planning code.
19.144.220 Rules Affecting Development Agreement.
All development agreements shall be subject to the regulation and requirements of the laws of
the State, the Constitution of the United States and any codes, statutes or executive mandates
and any court decisions, State or federal. In the event that any such law, code, statute, mandate
or decision made or enacted after a development agreement has been entered into prevents or
precludes compliance with one or more provisions of the development agreement, then such
provisions of the development agreement shall be modified or suspended in the manner and
pursuant to the procedures specified in the development agreement, as may be necessary to
comply with such law, code, statute, mandate or decision.
19.144.230 Separate Procedure.
All development agreements entail and consist of a separate procedure from other land use
planning procedures and shall not take the place of the zoning ordinances, the General Plan,
planned development permits, development permits, conditional use permits, subdivision
approvals, building permits or any other City planning functions. If so specified in the
development agreement, it shall constitute an approval pursuant to such planning procedures
as if separately enacted under other City planning ordinances. To the extent practicable, public
hearings on a proposed development agreement shall be held concurrently with the public
hearings on all related land use approvals and all such approvals shall be made concurrently
with the approval of the development agreement.
19.144.240 Effect of Development Agreement.
When approved, the development agreement and any development control maps and all
notations, references and regulations which are a part of the development agreement shall be
part of the development agreement ordinance. Development control maps include, but are not
limited to, regulations intended to carry out any plan respecting location or type of activities;
height, bulk, siding or design of structures; location or design of open areas; and landscaping
and other comparable regulations.
19.144.250 Construction.
This chapter and any subsequent development agreement shall be read together. With respect
to any development agreement enacted under this chapter, any provision of such a
development agreement which is in conflict with this chapter shall be void. Unless otherwise
provided by the development agreement, the City’s rules, regulations and official policies
governing permitted uses of the land, governing density and governing design, improvement
and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the property subject
to a development agreement shall be those City rules, regulations and official policies in force at
the time of the approval of the development agreement by the City Council; provided, however,
779
- 94 -
that the developer is subject to all increases in City imposed fees and charges with respect to
subsequent applications for development and construction within the property subject to a
development agreement.
19.144.260 Execution and Recordation of Development Agreement, Amendment or
Cancellation.
A. Within ten days after the ordinance approving the development agreement takes effect, the
City Council shall execute the development agreement, and the City Council Clerk shall have
the development agreement recorded with the County Recorder.
B. If the parties to the development agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel
the development agreement as provided in Government Code Section 65868, and this chapter,
or if the City Council terminates or modifies the development agreement as provided in
Government Code Section 65865.1 and this chapter for failure of the developer to comply in
good faith with the terms or conditions of the development agreement, the City Council Clerk
shall, after such action takes effect, have notice of such action recorded with the County
Recorder.
19.144.270 Judicial Review–Time Limitation.
Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set, set aside, void or annul, any decision of the City
pursuant to this chapter shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding
is commenced within ninety days after the date of decision as provided in Section 1094.6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, State of California.
780
ATTACHMENT X
- 95 -
CHAPTER 19.172: BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM
Section
19.172.010 Purpose
19.172.020 Below Market Rate Housing Program Requirements
19.172.030 BMR Program Administration
19.172.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of
households with varying income levels within the city as mandated by State Law, California
Government Code Sections 65580 and the City of Cupertino’s General Plan, including its
Housing Element.
B. Promote the city's goal to add affordable housing units to the city's housing stock in
proportion to the overall increase in new jobs and market rate housing units.
C. Mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate housing development
and ensure that market-rate housing development does not utilize all land available in the
city for affordable housing.
D. Mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new residential and commercial
development by protecting the economic diversity of the city's housing stock, with the goal
of reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, promoting jobs/housing balance
and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region.
E. Increase the supply of for-sale and rental housing for families and individuals employed in
Cupertino whose incomes are insufficient to afford market rate housing. Since the historical
rate of production of affordable housing in the city, by private developers is very low, the
BMR program is essential to meet the city's need for affordable housing.
19.172.020 Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program Requirements
A. Developers of housing development projects must comply with the requirements set forth
in Residential Housing Mitigation Program of the City of Cupertino’s Housing Element of
the General Plan.
B. To the extent permitted by law, the City’s objective is to obtain actual affordable housing
units within each development rather than off-site units or mitigation fee payments.
Provision of off-site units, land donation, or payment of Housing Mitigation Fees may only
be permitted as specified in the Residential Housing Mitigation Program rules and
regulations.
781
- 96 -
19.172.030 BMR Program Administration
A. The City Council shall adopt rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this
chapter and the Housing Element for the purpose of carrying out the administration of the
Residential Housing Mitigation Program. Such rules and regulations shall address, but are
not limited to, program eligibility requirements, affordable housing cost, income limits,
preferences for housing applicants, minimum occupancy limits, waiting list procedures,
buyer selection procedures, methodology for the calculation of affordable housing cost and
affordable rent, resale restrictions and reasonable accommodations for disable applicants.
The rules and regulations shall also address Residential Housing Mitigation Program
components such as the provision of rental BMR units in for-sale housing developments or
off-site BMR units. A copy of such policies, rules and regulations shall be on file and
available for public examination in the office of the city clerk.
B. Failure or refusal to comply with any such rules, regulations or agreements promulgated
under this section shall be deemed a violation of this chapter.
782
- 1 -
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-213
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: SPA-2014-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Within the Heart of the City Specific Plan boundaries
SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to replenish, reallocate and
increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development
activity while keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives and to consolidate
development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, under a
comprehensive community vision, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Housing Law, the City Council has directed staff to update the
Housing Element of the General Plan and make associated zoning amendments to comply with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Council’s consideration of this Specific Plan amendment,
and following the Commission’s recommendation, the Council adopted Resolution No. 6761,
adopting a General Plan Amendment covering the properties which are the subject of this
Specific Plan amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan amendment will be consistent with the City's General Plan land
use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the Rezoning application is part of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update and Associate Rezoning, all as fully described and analyzed in the June 2014 General
Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Project Environmental
Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007), as amended by text
revisions in the August 2014 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update and
Associated Rezoning Project EIR Response to Comments Document (“Response to Comments
Document”) and the Supplemental Text Revisions dated October 8, 2014 (together, the “Final
EIR”);
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014 at a
Planning Commission Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council on October 7, 2014 at a City
Council Study Session; and
783
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held public hearings on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014 to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on October 20, 2014 the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City,
adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the
mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City
that are identified in Findings (Resolution 6760); and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0-1 (Takahashi
absent) vote that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01)
(Resolution no. 6761); authorize staff to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for review and certification (GPA-2013-
02); approve the prioritized list of potential Housing Element sites in the event amendments are
needed to the proposed Housing Element sites upon HCD review (Resolution no. 6762);
approve the Zoning Map Amendments, Z-2014-03, in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6763); approve the Municipal Code Amendments to make
changes to conform to the General Plan and Housing Element and other clean up text edits
(MCA-2014-01) (Resolution no. 6764); approve the Specific Plan Amendments, SPA-2014-01, in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6765); and
WHEREAS, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one public hearing to consider
the amendments to the Municipal Code be granted; and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council is the decision-making body for this Resolution;
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the
public hearing on November 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-210
certifying the EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting
Mitigation Measures, and adopting of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the EIR and finds that scope
of this Resolution falls within the previously certified EIR and that the rest of the amendments
proposed in the Resolution do not constitute a project under CEQA, are exempt and no further
environmental review is required; and
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, and after careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits,
testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council finds:
1. That the amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is consistent with the intent of
the goals and policies of the General Plan as a whole, and is not inconsistent with any
element thereof;
784
- 3 -
2. That the amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is necessary to prescribe
reasonable controls and standards for affected land uses to insure compatibility and
integrity of those uses with other established uses;
3. That the amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is necessary to provide
reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive
land uses and species;
4. That the amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is necessary to correct
discrepancies in standards or policies within the plan area or land use category; and
5. That the amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is necessary to protect the
general health, safety, or general welfare of the community as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Section 1.01.020.B of the Heart of the City Specific Plan is amended to read:
“Residential density shall be per the General Plan Land Use and zoning maps. On sites with a
mixed-use residential designation, residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element
sites. Conditional use permits will be required for residential units on mixed-use Housing
Element sites that propose units above the estimates in the Housing Element, and on Non-
Housing Element mixed-use sites.
In mixed residential and commercial developments, the preferred location for residential
units shall be behind primary street fronting retail/commercial uses. Secondarily, residential
units may be located above the ground level on multi-story buildings. The amount of
building space devoted to retail/commercial uses shall be such that the retail/commercial uses
shall have a viable and substantial retail component.”; and
2. Section 1.01.030(A)(2) of the Heart of the City Specific Plan is amended to read:
The primary bulk of the building shall be maintained below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the
arterial street cub line or lines in all areas subject to the Heart of the City standards except for
the Crossroads area. See the Crossroads Streetscape Plan for details.
3. Heart of the City Specific Plan Land Use Map is amended as shown in Exhibit SPA-1.
4. Heart of the City Zoning Map is amended as shown in Exhibit SPA-2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November 2014, at a Special Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
785
- 4 -
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
786
Civic Center
Node
787
Partial
South De
Anza Blvd
Conceptual
Plan Area
788
RESOLUTION NO. 6760
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, HOUSING E LEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT;
AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH ITS RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROJECT
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: EA-2013-03
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to replenish, reallocate and
increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development
activity while keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives, and to consolidate
development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, both
under a comprehensive community vision, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Housing Law, the City Council has directed staff to update the
Housing Element of the General Plan and make associated zoning amendments to comply with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq . of the California Code of Regulations) (“CEQA
Guidelines”), the City of Cupertino as lead agency caused the General Plan Amendment,
Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#20140322007) (“EIR”) to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2014, the City issued Notice of Preparation for the EIR for the Project.
A scoping session was held on March 11, 2014 to provide the public the opportunity to
comment on the topics to be studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”).
Public comments were collected through the scoping period’s conclusion on April 7, 2014; and
WHEREAS, from April 8, 2014 to June 17, 2014, the City prepared a Draft EIR pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review/comment period beginning
on June 18, 2014 and ending August 1, 2014 ; and
789
Resolution No. 6760 EA-2013-03 October 20 , 2014
Page -2-
WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on June 18, 2014 under State Clearinghouse No.
2014032007 , and the Notice of Availability was filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk -
Recorder on the same day and was also: (1) sent to other potentially affected agencies as
required by CEQA; (2) sent to adjacent property owners as required by CEQA; and (3) posted at
the Project site and at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the City held a duly noticed public meeting during the public
comment period on the Draft EIR to allow the public an additional opportunity to provide
input on the DEIR and received public testimony; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR,
responses to written comments concerning the adequacy of the DEIR received during the public
review and comment period have been prepared and compiled in the Response to Comments
Document, which includes revisions to the DEIR (“RTC Document”); and
WHEREAS, the RTC Document was issued on August 28, 2014 and notice of availability was
sent to the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder’s Office, posted at City Hall and the Project site,
and sent to 10 local libraries and interested persons registered through the project website; and
WHEREAS, copies of the RTC Document were sent to all public agencies that commented on
the D raft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City received comments on the Draft EIR following the close of the public
review and comment period (“Late Comments”) and, although pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21091(d)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) written responses are not
required, responses to Late Comments have been provided with staff reports; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.86.100, the Housing Commission
is authorized to assist the Planning Commission and the City Council in developing housing
policies and strategies for implementation of general plan housing element goals; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Housing Element and
proposed amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code pertaining to housing and affordable
housing, were presented to the Housing Commission at a public hearing on August 28, 2014;
and
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2014, the Housing Commission recommended that the City Council
authorize staff to forward the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and use the High-Low prioritization of Potential Housing
Element Sites;
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Draft EIR, the RTC
790
Resolution No. 6760 EA-2013-03 October 20 , 2014
Page -3-
Document, and all documents incorporated therein were presented to the Planning
Commission on September 9, 2014 at a Planning Commission Study Session; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2014, City Staff presented the Draft EIR and the RTC Document, and
all documents incorporated therein, to the Environmental Review Committee (“ERC”) for
review and recommendation. After considering the documents, and Staff’s presentation, the
ERC recommended that the City of Cupertino City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update and Associated Rezoning, which is part of the Final EIR, identifies revisions which are
typographical corrections, insignificant modifications, amplifications and clarifications of the
Draft EIR and the RTC Document; and
WHEREAS, the “Final EIR” consisting of the Draft EIR (published in June 2013), the RTC
Document (published in September 2013), and Supplemental Text Revisions and all documents
incorporated therein was presented to the City Council on October 7, 2014 at a City Council
Study Session; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014 to consider the project .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony, staff reports, public
comments, other evidence submitted in this matter, and the substantial evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission recommend s that the City Council:
1. Certify that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and
reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
2. Adopt Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the significant
effects of the Project as recommended by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2014 for
approval by the City Council (“Recommended Project”); .
3. Adopt and incorporate into the Recommended Project a ll of the mitigation measures for the
Recommended Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are
identified in the Findings.
4. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Recommended Project.
791
Resolution No. 6760 EA-2013-03 October 20 , 2014
Page -4-
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20 th day of October, 2014 , Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Gong, Sun
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Takahashi
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Paul Brophy
Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair
Assistant City Manager Planning Commission
792
GPA -2013 -01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6761
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
REALLOCATE AND REPLENISH DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION, AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND REORGANIZATION AND IMPROVE
PRESENTATION AND READABILITY
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council, in substantially similar form to
the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit GPA, adopt the proposed General Plan
Amendments with the following amendments to Exhibit GPA-1 and corresponding
amendments to GPA -2:
1. Citywide Development Allocation (Table LU -1) on page LU -14:
a. Office: Allow a 500,000 sf increase to the citywide allocation pool. Eliminate the
Major Employers allocation pool.
b. Residential: Eliminate residential allocation
2. Eliminate Policy LU -1.3: Community Benefits Program
3. Edit Figure LU -1 for Heights and Densities in Planning Areas on page LU -18 as follows:
Heart of the City Special Area
Oaks Gateway − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
Glenbrooks (if HE site) − 45 ft.
− 23 du/ac
North Crossroads Node − 45 ft. or 60 ft. with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE site
City Center − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
North De Anza Blvd
Special Area
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
Vallco Shopping District
West of Wolfe Road − 45 ft.; or 60 with retail
− 35 du/ac
East of Wolfe Road − 60 ft.; or 75 ft. with retail
− 35 du/ac
Homestead Special Area
North De Anza
Gateway
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft. with retail; or 90 ft. for a hotel with major
convention center with capacity for 500 people
793
- 2 -
Stelling Gateway (east
of Stelling)
− 45 ft.
− 35 du/ac
North Vallco Park Special Area
N. Vallco Gateway
(west of Wolfe Rd.)
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
N. Vallco Gateway
(east of Wolfe Rd. –
Hamptons site)
− 75 ft. (buildings located within 50 ft. of property lines
abutting Wolfe Rd, Pruneridge Ave. & Apple Campus 2 site
shall not exceed 60 ft.).
− 25 du/ac
− 103 du/ac if HE site
South De Anza
Blv d Special Area
− 45 ft. for Summerwinds/ Granite Rock if HE site
− 25 du/ac
4. Vallco Shopping District Special Area on Page LU -56: Strategy LU -19.1.4: Land Use:
Uses allowed on the site may include a mix of the following uses:
a. Retail: High performing major retail with entertainment and restaurant uses
b. Hotel: 5 -star hotel with a major convention center
c. Residential: On upper floors with retail and active uses on the ground floor.
Encourage a mix of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who
like to live in an active “town center” environment.
d. Office: High -quality office space arranged in a pedestrian -oriented street grid with
active uses on the ground floor, publicly-accessible streets and plazas/green space.
5. Associated text amendments to reflect the changes identified in Items #1 -3.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20 th day of October, 2014 , Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Gong, Sun
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Takahashi
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Paul Brophy
Aarti Shrivastava Pau l Brophy, Chair
Assistant City Manager Planning Commission
794
GPA -2013 -02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6762
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE
SUBMITTAL OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD)
FOR REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION AND USE OF THE PRIORITIZED LIST
OF POTENTIAL HOUSING ELEMENT SITES WITH THE HCD, IF NEEDED
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council, in substantially similar
form to the draft Resolution , attached hereto as Attachment HE, authorize:
1. Submittal of the draft housing element and technical appendix to the State Department of
Housing and Community D evelopment for review and certification (Application No. GPA-
2013 -01) with the following amendments related to the recommended Priority Housing
Sites:
No. Site Name Density and Realistic Capacity
(85% of max. density)
Recommended Housing Element Sites
1. The Oaks 25 du/ac (150 du maximum)
2. Hamptons (342 units existing) 103 du/ac (748 du additional)
3. United Furniture + other 25 du/ac (103 du)
4. Barry Swenson 25 du/ac (11 du)
5. Glenbrooks (517 units existing) 23 du/ac (228 additional)
6. Summerwinds & Granite Rock 25 du/ac (96 du)
2. Use of the prioritized list of potential housing element sites with the HCD, if needed as
follows:
No. Site Name Density and Realistic Capacity
(85% of max. density)
1. Villages (468 units existing) 2 0 du/ac (62 du additional)
2. Marina Plaza 35 du/ac (204 du)
3. Carl Berg 25 du/ac (169 du)
795
- 2 -
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20 th day of October 2014, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Sun, and Gong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Takahashi
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Paul Brophy
Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair
Assistant City Manager Planning Commission
796
Z-2013-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6763
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING FOR CERTAIN SITES IN THE CITY
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning to the City of Cupertino
Municipal Code with the findings reflected in the Draft Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit Z
amended as follows:
1. Exhibit Z -3 amended with the following edits
APN Current
Zoning
Zoning if selected
as a Priority
Housing Site
Zoning if NOT
selected as a
Priority Housing
Site
Density if NOT
selected as a
Priority
Housing Site
Density if
selected as a
Priority
Housing Site
316-06-032 P(Res – 70) P(Res) P(Res) 25 du/ac. 99 du/ac.
316-06-037 P(Res – 70) P(Res) P(Res) 25 du/ac. 99 du/ac.
326-27-036 R3 (10 -20) R3 R3 (10 -20) 10-20 du/ac. 10-23 du/ac.
326-27-037 R3 (10 -20) R3 R3 (10 -20) 10-20 du/ac. 10-23 du/ac.
316-20-080 P(CG ) P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-081 P(CG ) P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-082 P(CG ) P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-101 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-104 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping)
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-105 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-106 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
316-20-107 P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res )
35 du/ac. 35 du/ac.
797
- 2 -
326-27-039 P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG) 2 5 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
326-27-040 P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG) 2 5 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
326-27-041 P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG) 2 5 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
“Common
Area”
identified
in Santa
Clara
County
Assessor
Office Book
326, Page
27 for
Effective
Roll Year
2014-2015
surrounded
by APN:
326-27-039,
326-27-040
& 326-27-
041
P(CG) P(CG, Res) P(CG)
2 5 du/ac. 25 du/ac.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October 2014, at a Regular Meeting of the Plann ing
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Sun, and Gong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Takahashi
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Paul Brophy
Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair
Assistant City Manager Planning Commission
798
MCA -2014 -01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6764
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENTS REGARDING HOUSING AND OTHER ZONING CODE
AMENDMENTS FOR CLEAN-UP AND CONSISTENCY
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Municipal Code Amendments to the
City of Cupertino Municipal Code with the findings reflected in the Draft Ordinance attached
hereto as Exhibit MCA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October 2014, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Sun, and Gong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Takahashi
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Paul Brophy
Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair
Assistant City Manager Planning Commission
799
SPA -2014-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6765
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council, in substantially similar form to
the Draft Resolution attached hereto, as Exhibit SPA, adopt the proposed Specific Plan
Amendments with the following amendments:
1. Make conforming edits to Exhibit SPA-2 to reflect the Planning Commission’s
recommendation for application Z-2013 -03 regarding Vallco Shopping District.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October 2014, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Sun, and Gong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Takahashi
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Paul Brophy
Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair
Assistant City Manager Planning Commission
800
I-1
EXHIBIT EA-1 (ALTERNATE)
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE,
AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (City), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update,
And Associated Rezoning (the “Project”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007) (the “Final
EIR” or “EIR”). The Final EIR is a program-level EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.1 The Final EIR consists of Volumes I and II of the June 2014 Public
Review Draft Project Environmental Impact Report (the “Draft EIR”); the August 2013
Response to Comments Document; and the November 3, 2014 Supplemental Text Revisions
memorandum,2 which contains typographical corrections, insignificant modifications,
amplifications and clarifications of the EIR.
In determining to approve the Project, which is described in more detail in Section II, below,
the City makes and adopts the following findings of fact and statement of overriding
considerations, and adopts and makes conditions of project approval the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of
this proceeding (administrative record). Pursuant to Section 15090(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the City Council reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the findings in
Sections II through XIII, below, and the City Council determined that the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment of the City. The conclusions presented in these findings are
based on the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (the ”Balanced Plan”)
As fully described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, the Balanced Plan (also, the “Project”)
involves all of the following: (1) a focused General Plan Amendment consisting of revised
1 The State CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section
15000 et seq.
2 PlaceWorks, Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update
and Associated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (November 3, 2014)
(“Supplemental Text Revisions”).
801
I-2
city-wide development allocations for office commercial, hotel and residential uses, as well
as buildings heights and densities for Major Mixed-Use Special Areas; (2) updating the
General Plan Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) for the 2014-2022 planning period to meet the City’s fair-share housing obligation
of 1,064 units; (3) amending certain Zoning and Density Bonus portions of the City’s
Municipal Code to be consistent with the Housing Element and to be consistent with
requirements pertaining to emergency shelters; and (4) conforming changes to the General
Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map for consistency and for revisions
required by State law, and reorganization for purposes of increasing clarity and ease of use.
The increased development allocations would be allowed in specific locations throughout
the City, which are categorized as follows and are described and depicted on figures in the
EIR:
• Special Areas (including City Gateways and Nodes along major
transportation corridors);
• Study Areas;
• Other Special Areas (including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-
Use Special Areas); and
• Housing Element Sites
The buildout of the potential future development in these identified locations is based on a
horizon year of 2040; therefore, the EIR analyzes growth occurring between 2014 and 2040.
The 2040 horizon year is generally consistent with other key planning documents, including
Plan Bay Area, which is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable
Community Strategy to Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act.
The EIR analyzed the proposed Project (which is “Land Use Alternative C”)3 and three
additional alternatives (No Project Alternative, Land Use Alternative A, and Land Use
Alternative B), all at the same level of detail. The Balanced Plan is a revised version of
Alternative C consisting of the same development allocations and Housing Element sites
that were analyzed in the EIR for Alternative C, except, as described in more detail in the
next section below, that the office allocation is reduced to the amount analyzed in the EIR
for Alternative B, and the maximum height limits are reduced except at one location
(Stelling Gateway) as part of reducing the office allocation. The purpose of the revisions to
Alternative C in the Balanced Plan is to more closely achieve a balance among the project
objectives (see Section II.A, below).
3 Draft EIR, p. 2-5 (Table 2-1, footnote a).
802
I-3
A. General Plan Amendment
Every city and county in California is required to prepare and to adopt a comprehensive,
long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and, in some
cases, land outside the city or county boundaries. Government Code § 65300. The City’s
current, 2000-2020 General Plan controls the area and density of commercial, office, hotel,
and residential uses built in the city through development allocations in terms of square feet
(commercial and office), rooms (hotel), and units (residential). The allocations are
geographically assigned in certain neighborhoods, commercial, and employment centers so
that private development fulfills both City goals and priorities and reduces adverse impacts
to the environment. The City allocates development potential on a project-by-project basis
to applicants for net new office and commercial square footage, hotel rooms, and/or
residential units. As a result of several recent approvals of projects, a large amount of the
current office, commercial and hotel development allocation has been granted, leaving an
inadequate pool to allocate to additional development in the city.
While the Project is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan. The
current General Plan contains many goals, policies, standards, and programs that the City
and community would like to continue into the future. The Project instead focuses on
identifying and analyzing potential changes along the major transportation corridors in
Cupertino that have the greatest ability to evolve in the near future because the rest of the
city consists primarily of single-family residential neighborhoods.
The development allocations in the Balanced Plan are as follows:
• Office allocation (reduced to amount in Alternative B): 2,540,231 square feet (net
increase of 2,000,000 square feet from the 2000-2020 General Plan)4
• Commercial allocation (same as Alternative C): 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of
0 square feet from the 2000-2020 General Plan)5
4 The Alternative C proposed office allocation is 4,040,231 square feet (net increase from 2000-
2020 General Plan of 3,500,000 square feet).
5 The EIR provided an analysis for the commercial development allocation of 1,343,679 square
feet for Alternative C, which is an increase in commercial development allocation of 642,266 square
feet over the remaining allocation of 701,413 square feet in the 2020 General Plan; however, the
additional 642,266 square footage does not constitute a net increase in commercial development in
Cupertino during the planning period of the General Plan Amendment (through 2040). That is
because the entire 642,266 square feet of the increased allocation would come from demolition of
Vallco Shopping Center and rebuilding and/or relocating that existing commercial square footage to
other sites. Due to the high vacancy rate at the Vallco Shopping Mall under existing conditions,
however, the EIR conservatively analyzed the total commercial development allocation of 1,343,679
square feet (642,266 existing square feet + 701,413 new square feet).
803
I-4
• Hotel allocation (same as Alternative C): 1,339 rooms (net increase of 1,000 rooms
from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Residential allocation (same as Alternative C): 4,421 units (net increase of 2,526 units
from the 2000-2020 General Plan )
As shown above, these development allocations consist of a balance among the
development allocations in Alternatives B and C. The recommended heights are lower than
those studied in Alternative C, however. In most Special Areas the Balanced Plan would
have the same height limits as Alternative B, but in one case (South De Anza Avenue) the
height limits would be the same as Alternative A. See Land Use and Community Design
Element, Table LU-2.
The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the Alternative C or any of
the other alternatives due to the fact that the office/commercial–to-residential balance is
even better than that in Alternative B, which had the lowest VMT of all of the alternatives
studied in the EIR. However, it will continue to have significant avoidable impacts for
traffic, air quality and noise even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
The majority of the Balanced Plan is located in the City’s Special Areas as identified in the
current General Plan. The development allocations can generally be used in Special Areas,
Study Areas, Housing Element Sites and Other Special Areas; however, hotel development
allocations may not be used in Other Special Areas. The boundaries and proposed changes
within each Special Area, Study Area and Other Special Area are described in detail in
Section 3.7 (Project Components) of Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Draft EIR.
B. Housing Element Update
The Balanced Plan includes a comprehensive update to the City’s Housing Element (the
“2014-2022 Housing Element”) in compliance with State law. The Housing Element’s
policies and programs are intended to guide the City’s housing efforts through the 2014 to
2022 Housing Element period. The 2014-2022 Housing Element keeps many of the existing
policies and strategies in the 2007-2014 Housing Element and revises them to conform to
changes in State law or based on a critical evaluation of the programs and policies. The
Housing Element assesses housing needs for all income groups and establishes a program
to meet these needs. The policies and strategies have also been reorganized to provide for
better readability and to eliminate redundancies.
State law requires each jurisdiction to address how it will satisfy the quantified objectives
for new residential units as represented by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). The RHNA identifies Cupertino’s housing needs by income levels. The City’s
housing needs allocation for the period 2014 to 2022 is 1,064 new housing units. The
income levels are separated into four categories: very low, low, moderate and above
moderate, shown in Draft EIR Table 3-20. Draft EIR, p. 3-66. State law allows jurisdictions
804
I-5
to take credit for residential projects that have been approved, building permits issued
during the plan period in which the review is taking place, and second dwelling units (also
known as accessory dwelling units) that are anticipated to be constructed during the plan
period.
The City has issued entitlements and/or building permits for 30 units since January 1, 2014.
Additionally, it is anticipated that because 32 second units (on single-family lots) were
constructed in the 2007-2014 plan period, 32 second units will be constructed in the current
plan period as well. Therefore, the City can take credit for a total of 62 units (30 units
approved and 32 second units anticipated). As a result, the City is required to identify sites
for the construction of 1,064 minus 62 units, or 1,002 units.
To accommodate the current planning period’s RHNA, the Available Land Inventory in the
Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element identified 19 potential housing sites, which are analyzed
in the EIR. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that
the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. Of the original 19 sites
identified in the Draft EIR, 12 remain for consideration.6 Approximately 2,084 units could
be accommodated on these 12 sites. Draft EIR, Table 3-21, pp. 3-68 to 3-70 and City Council
Staff Report for November 10, 2-14 (Table 3). The maximum number for the residential
allocation pursuant to the Balanced Plan is 4,421 units, which allows for net new
development of 2,526 units above the current General Plan buildout.
HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee
that the RHNA realistically can be accommodated. Based on consultation with HCD and
the City’s housing consultant expert, it is anticipated that HCD will require sites to
accommodate units equivalent to a moderate surplus above the City’s housing need, or
approximately 1,400 units. Of the 12 identified sites, the City Council has directed staff to
submit six sites to HCD for review as to their adequacy under State Planning and Zoning
Law. These six sites can accommodate 1,386 units.
6 Of the 19 studied in the EIR, only 12 sites are available for selection. That is because the
largest property owner associated with the Intrahealth/Valley Church etc. site on Stelling Road, and
the owners of two of the three parcels at Cypress Building/Hall property site notified the City that
their properties should not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory. The property owner of a small
portion of Shan Restaurant/Q-Mart/China Dance indicated that their parcel should not be included in
the Housing Sites Inventory, the resulting reduction in size does not result in a significant change in
the size of the site and the balance of the site is included as an Alternate Site. While the property
owner of 40% of the Arya/Scandinavian Design site indicated that their property should be removed
from the Housing Sites Inventory, this site was already recommended for removal in the Balanced
Plan. In addition, four other sites were removed from consideration.
805
I-6
The means of achieving the development of these units are provided for in the policies and
programs described in the Housing Element. The City's quantified objectives are identified
in Table 3.4 of the Housing Element. The City is not obligated to construct the housing
units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City is required to demonstrate adequate
capacity for 1,064 housing units by identifying sufficient specific sites in order to satisfy the
RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy.
In addition to analyzing the 2014-2022 Housing Element for the specified planning
period, the Final EIR analyzes the overall environmental effects of increasing housing units
on a citywide basis to address, which is necessary the address the two future housing
elements that are expected to be adopted during the period between 2014 and General Plan
Amendment horizon year of 2040. The Plan Bay Area (the Bay Area Region’s Sustainability
Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan) identifies that the City of
Cupertino’s housing need by 2040 will be 4,421 units. Therefore, while the Housing
Element only identifies the potential for development of 1,064 units on six Available
Land Inventory housing sites, the Balanced Plan also adds 2,526 units to the City’s current
residential development allocation for a total of 4,421 units, the impacts of which are
analyzed in the EIR.
C. Conforming General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and
Density Bonus Amendments
As part of the Housing Element update process, Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) in Title 19
(Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code will be amended to be consistent with the 2007–2014
Housing Element Program 12 (Density Bonus Program). Chapter 19.20 (Permitted,
Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.76
(Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T) Zones), and
Chapter 19.84 (Permitted, Conditional And Excluded Uses In Open Space, Park And
Recreation And Private Recreation Zoning Districts), also in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s
Municipal Code, will be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining
to permanent emergency shelters and to comply with the State Employee Housing Act with
respect to farmworker housing and employee housing. In addition, Program 17 of the
Housing Element, which addresses the potential loss of multi-family housing and
displacement of lower- and moderate-income households due to new development, will be
amended to comply with recent legislation and to mitigate the potential displacement
impacts to renters (e.g. tenant relocation benefits).
The Balanced Plan also includes revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning
Ordinance (including the Chapters listed above and 19.08 (Definitions) and 19.144
(Development Agreements), and the Zoning map to ensure consistency with the General
Plan as a result of changes to Housing Element policies or to address changes required as a
result of State legislation adopted since the last General Plan update (such as Assembly Bill
806
I-7
1358, Complete Streets), and as a result of bringing non-conforming land uses into
conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
D. Project Objectives
The project objectives are as follows:
• Emphasize employment and a mix of economic development opportunities by
replenishing, reallocating, and increasing city-wide office, commercial, and hotel,
allocations in order to capture:
• A share of the regional demand for office and hotel development, and
• Retail sales tax leakage in the trade area.
• Address local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino by replenishing, re-allocating and increasing city-
wide residential allocations to be consistent with 2040 Bay Area Plan projections to
allow flexibility for the city when future state-mandated updates are required to the
Housing Element.
• Update the Housing Element as required by State law.
• Creating opportunities for mixed-use development consistent with Regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
required by SB 375.
• Investing in improvement to adapt to climate change over time.
• Consider increased heights in key nodes and gateways, if proposed development
provides retail development and benefits directly to the community.
• Update General Plan policies to implement multi-modal traffic standards as opposed
to LOS thresholds currently identified. Balancing development objectives with
transportation constraints and opportunities.
• Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District by adopting policies to support its
redevelopment, so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment
destination that serves both the region and the local community.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. Environmental Impact Report
On March 5, 2014, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR to the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and
807
I-8
persons. A postcard notice had previously been delivered in February 2014 to all postal
addresses in the City to announce upcoming dates for the General Plan and Housing
Element projects. The NOP was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies
and interested parties for a total of 30 days, from March 5, 2014 through April 7, 2014,
during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on March 11, 2014. Comments on
the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies,
and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting on June 18, 2014 and ending
August 1, 2014. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional and State agencies. Copies
of the Draft EIR in paper or electronic format were available to interested parties for
purchase or review at Cupertino City Hall. The Draft EIR was also available for review at
libraries in the City and in surrounding communities, and an electronic version of the Draft
EIR and all appendices were posted on a website the City created for the combined General
Plan and Housing Element projects at www.cuptertinogpa.org, which included an
electronic comment portal to receive public comment 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The City continues to make these documents available on its website for the Project at the
following URL: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/app_folders/view/1. The public was also
invited to submit written comments on the Draft EIR to the City of Cupertino Community
Development Department by mail or e-mail to planning@cupertino.org.
Notice of availability of the Draft EIR was made in several ways. The City sent a postcard
announcing the availability of the Draft EIR and inviting attendance at the Draft EIR
comment meeting to all postal addresses in Cupertino. In addition, in accordance with
CEQA, the City posted the Notice of Availability (NOA) on the Project website. The City
also sent emails providing notice of the Draft EIR’s availability to all persons who had
indicated an interest in the Project and signed up for notifications through the City’s
website. The local media publicized the availability of the Draft EIR and the public
comment period.
The City held a Community Open House and EIR Comment Meeting during the comment
period on June 24, 2014. The City solicited written comments at the meeting by distributing
comment cards that were collected at the end of the evening.
The 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR ended on August 1, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.
Agencies, organizations, and members of the public submitted written comments on the
Draft EIR. The Responses to Comments Document, which is the third volume of the Final
EIR, was issued for public review on August 28, 2014 and sent to public agencies who had
commented on the Draft EIR. Chapter 5 of the Responses to Comments Document provides
responses to the comments received during the comment period on the Draft EIR. Late
comments received after the close of the public comment period have been addressed in
memoranda submitted to the City Council.
808
I-9
On September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held a Study Session on the EIR and took
public comments. On October 7, 2014, the City Council held a Study Session on the Final
EIR and took public comments.
On October 2, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee determined that the EIR was
adequate and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR. On October 20, 2014,
following a duly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2014 that was continued on October
20, 2014, the City Planning Commission, recommended that the City Council certify the
Final EIR.
B. Additional Housing Element Public Review Process
The Housing Element must identify community involvement and decision-making
processes and techniques that constitute affirmative steps for receiving input from all
economic segments of the community, especially low-income persons and their
representatives, as well as from other members of the community. Public participation,
pursuant to Section 65583(c)(8) of the Government Code, was accomplished in a variety of
ways. Outreach was conducted in the form of in-person interviews with stakeholders
including several housing-related non-profits and organizations that provide services to low
income families and individuals in the City; and with parties interested in the Housing
Element process, including property owners and community groups such as the Concerned
Citizens of Cupertino and neighborhood groups. Below are some examples of outreach and
noticing conducted as part of the Housing Element update.
• Notice postcard sent to every postal address in the City.
• Joint Housing Commission and Planning Commission workshop – January 23, 2014
• Housing Commission Workshop – February 12, 2014
• Open House – February 19, 2014, September 16, 2014
• Study Session held with Planning Commission – February 19, 2014
• Study Session held with City Council – March 3, 2014
• Housing Commission meeting on housing policy – March 19, 2014
• Joint Planning Commission/City meeting on housing policy – April 1, 2014
• Newspaper notices.
• Notices sent to all prospective housing element site property owners prior to City
Council authorization to commence environmental review.
809
I-10
• Notices sent to all prospective housing element site property owners prior to
Planning Commission and City Council prioritization of the sites for HCD review.
• Webpage hosted focusing on the Housing Element Update process.
• Notice of website additions and Workshop reminders e-mailed to over 300 Housing
Element website subscribers.
• Staff presentations at the Chamber of Commerce.
• Housing Commission Meeting – August 28, 2014
• Planning Commission Hearing – October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014
The City’s outreach also included stakeholder meetings with non-profit and for-profit
housing developers, building industry trade groups, architects, planners, and affordable
housing funders. The Housing Element update process in the City has involved a number of
groups and individuals in the process of reviewing current housing conditions and needs
and considering potential housing strategies. Two public workshops were held at Housing
Commission meeting and at a Joint Planning Commission Housing Commission meeting. In
addition, one publicly noticed Planning Commission Study Session was held and included
opportunity for public comment. Feedback from these study sessions and public workshops
was used to identify needs, assess constraints and develop draft programs for the Housing
Element update, and are included in Section 1.3 of Appendix A of the General Plan.
IV. FINDINGS
The findings, recommendations, and statement of overriding considerations set forth below
(the “Findings”) are made and adopted by the Cupertino City Council as the City’s findings
under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the Project. The Findings provide
the written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project’s
environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the overriding
considerations that support approval of the Project despite any remaining environmental
effects it may have.
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR with regard to
project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of
each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a
summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City’s
findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of
mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions
can be found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations
regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts.
810
I-11
When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, present,
and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a
summary of projections in an adopted planning document. The cumulative impacts
analysis in the Final EIR uses the projections approach and takes into account growth from
the Project within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in
combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the
surrounding region, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
In adopting mitigation measures, below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure
identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such
mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project in the findings
below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth
below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical
error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control
unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified
by these findings.
Sections V and VI, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR
identifies as either significant and unavoidable or less than significant with adopted
mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
V. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
DISPOSITION OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES RESULTING IN
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The Final EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the approval of the Project, some of which can be reduced, although not to a
less-than-significant level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). In some cases, the City cannot require or
control implementation of mitigation measures for certain impacts because they are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(2). Therefore, as explained below, some impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable notwithstanding adoption of feasible mitigation measures. To the extent that
these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the
environment, and because the City cannot require mitigation measures that are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies to be adopted or implemented by
those agencies, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant and unavoidable
adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Section XII, below. Public
Resources Code § 21081(a)(3). As explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section
811
I-12
V are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in
full by this reference.
A. Impact AQ-1: Implementation of the Project would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
The Final EIR finds that while the Project would support the primary goals of the 2010 Bay
Area Clean Air Plan, the buildout of the Project would conflict with the BAAQMD Bay Area
Clean Air Plan goal for community-wide VMT to increase at a slower rate compared to
population and employment growth. The rate of growth in VMT would exceed the rate of
population and employment growth, resulting in a substantial increase in regional criteria
air pollutant emissions in Cupertino.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Policies and development standards in the Project would lessen the impact, but due to the
level of growth forecast in the city and the programmatic nature of the Project, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable.
B. Impact AQ-2: Implementation of the Project would violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
The Final EIR finds that future development under the Project would result in a substantial
long-term increase in criteria air pollutants over the 26-year General Plan horizon. Criteria
air pollutant emissions would be generated from on-site area sources (e.g., fuel used for
landscaping equipment, consumer products), vehicle trips generated by the project, and
energy use (e.g., natural gas used for cooking and heating). Because cumulative
development within the City of Cupertino could exceed the regional significance thresholds,
the Project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time as the
attainment standards are met in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce these impacts, but not to a
less-than-significant level. Due to the programmatic nature of the Project, no additional
mitigation measures are available beyond Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b;
therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a:
As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future
development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic
control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10.
812
I-13
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b:
As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future
development projects that could generate emissions in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during construction, as
determined by project-level environmental review, when applicable, to implement the current
BAAQMD construction mitigation measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) or
any construction mitigation measures subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD.
C. Impact AQ-3: Implementation of the Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors).
The Final EIR finds that the Project will combine with regional growth within the air basin
to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for the SFBAAB, which is
currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and
National PM2.5, and California PM10 ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Any project that
produces a significant regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to
the cumulative impact. Mitigation measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b, set forth and incorporated
above, would reduce impacts to the extent feasible , but the Project’s impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Air
pollutant emissions associated with the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to air quality impacts, and the Project’s impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
D. Impact AQ-6: Implementation of the Project would cumulatively
contribute to air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
As described in the discussion of Impact AQ-3, the Final EIR finds that regional air quality
impacts will be significant. Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact
with respect to air quality even with the applicable regulations, as well as the Mitigation
Measures AQ-2a, AQ-2b, AQ-4a and AQ-4b and the General Plan policies outlined in
Impact AQ-1 through AQ-5. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a, AQ-2b, AQ-4a and AQ-4b and the General
Plan policies outlined in Impact AQ-1 through AQ-5, would lessen the impact, but not to a
less-then-significant level. Because the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently
813
I-14
designated as a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National
PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS , the Project’s cumulative impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
E. Impact NOISE-3: Implementation of the Project would result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project would have a significant impact if it
results in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project. The Final EIR anticipates that there would be
substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels throughout Cupertino as a result of
implementation of the Project and ongoing regional growth, and that these increases would
result primarily from increases in transportation-related noise, especially noise from
automobile traffic.
Although the Project contains policies that could in certain cases reduce or prevent
significant increases in ambient noise at sensitive land uses upon implementation (e.g.,
noise-reducing technologies, rubberized asphalt, soundwalls, berms, and improved
building sound-insulation), the measures described in these policies would not be
universally feasible, and some of the most effective noise-attenuation measures, including
sound walls and berms, would be infeasible or inappropriate in a majority of locations
where sensitive land uses already exist.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. All
conceivable mitigations would be either economically impractical, scientifically
unachievable, outside the City’s jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals
and objectives. Therefore, even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and
General Plan policies, the impact to ambient noise levels would remain significant and
unavoidable.
F. Impact NOISE-5: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to noise.
The Final EIR finds that the analysis of the Project, as described in the discussions of Impact
NOISE-3, addresses cumulative noise impacts from implementation of the Project. Similarly,
the noise contours and traffic-related noise levels developed for the Project include and
account for regional travel patterns as they affect traffic levels in the City. Thus, the future
noise modeling which served as the foundation for the overall Project analysis was based on
future, cumulative conditions, and finds that implementation of the Project would result in
significant cumulative impacts.
814
I-15
The Final EIR finds that even after the application of pertinent policies and strategies of the
General Plan Amendment cumulative noise impacts of the Project, as described in the
discussion of Impact NOISE-3, would remain significant and unavoidable. Thus,
implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact with respect to noise.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant
level. As explained in the discussion of Impact NOISE-3, all conceivable cumulative noise
mitigations would be economically impractical, scientifically unachievable, outside the
City’s jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives, and would
be infeasible. Therefore, even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and
General Plan policies, the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
G. Impact TRAF-1: Implementation of the Project would conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project would generate additional motor
vehicle trips on the local roadway network, resulting in significant impacts to sixteen (16)
out of 41 study intersections during at least one of the AM or PM peak hours. See Draft EIR,
Table 4.13-13.7
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would secure a funding mechanism for future roadway
and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects
based on then current standards, but not to a less-than-significant level. Impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable because the City cannot guarantee improvements at
these intersections at this time. This is in part because the nexus study has yet to be
prepared and because some of the impacted intersections are within the jurisdiction of the
City of Sunnyvale, the City of Santa Clara, and Caltrans. The City will continue to cooperate
with these jurisdictions to identify improvements that would reduce or minimize the
impacts to intersections and roadways as a result of implementation of future development
projects in Cupertino, but, because many of the improvements in Mitigation Measure TRAF-
1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and not the City of
Cupertino, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
7 Following completion of the Draft EIR, the impacts to Intersection #29 were
determined to be less-than-significant rather than significant. See Supplemental Text
Revisions Memo.
815
I-16
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1:
The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee
Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to
mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the
preparation of the Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a
"nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600
legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support
implementation of the Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable
relationship" or nexus exist between the transportation improvements and facilities required to
mitigate the transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the Project. The following
examples of transportation improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of
service standards and these, among other improvements, could be included in the development impact
fees nexus study:
♦ SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): An exclusive left-turn lane
for the northbound leg of the intersection (freeway off-ramp) at the intersection of SR 85 and
Stevens Creek Boulevard would result in one left-turn lane, one all-movement lane, and one right
turn lane. The additional lane could be added within the existing Caltrans right-of-way.
♦ Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): The addition of a second exclusive left-turn
lane for the eastbound leg of the intersection from Stevens Creek Boulevard to northbound
Stelling Road, which could be accomplished by reworking the median. Right turns would share
the bike lane.
♦ Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (#5): Widen De
Anza Boulevard to four lanes in each direction or the installation of triple left-turn lanes.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in
the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through
traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the
bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield
to pedestrians.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): Restripe westbound Stevens Creek
Boulevard to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through vehicles may be
required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and will still be controlled by the traffic
signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights. The
pedestrian crossings will not be affected may enhance the bicycling experience.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): Realign the intersection that
is currently offset resulting in inefficient signal timing such that the McClellan Road and
816
I-17
Pacifica Drive legs are across from each other may be required. In addition, double left turn lanes
may be required to be added to De Anza Boulevard with sections of double lanes on McClellan
Road and Pacifica Drive to receive the double left turn lanes. These improvements will require the
acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of existing commercial buildings. However, some
existing right-of-way could be abandoned, which would reduce the net right-of-way take.
♦ Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16): The addition of a third southbound through lane to
the southbound approach of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road may be required,
as well as the addition of a southbound exclusive right-turn lane. Three southbound receiving
lanes on the south side of the intersection currently exist. An additional westbound through lane
for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead
westbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of a westbound exclusive
right-turn lane may be required. This will require widening Homestead Road. An additional
eastbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane
on Homestead eastbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of an
eastbound exclusive left-turn lane for a total of two left-turn lanes may be required. These
improvements will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of parking areas.
♦ Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding
a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to
be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General
Plan development. This could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. Right-of-way
acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report
(PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which
may include widening the overcrossing and may also include a redesign of the interchange to go
from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the
right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
♦ Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19): An additional through lane for a total of
three through-movement lanes for the northbound leg of the intersection at the Wolfe Road and I-
280 Southbound Ramp may be required. This additional northbound through lane would require
widening to the freeway overcrossing. In addition to widening the overcrossing, the City may
wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond
design. This could help with the problem of heavy volume in the right lane, which contributes to
the level of service deficiency.
♦ Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#21): The restriping of the
westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated
from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn
vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected.
Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance
the bicycling experience.
817
I-18
♦ North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24): Restriping of the
southbound leg of the intersection (Quail Avenue) to provide a separate left turn lane may be
required. This will require the removal of on-street parking near the intersection. The level-of-
service calculations show that with implementation of these improvements, the intersection
would operate at an acceptable LOS D.
♦ Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27): The addition of a separate left-turn lane
to northbound Tantau Avenue may be required. Right-of-way acquisition and demolition of
existing commercial buildings would be required.
♦ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30): The restriping of the
westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated
from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn
vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected.
Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance
the bicycling experience.
♦ Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP,
County)(#31): The addition of a second right-turn lane for the southbound leg of the intersection
at the Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard may be required.
Both lanes would need to be controlled by the signal, and disallow right turns on red. Right-of-
way acquisition may be required.
♦ Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County)
(#32): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway
Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one through-movement lane, and one
exclusive right-turn lane may be required. Right-of-way acquisition would be required.
The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing
building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall
be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated
by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate.
Traffic mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building
permit is issued. The City shall use the traffic mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees
advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other
things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic impacts.
H. Impact TRAF 2: Implementation of the Project would conflict with an
applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to,
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways.
818
I-19
The Final EIR finds that of the 41 intersections studied in the EIR traffic analysis, 21 are
included in Santa Clara County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). See Table 4.3-
13, Draft EIR. The Project would result in significant impacts to 11 CMP intersections
during at least one of the peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, set
forth and incorporated above, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1.
As described in the discussion of Impact TRAF-1, because many of the improvements in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies
and not the City of Cupertino, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
I. Impact TRAF-6: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
The Final EIR finds that the analysis of the Project, as described in the discussions of Impact
TRAF-1 and Impact TRAF-2, addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in
the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as
Project-specific impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to the City’s transportation
network resulting from the Project would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1.
As discussed under TRAF-1, because many of the improvements in Mitigation Measure
TRAF-1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and not the City of
Cupertino, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
VI. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR THAT
ARE REDUCED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION
MEASURES ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED INOT THE PROJECT
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Project. It is
hereby determined that the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will be
mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided by adopting and incorporating these
mitigation measures conditions into the Project. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). As
explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section VI are based on the Final EIR, the
discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
819
I-20
A. Impact AQ-4: Implementation of the Project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution.
The Final EIR finds that the Project could result in locating sensitive receptors in proximity
to major sources of air pollution or the siting of new sources of air pollution in proximity to
sensitive receptors in the city. Nonresidential land uses that generate truck trips may
generate substantial quantities of air pollutants within 1,000 feet of off-site sensitive
receptors. In addition, proposed sensitive land uses in Cupertino may be within 1,000 feet
of major sources of air pollutants, which would create a significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4a:
Applicants for future non-residential land uses within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate
100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered
Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the Project to
the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City
of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk
exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that
Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer
and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs
may include but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on-site.
• Electrifying warehousing docks.
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
• Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental
document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the Project.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4b:
Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g. hospitals, nursing homes, day
care centers) in Cupertino within 1,000 feet of a major sources of TACs (e.g. warehouses, industrial
areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicle per day), as measured from
820
I-21
the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall
submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project
approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity
factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 16 years. If the HRA
shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations
exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be
required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential
cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e. below ten in one million or a hazard index of
1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are
not limited to:
• Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately
sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters.
Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the
environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the
Project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all
building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.
B. Impact BIO-1: Implementation of the Project would have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant
or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive
or special-status species.
The Final EIR finds that some special-status bird species such as Cooper’s hawk and white-
tailed kite could utilize the remaining riparian corridors and heavily wooded areas for
nesting, dispersal and other functions when they pass through urbanized areas. More
common birds protected under MBTA may nest in trees and other landscaping on the
Project Component locations. Given the remote potential for occurrence of nesting birds at
one or more of the Project Component locations and possibility that nests could be
inadvertently destroyed or nests abandoned as a result of construction activities, this would
be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
821
I-22
Mitigation Measure BIO-1:
Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. If construction
activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August
31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal or construction
activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction activities outside
the nesting period. If construction would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31),
preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or
construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has
been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests containing
viable eggs or young birds shall be documented and protective measures implemented under the
direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective
measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e. demarcated by
identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as
determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for
disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum
of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion
zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the
qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds.
Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have
left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
C. Impact BIO-6: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project could result in further conversion of
existing natural habitats to urban and suburban conditions, limiting the existing habitat
values of the surrounding area and potentially resulting in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to biological resources.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, set forth and incorporated above, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact,
and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
D. Impact HAZ-4: Implementation of the Project would be located on a site
which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
822
I-23
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
The Final EIR finds that because hazardous materials are known to be present in soil, soil
gas, and/or groundwater due to past land uses at certain sites that may be redeveloped as
part of the Project, the direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials could
potentially cause adverse health effects to construction workers and future site users. The
severity of health effects would depend on the contaminant(s), concentration, use of
personal protective equipment during construction, and duration of exposure. The
disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities, if present, could
pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the environment and impacts
could be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a:
Construction at the sites with known contamination shall be conducted under a project-specific
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is prepared in consultation with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), as
appropriate. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the
environment, and future site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at
the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the
subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the project
site during past investigations; identify management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if
contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or
other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies,
and regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater
suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project
excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe required worker health and safety
provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and
federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the
ESMP.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b:
For those sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for
redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed
823
I-24
by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the
potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor
controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil
vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting.
The vapor intrusion assessment and associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated
into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a).
E. Impact HAZ-7: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than
significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous
materials.
The Final EIR takes into account growth projected by the Project within the Cupertino city
boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected
growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the
Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG). Potential cumulative hazardous materials
impacts could arise from a combination of the development of the Project together with the
regional growth in the immediate vicinity of the Project Study Area. As discussed under
Impact HAZ-4, disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities,
if present, could pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the
environment and impacts could be potentially significant.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, set forth and
incorporated above, in conjunction with compliance with General Plan policies and
strategies, other local, regional, State, and federal regulations, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact, and the impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b.
F. Impact UTIL-6: Implementation of the Project would result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves, or may
serve the project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
Buildout of the Project would have a significant impact if future projected demand exceeds
the wastewater service capacity of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plan
(SJ/SCWPCP) or the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP), or the Cupertino
Sanitary District (CSD) or City of Sunnyvale collection systems.
824
I-25
Implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c, set forth below,
which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a:
The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to increase the available citywide treatment
and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying
reduced wastewater generation rates are approved by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-
6c.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b:
The City shall work to establish a system in which a development monitoring and tracking system to
tabulate cumulative increases in projected wastewater generation from approved projects for
comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District’s treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and implemented. If it is anticipated that with
approval of a development project the actual system discharge would exceed the contractual treatment
threshold, no building permits for such project shall be issued prior to increasing the available
citywide contractual treatment and transmission capacity as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-
6a.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c:
The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to prepare a study to determine a more
current estimate of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the actual development to be
constructed as part of Project implementation. The study could include determining how the
green/LEED certified buildings in the City reduce wastewater demands.
G. Impact UTIL-7: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater treatment.
The Final EIR finds that buildout of the Project would generate a minor increase in the
volume of wastewater delivered for treatment at SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, representing less
than 1 percent of the available treatment capacity at the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, and it
would occur incrementally over a period of 26 years. Based on the recent trends of
diminishing wastewater treatment demand and the projected population growth in the
service areas, cumulative wastewater treatment demand over the Project buildout period is
far below the excess capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP. Because the cumulative
demand would not substantially impact the existing or planned capacity of the wastewater
treatment systems, which have sufficient capacity for wastewater that would be produced
825
I-26
by the Project, the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities would not be
necessary.
With implementation of Mitigation Measured UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b and UTIL-6c, set forth and
incorporated above, cumulative development combined with the Project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this cumulative impact, and the impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c.
H. Impact UTIL-8: The Project would not be served by a landfill(s) with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste
disposal needs.
The Final EIR finds that anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-than-
significant impact with regard to target disposal rates, and that the City would continue its
current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies. Nevertheless, the 2023 termination of
the agreement between the Newby Island Landfill facility, as well as that facility’s estimated
closure date in 2025, would result in insufficient solid waste disposal capacity at buildout of
the Project, resulting in a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-8:
The City shall continue its current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies in an effort to further
increase its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate. In addition, the City shall monitor
solid waste generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that
sufficient capacity exists to accommodate future growth. The City shall seek new landfill sites to
replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed.
I. Impact UTIL-10: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste.
The Final EIR finds that buildout of the Project will increase the quantity of solid waste for
disposal. AB 939 established a goal for all California cities to provide at least 15 years of
ongoing landfill capacity; however, growth from other cities in the region may exceed the
growth that was taken into account when determining landfill capacity. Also, because the
826
I-27
Newby Island Landfill facility, which currently takes approximately 92 percent of the City's
solid waste, is expected to close in 2025, Cupertino may eventually experience insufficient
landfill capacity to accommodate existing or increased population and employment levels.
Although implementation of existing waste reduction programs and diversion requirements
would reduce the potential for exceeding existing capacities of landfills, the potential lack of
landfill capacity for disposal of solid waste would be a significant cumulative impact.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, set forth and incorporated above, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact,
and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-8.
VII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which
the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.2(d); Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(5). Direct growth inducement
would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of substantial new housing
that would support increased population in a community or establishes substantial new
permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase
demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. Indirect
growth inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that requires
physical development or removes an obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing
infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). It must not be
assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment. State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d). Section 6.3 of the
Draft EIR analyzes the growth inducing impacts of the Project. As explained in Section IX,
below, the findings in this Section VII are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and
analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
Implementation of the Project would directly induce population, employment and economic
growth by replenishing the commercial, residential, hotel, and office space allocation within
some areas of the city. The Project would result in the following growth patterns based on
the expected growth assumptions for the city boundary:
827
I-28
• Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased office space
development allocation of approximately 2,540,231 square feet. This would result in
a total anticipated office space of approximately 11,470,005 square feet by 2040.8
• Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in a commercial space
development allocation of approximately 1,343,679 square feet, which is an increase
of 642,266 square feet in the allocation pool but a net increase of 0 square feet. That
is because all 642,266 square feet of increase allocation would come from demolition
and rebuilding of existing commercial square footage (see footnote 5, above). This
would result in a total anticipated commercial space of approximately 4,430,982
square feet by 2040.9
• Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased hotel room
development allocation of approximately 1,339 rooms. This would result in a total
anticipated hotel room inventory of approximately 2,429 rooms by 2040.10
• Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased residential
unit development allocation of approximately 4,421 units. This would result in a
total anticipated residential unit inventory of approximately 25,820 residential units
by 2040.11
State law requires the City to promote the production of housing to meet its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation made by ABAG. The housing and commercial/ industrial
growth in Cupertino would allow the City to address its regional fair-share housing
obligations.
The Project is considered growth inducing because it encourages new growth in the
urbanized areas of Cupertino. Development in these areas would consist of infill
development on underutilized sites, sites that have been previously developed, and sites
that are vacant and have been determined to be suitable for development. However,
because infrastructure is largely in place and commercial or office growth would be
required to comply with the City’s General Plan, Zoning regulations and standards for
public services and utilities; secondary or indirect effects associated with this growth do not
represent a new significant environmental impact which has not already been addressed in
the individual resource chapters of this EIR.
8 Existing built/approved office space was 8,929,774 square feet in 2013.
9 Existing built/approved commercial space was 3,729,569 square feet in 2013.
10 Existing built/approved hotel rooms are 1,116 rooms. With the remaining
commercial allocation, commercial buildout by 2040 is estimated to be 4,430,982 square feet.
Cupertino Community Development Department (October 31, 2014).
11 Existing built/approved residential units was 21,412 units in 2014.
828
I-29
VIII. ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR analyzed four alternatives, examining the environmental impacts and
feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet project
objectives. The project objectives are listed in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Draft
EIR; the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, including feasible
mitigation measures identified to avoid these impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 4
(Environmental Evaluation) of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in
Chapter 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the Draft EIR.
Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the
Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives. As
explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section VII are based on the Final EIR,
the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A. The No Project Alternative
CEQA requires evaluation of the “no project” alternative. State CEQA Guidelines §
15126.6(e). Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project
Alternative assumes that growth and development would continue to occur under the
provisions of the current 2000-2020 General Plan, including the development allocations for
office and commercial space, and hotel and residential unit allocations. Thus, no new
development potential beyond what is currently permitted in the 2000-2020 General Plan
would occur.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative would allow for the following
new development allocations:
• Office allocation: 540,231 square feet (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 701,413 square feet (no net increase from 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Hotel allocation: 339 rooms (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Residential allocation: 1,895 units (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
As discussed in Section 5.1.7 of the Draft EIR, the No Project Alternative would not achieve
any of the City’s project objectives, which are as follows, except that it would provide for the
RHNA for the 20014-2022 planning period:
• Emphasize employment and a mix of economic development opportunities by
replenishing, reallocating, and increasing city-wide office, commercial, and hotel,
allocations in order to capture:
829
I-30
• A share of the regional demand for office and hotel development, and
• Retail sales tax leakage in the trade area.
• Address local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino by replenishing, re-allocating and increasing city-
wide residential allocations to be consistent with 2040 Bay Area Plan projections to
allow flexibility for the city when future state-mandated updates are required to the
Housing Element.
• Update the Housing Element as required by State law.
• Creating opportunities for mixed-use development consistent with Regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
required by SB 375.
• Investing in improvement to adapt to climate change over time.
• Consider increased heights in key nodes and gateways, if proposed development
provides retail development and benefits directly to the community.
• Update General Plan policies to implement multi-modal traffic standards as opposed
to LOS thresholds currently identified. Balancing development objectives with
transportation constraints and opportunities.
• Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District by adopting policies to support its
redevelopment, so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment
destination that serves both the region and the local community.
For the foregoing reasons, the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible.
B. Land Use Alternative A
Land Use Alternative A identifies how growth would occur if the City largely continues the
policies of the current 2005 General Plan, while making minor development allocation and
boundary changes. The 2005 General Plan land use standards would continue to apply to
Vallco Shopping Mall, and it would not be redeveloped in any substantial manner.
Alternative A would increase city-wide office and hotel allocation but would not increase
allocations for commercial and residential uses. No maximum height increases are
proposed under this alternative.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1, the Land Use Alternative A would allow for the following
new development allocations:
830
I-31
• Office allocation: 1,040,231 square feet (net increase of 500,000 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 701,413 square feet (no net increase from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
• Hotel allocation: 600 rooms (net increase of 261 rooms from the 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Residential: 1,895 units (no net increase from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
As discussed in Section 5.2.8 of the Draft EIR, Alternative A would not achieve the project
objectives concerning local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino, because it would not provide sufficient residential units to
meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064 units. In order to fully
comply with the RHNA, the City would need to provide a moderate surplus in addition to
the RHNA or approximately 1,400 units. Alternative A only allows for a surplus of only
eight units, however. Alternative A also would not increase the allocation of residential
units to accommodate Plan Bay Area projections for residential growth by 2040 (4,421 units).
Alternative A fails to meet project objectives with regard to reallocating, replenishing and
increasing city-wide office, commercial and hotel allocations for purposes of economic
development, because Alternative A does not allow for any commercial growth beyond that
allocated under the 2000-2020 General Plan and allows in insufficient amount of office and
hotel growth. Further, Alternative A does not meet the project objective to consider
increased heights in key Nodes and Gateways, because no maximum height increases are
proposed under this alternative.
Alternative A also does not meet the City’s objective of creating mixed use development
consistent with Plan Bay Area and SB 375, because it would not concentrate development in
major transportation corridors to the same degree as Alternatives B and C and the Balanced
Plan. Alternative A does not envision a complete redevelopment for Vallco Shopping
District that would involve adding office and residential uses as in Alternatives B and C.
This would not completely meet the project objective to revitalize the Shopping District so it
becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment destination that serves both the
region and the local community.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative A is hereby rejected as infeasible.
C. Land Use Alternative B
Land Use Alternative B identifies how the City can focus development along major mixed-
use corridors in order to create more complete commercial, office and entertainment areas,
and to address mid-term housing needs. It would increase development allocations for
831
I-32
office, commercial and hotel land uses in order to better capture retail sales leakage and
regional demand for office development. Alternative B also envisions the transformation of
the Vallco Shopping Mall into a retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination,
but possibly at a slightly smaller scale than under Alternative C. Although the zoning and
land use designations are the same in the Alternative B and Alternative C, the Foothill
Market and Bateh Housing Element sites were not studied as part of Alternative B.
Alternative B would allow for revised density and height standards at key Gateways and
Nodes within Special Areas along major transportation corridors that are different from
Alternative C. Alternative B also would increase residential allocations to the amount
necessary to meet the City’s RHNA of 1,064 units plus a moderate surplus, or
approximately 1,400 units, but would increase the allocation of residential units to
accommodate only 75 percent of Plan Bay Area projections for residential growth by 2040.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1 and the Supplemental Text Revisions, the Land Use
Alternative B would allow for the following new development allocations:
• Office allocation: 2,540,231 square feet (net increase of 2,000,000 square feet from
the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of 0 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)12
• Hotel allocation: 839 rooms (net increase of 500 rooms from the 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Residential: 3,316 units (net increase of 1,421 units from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
While Alternative B meets all of the project objectives, in comparison with the Balanced
Plan, described in Section II.A, above, the commercial, hotel, and residential allocations
under Alternative B would not strike the optimal balance in attempting to achieve the City’s
economic development objectives. Furthermore, as described in Section 5.3.8 of the Draft
EIR, Alternative B would not go as far as Alternative C in meeting project objectives with
regard to reallocating, replenishing and increasing city-wide commercial and hotel
allocations for purposes of economic development, and replenishment of the residential
allocation because it would add less office square footage and fewer hotel rooms, thereby
failing to capture as much regional demand for office and hotel uses and failing to capture
as much retail sales tax leakage. Similar to the Balanced Plan, Alternative B envisions that
the Vallco Shopping District will be completely redeveloped. Alternative B allows for 500
fewer hotel rooms and 1,105 fewer residential units than the Balanced Plan, however.
The City commissioned a Market Study 13 which indicates that the City has a strong market
for office, hotel room and residential development. An allocation of only 500 hotel rooms
12 See footnote 5, above.
832
I-33
and only 75 percent of the Plan Bay Area projection for residential development by 2040
would not achieve the City’s goal of capturing a share of the regional demand for hotel
development or meeting the City’s goals of providing fewer affordable housing options.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative B is hereby rejected as infeasible.
D. Land Use Alternative C
Land Use Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally
and regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and
account for a large portion of the City’s RHNA. Similar to the Balanced Plan, Alternative B
envisions that the Vallco Shopping District will be completely redeveloped. In addition,
under Alternative C, the Vallco area would become the “downtown” of Cupertino, serving
the mixed-use hub for residents, workers and the larger region. Alternative C would
increase development allocations to levels higher than those that would be allowed under
either Land Use Alternative A or Land Use Alternative B in order to fully capture retail sales
leakage and regional demand for office and hotel development. Alternative C would allow
for revised height standards at key Gateways and Nodes within Special Areas along major
transportation corridors at heights greater than those allowed under Alternative B. The
increases in heights and densities in key Nodes, Gateways and Sub-areas are consistent with
the City’s goals of concentrating development along the five mixed-use corridors.
Alternative C also would increase residential allocations to the amount necessary to meet
the City’s RHNA of 1,064 units plus a moderate surplus, or approximately 1,400 units, and
would increase the allocation of residential units to accommodate 100 percent of Plan Bay
Area projections for residential growth by 2040.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1 and the Supplemental Text Revisions, the Land Use
Alternative C (the “proposed Project” in the EIR) would allow for the following new
development allocations:
• Office allocations: 4,040,231 square feet (net increase of 3,500,000 square feet from
the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of 0 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)14
• Hotel allocation: 1,339 rooms (net increase of 1,000 rooms from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
13 BAE Urban Economics, General Plan Amendment Market Study (February 13, 2014).
14 See footnote 5, above.
833
I-34
• Residential allocation: 4,421 units (net increase of 2,526 units from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
While Land Use Alternative C would meet all of the project objectives, the combination of
the office allocation in Alternative C together with the other land use allocations in
Alternative C would not be as effective or as balanced as the Balanced Plan, which includes
the lower office allocation in Alternative B, in achieving the project objective of creating a
mix of economic development opportunities.
Furthermore, the environmental effects from the larger office allocation in Alternative C
would be marginally greater than the environmental effects from the office allocation in the
Balanced Plan (which has the same office allocation as Alternative B). That is because the
Alternative C office allocation is 59 percent greater than the office allocation in the Balanced
Plan. Increased allocation to office development would mean more jobs and, as people move
to Cupertino to fill those jobs, a higher population. Draft EIR Table 5-2 projects a 70 percent
greater increase in jobs and a 75 percent greater increase in population under Alternative C
compared to the increases under Alternative B. The increased development and population
growth resulting from the Alternative C office allocation would have greater effects on the
environment than the office allocation component of the Balanced Plan and Alternative B.
Alternative B would reduce air quality impacts, as described in the analysis of Impact AIR-
1, because the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for Alternative B is lower and reduces the
impact to less than significant. See Draft EIR Table 5.5. This is because the mix of
development in the Balanced Plan, which includes the same office allocation as Alternative
B, represented a better balance of development. In categories where all of the alternatives
were found to have significant and unavoidable impacts, namely air quality, noise, and
traffic, Land Use C’s office allocation would result in greater environmental impacts, as it
represents the greatest amount of development, which would result in higher consumption
of non-renewable resources, generate the greatest amount of waste and pollutants, and
increase the demand of public facilities and infrastructure.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative C is hereby rejected as infeasible.
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the Balanced Plan and the
Alternatives, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an
“environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be
disclosed. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be
expected to create the least significant environmental effects. Identification of the
environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative
selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of Cupertino.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-5, the impacts associated with each of the four land use
scenarios analyzed in this EIR would essentially be the same. As previously stated, this is
834
I-35
because the recommended mitigation measures would apply to all of the alternatives, and
compliance with the General Plan policies designed to reduce environmental impacts would
also apply to all future development in Cupertino. However, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5-
5, for Land Use Alternative B air quality Impact AQ-1 (Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan) would be less than significant for
Alternative B but would be significant and unavoidable for the other alternatives. That is
because the mix of development in Alternative B would increase office square footage, but
to all lesser extent than Alternative C, while at the same time increasing the residential
allocation unlike Alternative A and the No Project Alternative.
While Alternative C represents the maximum extent of residential development anticipated
by the Plan Bay Area for Cupertino by 2040, Alternative C’s higher increase in office square
footage (4,040,231 square feet compared to the lower office increase in Alternative B of
2,540,231 square feet), together with the total increase in residential allocation, does not
reflect a balanced jobs-housing ratio that results in lower per capita VMT when compared to
Alternative B. Under Alternative C, land uses allocations in the General Plan would
generate 897,419 VMT per day (10.47 miles per service population per day in 2013). Based
on the future estimates of VMT per person for Cupertino for year 2040, 1,264,271 VMT per
day (10.94 miles per service population per day in 2040) would be generated in Cupertino.
Accordingly, the daily VMT in the Project Study Area under Alternative C would increase
at a slightly greater rate (40.9 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service
population of the Project Study Area (34.8 percent). In comparison, under Alternative B,
based on the future estimates of VMT per person for Cupertino for year 2040, 1,097,596 VMT
per day (10.24 miles per service population per day in 2040) would be generated in the City.
Under Alternative B, daily VMT in the Project Study Area would increase at a slower rate
(22.3 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study
Area (25.0 percent). When the VMT increase is less than or equal to the projected
population increase, this represents a balanced jobs-housing ratio.
In identifying an Environmental Superior Alternative, the analysis in the EIR is based on the
principle that less development would mean reduced effects on the environment. Each
incremental increase in development allocations among the alternatives represents
increased population and activity which would result in increased noise, air quality,
greenhouse gas, traffic, and utilities impacts. Although a number of these impacts would be
significant and unavoidable under every alternative, the severity of the significant and
unavoidable impacts would vary according to the development allocations within a given
alternative. For example, while Land Use Alternative B would reduce Air Quality Impact
AQ-1, as described above in Section VIII.D, the No Project Alternative would be the
environmentally superior alternative because it would not allow for new development to
occur beyond what is currently planned for in the 2000-2020 General Plan, which would
result in the least amount of development in the City and thereby reduce the consumption
of renewable resources (e.g., lumber and water) and nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil
fuels, natural gas, and gasoline). Less development would place fewer demands on public
835
I-36
service providers (which could require new facilities), would require fewer road, sewer,
water and energy infrastructure improvements, and would generate less waste, which
would overall reduce impacts on the environment.
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Accordingly, the
environmentally superior alternative would be Land Use Alternative A, because less
development would occur compared to Land Use Alternative B, Land Use Alternative C,
and the Balanced Plan. Under Land Use Alternative A, no new commercial space, hotel
rooms or residential units would be permitted beyond the allocations in the current General
Plan.
For the foregoing reasons, Alternative A is considered the environmentally superior
alternative.
IX. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Project, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, City staff reports relating to the Project and other
documents relating to public hearings on the Project, by reference, in their entirety. Without
limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation
measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of
impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the Project, the determination of the
environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project.
X. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the Project constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Those
documents and materials are located in the offices of the custodian for the documents and
materials, which is the City of Cupertino Community Development Department, Cupertino
City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202.
XI. NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for
further review and comment when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. No
significant new information was added to the Draft EIR as a result of the public comment
process. The Final EIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies and makes
insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR does not identify any new
significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact.
836
I-37
The EIR analyzes full buildout of 2040 growth for Cupertino as projected in Plan Bay Area.
The Balanced Plan consists of the same development allocations and Housing Element sites
that were analyzed in the EIR for Alternative C except, as described in more detail in the
next section below, the office allocation is reduced to the amount analyzed in the EIR for
Alternative B, the maximum height limits are reduced except at one location. Accordingly,
all portions of the Balanced Plan were analyzed in the EIR, either as part of Alternative C or
as part of Alternative B. There are no new significant effects on the environment or a
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact associated with substituting
the smaller office allocation from Alternative B for the original, larger office allocation in
Alternative B in order to create the Balanced Plan that are the subject of these Findings nor
are there new significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity
of an environmental impact associated with the changes in maximum height limits.
For the foregoing reasons, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, the City has found that the Project will result in project and cumulative
significant adverse environmental impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic and
transportation that cannot be avoided following adoption, incorporation into the Project,
and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. In addition, there are no
feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project’s significant
environmental impacts. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when
the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not
avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its
actions. See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b). Having balanced the economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including region-wide or
statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts, the City finds that the Project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.
The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits
of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence
supporting the benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding sections of these
Findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section X,
above. The City further finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate
and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final
EIR and other information in the administrative record.
1) The Vision Statement in the General Plan states that “Cupertino aspires to be a
balanced community with quiet and attractive residential neighborhoods; exemplary
parks and schools; accessible open space areas, hillsides and creeks; and a vibrant,
837
I-38
mixed use ‘Heart of the City.’ Cupertino will be safe, friendly, healthy, connected,
walkable, bikeable and inclusive for all residents and workers, with ample places and
opportunities for people to interact, recreate, innovate and collaborate.” In
incorporating the office allocation from Land Use Alternative B, the commercial
allocations from Land Use Alternatives B and C, and the hotel and residential
allocations from Land Use Alternative C, the Project provides the City with a balanced
mix of economic development opportunities while seeking to lessen significant
impacts by pursuing the highest possible levels of development.
2) The Project provides the City with the commercial development allocation it needs to
increase sales and avoid retail leakage in the trade area as, recommended on page 85-
86 of the General Plan Amendment Market Study (BAE Urban Economics, February
13, 2014), and would allow the City flexibility to encourage new commercial uses in
other parts of the City in the future that will general additional sales taxes. and as set
forth in the project objectives.
3) The Project provides for economic growth by creating employment-related land uses.
This will attract new businesses and allow existing businesses to stay and grow within
the City, improve sales tax and property tax revenue to help the City maintain a
healthy fiscal balance to provide its residents with high quality services.
4) The Project concentrates growth along the City’s major transportation corridors and in
the City’s employment centers, which are areas that are within walking distance/bus
distance of large employment areas. Encouraging development in existing urbanized
areas results in fewer impacts from the construction of new infrastructure, maximizes
use of existing impervious surfaces, provides multi-modal transportation
opportunities, and reduces miles traveled, which translates into air quality benefits.
5) The Project concentrates growth at locations with existing uses and, as a result,
potential future development under the Project would consist largely of either
redevelopment of existing building, selective demolition of existing structures and
replacement with new construction, or new infill development adjacent to existing
uses, all of which would serve to lessen environmental impacts.
6) The Project policies concentrating growth along transportation corridors and in
employment centers contributes to community goals of protecting the City’s
neighborhoods and connectivity.
7) The Project includes policies that encourage conservation of water and energy
resources in conformance with the City’s sustainability goals.
838
I-39
8) The Project is in conformance with the principles of planning sustainable communities
by meeting both the present and future housing needs of the City, and fulfills the City
Council’s charge to prepare a Housing Element.
9) The Project is consistent with key planning documents, including Plan Bay Area,
which is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community
Strategy (SCS), as well as SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
Act.
10) The Project meets the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064
units, and provides a moderate surplus above the City’s housing need, or
approximately 1,400 units.
11) The Project provides opportunities for increased building heights in key Nodes and
Gateways, and makes additional building height and residential density increases
contingent on future development projects in Cupertino providing the City with
community benefits.
12) The Project provides for revitalizing the Vallco Shopping Mall and transforming it into
a locally and regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment
destination, which would become the “downtown” of Cupertino.
13) The Gateways and Nodes located within some of the Project’s Special Areas represent
key locations in the City that, with the use of design elements, such as buildings,
arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and public art, have
the opportunity to create a memorable impression of Cupertino. These key locations
are essential for providing residents, visitors, and workers an attractive, friendly, and
comfortable place with inviting active pedestrian spaces and services.
XIII. SUMMARY
1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the
City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to each of the
significant environmental effects of the Project:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR.
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other public agency.
839
I-40
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR
that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant
environmental effects of the Project.
2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the
City determines that:
a. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
b. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable
are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, above.
840
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Date: October 14, 2014
Application No.: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01, Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01
(EA-2013-03)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City-wide
SUBJECT
General Plan Amendment, 2014-2022 Housing Element, associated Rezoning, Zoning text
amendments and Specific Plan Amendment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council in
accordance with the Draft Resolutions:
1. Approve Resolution Recommending Certification of an Environmental Impact Report,
adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of
Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03) in
substantially similar form to the attached Resolution 6760 (Attachment 1);
2. Adopt GPA-2013-01 in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution 6761
(Attachment 2):
a. Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040); and
b. General Plan Map Amendments.
3. Authorize staff to, in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution 6762 (Attachment
3):
a. Forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD); and
b. Use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites (in case one or more of the
adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites).
4. Approve Zoning Map Amendment, Z-2013-03, in substantially similar form to the attached
Resolution 6763 (Attachment 4);
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
841
5. Approve Municipal Code Amendment, MCA-2014-01, in substantially similar form to the
attached Resolution 6764 (Attachment 5); and
6. Approve Specific Plan Amendment, SPA-2014-01, in substantially similar form to the
attached Resolution 6765 (Attachment 6).
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to begin a General Plan amendment in order
to replenish citywide office, commercial, and hotel development allocations, consolidate
individual requests from property owners, inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan,
update to address State law, and address any clean-up required.
In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated an updated of the State-mandated Housing
Element of the General Plan. The 2012-2022 Housing Element, which is a required component of
the General Plan, identifies policies and appropriate locations for future housing in Cupertino.
The Housing Element Update was also combined with the General Plan Amendment process so
the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss issues in one comprehensive outreach
and planning process.
ALTERNATIVES
The General Plan Amendment process has involved over 18 months of extensive community
discussions and input provided during several public meetings, workshops, online comment
forms and surveys, and study sessions with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission
and City Council. A detailed listing of the public input meetings is provided later in this report.
The staff reports for the following study sessions: February 12, 2014 Housing Commission,
February 19, 2014 Planning Commission, March 4, 2014 City Council, April 1, 2014 Joint
Planning Commission/City Council are attached for both the General Plan and Housing
Element projects (Attachment 7).
After extensive input from the community, property owners, the Housing Commission and the
Planning Commission, the City Council authorized studying the following alternatives in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the project. A brief discussion of
alternatives is provided below (see Attachment 8 for Concept Alternative maps). The EIR has a
detailed description of each alternative. A table showing specific allocations is provided later in
the Development Allocations discussion later in this report.
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of the following themes:
Maintain the policies of the 2005 General Plan
Increase office and hotel development allocations
Streamline General Plan area boundaries
Alternative A identifies how growth would occur if the City largely continues the policies of the
current 2005 General Plan, while making minor development allocation and boundary changes.
842
Under the land use standards in the 2005 General Plan, Vallco Shopping Mall would remain the
same under this alternative. Alternative A increases city-wide office and hotel allocation but
does not increase allocations in the commercial and residential categories.
Alternative B
Alternative B is derived from the following themes:
Focus new growth along major mixed-use corridors
Revise height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major mixed-use
corridors
Increase office, hotel and residential development allocations
Support the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating existing
commercial allocation
Streamline General Plan area boundaries
Alternative B identifies how the City can focus development along major mixed-use corridors in
order to create more complete commercial, office and entertainment areas, and to address mid-
term housing needs. It increases development allocations at a level above Alternative A in order
to better capture retail sales leakage and regional demand for office development. This
alternative also envisions the transformation of the Vallco Shopping Mall into a retail,
employment, housing and entertainment destination.
Alternative C
Alternative C is derived from the following themes and reflects the property owners’ requests:
Support the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating existing
commercial allocation
Revise density and height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major
mixed-use corridors
Increase office, hotel and residential development allocations
Streamline General Plan area boundaries
Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally and
regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and account
for a large portion of the City’s RHNA. Under this alternative, the Vallco area becomes the
“downtown” of Cupertino, serving the mixed-use hub for residents, workers and the larger
region. Alternative C also increases development allocations at a level above both Alternatives
A and B in order to fully capture retail sales leakage and regional demand for office and hotel
development. Heights and densities in key nodes, gateways and sub-areas reflect areas along
the five mixed-use corridors where City-wide development allocation in the General Plan may
be located.
843
DISCUSSION
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN (COMMUNITY VISION 2040)
The General Plan is a State-mandated document and provides the vision for Cupertino’s future
It sets the City's policy direction in a number of areas including land use, mobility, housing,
open space, infrastructure, health and sustainability through goals, policies, and strategies. The
following is a discussion of state and regional laws, best practices and community input that
have shaped the draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040).
Community Vision 2040 has been informed by changes in Federal, State and regional
regulations, best practices and community input, and achieving the community-building,
sustainability and economic and fiscal goals in the Guiding Principles. The following section is
a discussion of items that have been informed the Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040).
State and Regional regulations and best practices
1. Climate Change - The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) set a target to reduce
California greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020. In addition, the Governor
signed Executive Order S-3-05 to further require California to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050 (EO, 2005). The policies
in Community Vision 2040 are consistent with these regulations.
2. Land Use and Transportation - The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008 (SB 375) calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a Sustainable
Communities Strategy to accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area, jointly adopted in 2013 by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), is the region’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the
requirements of SB 375 through the year 2040. Community Vision 2040 is consistent with
the principles of SB 375 by focusing growth along major transportation corridors and the
City’s Priority Development Area (PDA) along Stevens Creek and North De Anza
Boulevards defined in Plan Bay Area.
3. Complete Streets and Connectivity – The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the
planning, designing, and building of complete streets into the larger planning framework of
the General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to amend their Mobility Elements to plan for
multimodal transportation networks.
4. Performance Measures for Mobility - Senate Bill 743 (2013) creates a process to change the
way that transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-
related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system,
and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Specifically, SB 743 requires an
alternative to automobile level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts.
5. Sustainability – Various elements in Community Vision 2040 incorporate goals and policies
related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions targets set by AB 32, SB 375 and the Bay
844
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Land Use and Community Design
element focuses future growth along major transportation corridors consistent with past
practice and SB 375. The focus on multi-modal transportation and complete streets in the
Mobility element is consistent with past practice and recent State and regional regulations
and guidance. A reference to the Climate Action Plan has been added to achieve State and
regional greenhouse gas targets and municipal policies have been updated in the
Sustainability element.
6. Housing Element – recent changes in Housing Element law have been incorporated in
addition to the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City. This
section is discussed in greater detail later in this report.
Community Ideas and Best Practices
1. Community Benefit – The idea was first discussed by a community member and the
Council was interested in exploring the possibility. The concept includes requiring
community benefits for additional height. The concept is discussed later in this report.
2. Walking and biking to schools, parks and shopping – This idea was discussed by several
community members in public workshops and is consistent with SB 375, AB 32 and
Complete Streets and best practices.
3. Design of mixed-use projects – A “mixed-use village” concept is recommended for mixed-
use projects that include residential development. The concept was developed from Council,
Planning Commission and public input and best practices regarding mixed-use projects.
These include provision of viable retail, gathering places, pedestrian-oriented architecture
and streetscape improvements, improving connectivity and neighborhood buffers. A similar
but limited discussion is provided for “neighborhood center” redevelopment.
4. Vallco Shopping District –Public input from workshops regarding the transformation of
the Vallco Shopping District into an active community gathering place and regional
destination have been included. A detailed discussion is provided later in this report.
5. Calculation of residential density – Council and a member of the public requested
changing calculation from density of the gross lot area (which includes portions of adjacent
streets) to density of the lot area (which does not include adjacent streets). This change has
been made to the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The density and residential yield
of Housing Element sites reflects this change.
Chapters
1. Planning Areas - A section on Planning Areas has been added. It divides the Planning
Areas into Special Areas (already part of the 2005 General Plan) and Neighborhoods
(partially discussed in the 2005 General Plan). It highlights the special characteristics and the
community vision for each planning area. Special Areas are generally consistent with the
2005 General Plan (and per changes discussed in the alternatives discussion) and include
major mixed-use corridors where changes can be expected in the future. Neighborhoods are
mostly residential areas that are intended to be preserved, with improved connections to
845
parks, schools and services and enhanced neighborhood centers, and buffers where there
may be adjacent commercial development.
2. Elements:
a. Land Use and Community Design – This section includes general policies as well as
specific policies for the Planning Areas. It retains the policies in the 2005 General Plan of
urban design, connectivity and pedestrian-oriented design. Consistent with previous
policies and in compliance with state and regional requirements, growth is focused in
transportation corridors and the PDA as discussed earlier. It also incorporates both, the
Balanced Plan recommendations and a community benefits policy, discussed below.
b. Housing – This section contains the 2014-2022 Housing Element draft including policies
and sites to meet State policy mandates and RHNA requirements. A detailed discussion
is provided later in this report.
c. Mobility (previously Circulation) - The policies provide a vision to help implement a
“complete streets" approach. This approach acknowledges the need for streets that are
designed to be used by pedestrians, bicycles and transit modes, not just automobiles.
This will help prioritize and direct future roadway improvements. Community Vision
2040 continues to encourage coordination with regional planning agencies to meet local
transportation needs. It also meets the new State guidance by acknowledging that new
methods are needed to monitor transportation conditions for all travel modes instead of
the old standard of level of service (LOS).
d. Recreation and Community Services (previously in Land Use and Community Design) – This
section primarily retains existing policies, while including principles of sustainability
and master planning of parks and recreational programs. An option to evaluate a future
increase in the City’s park standards from the current three acres per thousand persons
is also included. New and planned parks have been added to the inventory. The trails
section has been revised to reflect connectivity along trails in general and potential
alternative trail options where decisions have yet to be made on the final routes.
e. Infrastructure (previously in Environmental Resources/Sustainability) – this section has been
updated to include current information and incudes principles of sustainability and
master planning, when designing and implanting infrastructure projects.
f. Sustainability (previously Environmental Resources/Sustainability) – This section has been
updated to comply with regional requirements and to reflect the City’s current policies
and the Climate Action Plan.
g. Health and Safety – This section has been updated per new local and regional
requirements.
3. Other - The discussion in each element has been consolidated to include a ”context” section
describing the existing situation, information on changes to the environment, and
regulations and a “looking forward” section that outlines best practices that the City can
incorporate to be better equipped for the future. General goals, policies and strategies are
846
outlined followed by specific planning area policies, where applicable. In addition a number
of repetitions and redundancies have been removed and consolidated where feasible.
Balanced Plan
Development Allocation
Community Vision 2040 is a 25-year plan for the City’s future that considers community goals
for active gathering places, health, sustainability, economic development and fiscal reliance, as
well as regional requirements and mandates, while balancing residents’ need for minimizing
traffic, air quality, and other environmental impacts.
Economic and Fiscal – the City’s goal for the next 25 years is to ensure that companies and
businesses thrive and new businesses are attracted to the City and that property owners have
incentives to maintain and enhance property. The City Council recognized this when they
authorized the increase in development allocation as part of the General Plan process.
Maintaining an adequate allocation for development will help revenues grow so that the City
can continue to provide excellent community services.
A Market Study was conducted to see the realistic economic demand for various uses
through 2035 (Attachment 9). It notes that existing commercial space in the City’s General
Plan Allocation pool is adequate to meet the high end of demand through 2035 and indicates
market support for an additional 3.6 million net square feet for office space, 985 net hotel
rooms and 4,420 residential units for the same period (close to Alternative C).
o Office – Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down about 525,000
square feet through Apple and Main Street and other office development in the City, and
currently only has a balance of 17,113 square feet remaining in city-wide office allocation.
To account for redevelopment at the Vallco Shopping District and new office development
for the next 25 years, an increase of 2,000,000 square feet is proposed (consistent with
Alternative B). In the Balanced Plan, office allocation is balanced with other land uses to
reduce environmental impacts while recognizing the City’s economic and fiscal goals.
o Hotel – Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down 303 hotel
rooms from the allocation leaving 339 rooms at time of project initiation. Hotels bring in
considerable revenue, which will help realize community goals of economic and fiscal
stability. Consistent with the Market Study, the recommendation is to add 1,000 more
hotel rooms to the allocation. This is also consistent with Alternative C.
o Residential – The State-mandated RHNA requirement is 1,064 units with about 1,400
recommended by the Housing consultant after consulting with the HCD. Subtracting
1,400 units from the remaining allocation of 1,895 units leaves only 495 units through 2040,
which will not be enough to meet RHNA targets for the two additional housing element
cycles through 2040 per Plan Bay Area. Alternative A, which is consistent with the 2005
General Plan and Alternative B which only meets 75% of the Plan Bay Area targets, do not
achieve the regional target. However Alternative C meets 100% of the targets set by Plan
Bay Area. To ensure that the City is consistent with these regional targets, the
recommendation is to increase the residential development allocation by 2,526 units (to
847
4,421 units which includes the 1,400 recommended for the 2014-2022 Housing Element
cycle). However, the City can adopt strategies for managing the amount and form of
housing growth as follows:
Selecting Housing Element sites for up to 1,400 units to meet the demand for the 2014-
2022 RHNA period.
Revising the General Plan so that on sites with a mixed-use residential designation,
residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites. Conditional use permits
will be required on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units above the
allocation in the Housing Element, and on Non-Housing Element mixed-use sites.
Related changes will have to be made to the Municipal Code, Specific Plans and
Conceptual Plans.
Form - The General Plan includes a “mixed-use village” strategy so that mixed-use
residential sites provide substantial and viable retail, and also create a livable
environment for residents, shoppers and workers on and around the site.
Table 1 below is a comparison of the Balanced Plan with other alternatives studied in the EIR.
Key Question 1: Development Allocation
1. What should the City plan for in terms of Development Allocation for office, commercial,
hotel and residential units through 2040?
Community Benefits Program
As the City’s resident and worker population increases, additional amenities will be necessary
to maintain and the livability of the community. The Community Benefit Program is one of the
Table 1 - Development Allocation Per Alternative (through 2040)
Use Built/
Approved
No Project/
2005 General
Plan
Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Balanced
Plan
Alternative
C
Office (sf)
Net Increase
8,929,775 540,231 1,040,231 1,040,231 2,540,231 4,040,231
0 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,500,000
Commercial (sf)
Net increase
3,729,569 701,413 701,413 701, 413 701,413 701,413
0 0 0 0 0
Hotel (rooms)
Net Increase
1,090 339 600 839 1,339 1,339
0 261 500 1,000 1,000
Residential (units)
Net Increase
21,339 1,895 1,895 3,316 4,421 4,421
0 0 1,421 2,526 2,526
Notes:
1. Office – includes Major Company allocation of 523,118 sf.
2. Commercial - assumes that the existing Vallco mall square footage (1,267,601 sf) will be demolished and
600,000 sf min. will be built at site, with the remaining (625,335 sf) moved to the City-wide pool.
3. Residential - includes the 1,400 units recommended for the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
848
key tools to help finance and achieve those amenities that maintain and increase the
community’s quality of life. The Program enables the community to get amenities in return for
allowing additional specified heights within specified areas in the City. It also provides
certainty as to what those additional heights might be and where they can be placed. It requires
a Development Agreement, which means that the city has to agree to the benefits and amenities
provided. Key elements of the program include:
1. The proposed level of benefit is equivalent to at least 15% of the project valuation attributed
to the increase in height (decided through preparation of a project proforma).
2. Projects must provide a ground floor retail component; and one or more of the following
benefits:
a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements (bike, pedestrian facilities, participation in a
community shuttle program, etc.)
b. Public Facilities (land or space).
c. Senior Housing- 15% of housing that is not already targeted towards seniors.
d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities (new or expansion to museum, teen center, etc.)
e. Parks and Open Space (land/improvements within project or off-site)
In lieu of the benefits outlined in Item 2, a “Cash-in-Lieu Contribution” may be made to the City
for purchase of land, capital improvements or operations related to items a, b, d, e, and towards
the construction of affordable housing.
Key Question 2: Community Benefits
1. Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program?
2. If yes, does the Planning Commission have any revisions to:
a. Value of the community benefits?
b. Specific program items – retail requirement or other items?
Heights
Community Vision 2040 envisions keeping heights and development standards in most of the
City consistent with those in the 2005 General Plan. However, recognizing that the City needs to
achieve regional housing goals, economic reliance and fiscal goals, while ensuring that adequate
sites are reserved for future housing element cycles, the Balanced Plan recommends targeted
growth in certain gateways and nodes. Additionally, in order to achieve sustainability and
connectivity principles, the plan recommends focusing growth in major transportation
corridors.
Heights in the Balanced Plan are generally lower than those recommended in Alternative B.
Additionally, consistent with the practice in the 2005 General Plan for the Vallco area, heights
above the base height in key gateways and nodes require retail on the ground floor. Additional
heights above that are specified in three nodes – N. De Anza Gateway (Cupertino Inn), N.
Vallco Gateway West (Kimco and hotel area near Hwy 280), and the Vallco area (Vallco
Shopping District to the east of Wolfe Road and South Vallco - north of Vallco Parkway) with
849
the provision of community benefits. In addition, the recommendation is to keep the Building
Planes along all arterials at 1:1. Currently, the only area not consistent with this is in the South
and North Vallco areas along Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The
recommendation will keep consistent building streetscape along the street. No changes are
recommended to the 35-foot setback in the Heart of the City Special Area.
If the Planning Commission does not recommend the community benefit program, the heights
related to community benefits will not be applied. Table 2 below provides a comparison of
heights in Special Areas only where they are recommended to be changed.
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning
Area
2005 General
Plan
Alternative
A
Balanced Plan
(recommended)
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
Heart of the City Special Area
Oaks Gateway − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change − 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE
site
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft; or 75 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
North
Crossroads
Node
− 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change − 45 ft; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE
site
− 45 ft; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail
− 40 du/ac
City Center − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change − 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
90 ft. with
community
benefits on
specific sites
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
90 ft. with
community
benefits on
specific sites
− 25 du/ac
− 75 ft.; or 90 ft.
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits on
specific sites
− 25 du/ac
South Vallco
Park
− 45 ft.; or 60
ft.with retail
− 35 du/ac
No change No change − 60 ft.; or 75
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 75 ft.; or 90 with
retail; or 160 ft.
with community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
North De
Anza Blvd
Special Area
− 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change − 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 75 ft.
− 25 du/ac
850
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning
Area
2005 General
Plan
Alternative
A
Balanced Plan
(recommended)
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
Vallco Shopping District
West of Wolfe
Road
− 45 ft.; or 60
with retail
− 35 du/ac
No change − 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail; or
75 ft. with
community
benefits (for a
200 ft. depth
along the
Wolfe Rd.
property line
and set back
200 ft. from
the Stevens
Creek Blvd.
property line)
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail; or
75 ft. with
community
benefits along
Stevens Creek
Blvd. and
Wolfe Rd.
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
85 ft. with
community
benefits along
Stevens Creek
Blvd. and
Wolfe Rd.
− 35 du/ac
East of Wolfe
Road
− 45 ft.; or 60
with retail
− 35 du/ac
No change − 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
90 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 75 ft.; or 90 with
retail; or 160 ft.
with community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
Homestead Special Area
North De
Anza Gateway
− 45 ft.
− 35 du/ac
No change − 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail; or
90 ft. for a
hotel and
major
convention
center with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75
with retail; or
95 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 with
retail; or 145 ft.
with community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
Stelling
Gateway (east
of Stelling)
− 45 ft.
− 35 du/ac
No change
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
851
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning
Area
2005 General
Plan
Alternative
A
Balanced Plan
(recommended)
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
North Vallco Park Special Area
N. Vallco
Gateway (west
of Wolfe Rd.)
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change − 60 ft.; or 90 ft.
(for a 200 ft. depth
along Wolfe Road
property line) for
hotel and major
convention center
with community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75
with retail; or
95 ft. with
community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 with
retail; or 145 ft.
with community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
N. Vallco
Gateway (east
of Wolfe Rd. –
Hamptons
site)
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change − 75 ft.
(buildings
located within
50 ft. of
property lines
abutting Wolfe
Rd, Pruneridge
Ave. & Apple
Campus 2 site
shall not exceed
60 ft.).
− 25 du/ac
− 65 du/ac if HE
site
− 60 ft.; or 75
with retail; or
95 ft. with
community
benefits
− 65 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 with
retail; or 145 ft.
with community
benefits
− 110 du/ac
South De
Anza
Boulevard
Special Area
Two areas:
S. De Anza Blvd
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
S. Sunnyvale -
Saratoga
− 30 ft.
− 15 du/ac.
Merge into
one area for
South De
Anza Blvd
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
Same as
Alternative A
Same as
Alternative A
Same as
Alternative A
Building
planes along
arterials
− 1:1 along all
arterials
− 1:1.5 in South
Vallco along
Stevens Creek
Blvd & North
Vallco along
Homestead Rd.
No change 1:1 along all
arterials
(No change to
Heart of the
City setback of
35 ft.)
1:1 along all
arterials
(No change to
Heart of the City
setback of 35 ft.)
1:1 along all
arterials
(No change to
Heart of the City
setback of 35 ft.)
852
Key Question 3: Building Heights
1. Does the Planning Commission have any recommended changes to the Balanced Plan
heights recommended in the Special Areas?
Densities are discussed in the Housing Element sites discussion.
Vallco Shopping District
The Vallco Shopping Center has always been envisioned as a regional shopping destination and
a key revenue generator for Cupertino. The mall, which was originally constructed between
1974 and1979 functioned as a regional shopping destination and a source of revenue for the
City. As discussed in the Retail Strategy Report (Attachment 10), the emptying of the mall
continued from the 1990’s into the mid 2000’s. Due to reasons including the fractured property
ownership, operating restrictions easement agreements, and the competitive nature of regional
mall operation, leasing, and management, Vallco was unable to compete with the larger and
more sophisticated operators of Stanford and Valley Fair. Incomplete development, defaults
from prior ownerships, prolonged and unrealized redevelopment plans, management changes,
and other setbacks have exacerbated the situation.
Throughout the outreach process, there was a consistent message from the community – to
make Vallco a shopping, entertainment and dining destination and gathering place. Ideas for
the area ranged from a re-tenanting and façade improvement program to re-imagining the site
as a mixed-use pedestrian-oriented “town center-style” project.
The Retail Strategy outlined options for the Vallco Shopping Center including re-imagining the
site as a “downtown” or “town center” with a mix of retail, hotel, office and residential uses.
The other option included reducing and relocating the retail portion to the west side and
opening the east side up to redevelopment with office, hotel and residential uses. The City has
two basic options for Vallco with a variety of options in between.
1. Keep Existing Zoning – The 2005 General Plan encourages redevelopment as a mixed-use site
with residential and retail uses. However, the zoning, which is a combination of General
Commercial (CG) and Planned Regional Shopping does not currently allow residential or
office uses. As discussed in the Retail Strategy Report, retail rents alone will not attract the
kind of investment needed to adapt the center to the changing needs of today’s retail
environment. Therefore, without the introduction of other more profitable uses, such as
office or residential, the center will most likely continue to deteriorate. The City’s goals of
economic and fiscal stability and providing a cohesive and vibrant, shopping, dining and
entertainment destination are not likely to be met.
2. General Plan and Zoning Amendment – the inclusion of office and residential uses along with a
substantial retail/entertainment component would help to create a vibrant, high-quality,
community gathering place, and entertainment and lifestyle shopping destination.
However, partial redevelopment has not been successful in the past. Therefore, a successful
development strategy for the site will have to include: complete redevelopment of the site, a
853
Master Developer, and adoption of a Specific Plan with phasing and infrastructure
improvements, and a “Town Center” format. Based on the Retail Strategy Report, a
successful mix of uses would include 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail with a mix of
residential, hotel and office uses.
The Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040) recommends 600,000 square feet of retail uses
(30% of which can be entertainment use), 600 units, 375 hotel rooms and about 1,000,000 square
feet of office space for the Vallco Shopping District. It also requires a Specific Plan and the
components discussed above. The Specific Plan process would be able to include a robust
community participation component. This would allow the City to achieve community goals for
a shopping and dining destination, economic and fiscal goals, and a portion of the City’s
Housing Element requirement.
Key Question 4: Vallco Shopping District
Does the Planning Commission agree on the Specific Plan and “town-center” concept with a
mix of retail/entertainment, residential and office in the Vallco Shopping District?
Other Revisions to the Land Use Designations
The following changes are being recommended related to Land Use designations
PG&E site (Homestead Road east of Blaney Avenue) – The General Plan Land Use
designation is recommended to be amended from Quasi-public/Institutional to
Commercial/Quasi-Public/Institutional. While PG&E does not currently anticipate any
changes to their current operations, they are not opposed to the change as long as it allows
them to continue the use at the current site. The revised designation would allow PG&E
to continue the use at the site, while allowing a future commercial opportunity, if PG&E
chooses to sell it in the future .
Mirapath (Blaney Avenue) – As requested by the applicant and property owners, the
General Plan Land Use designation on this site has been revised from Industrial to
Commercial/Industrial. The amendment is being requested since the site is small and
can’t incorporate industrial uses successfully. The amendment will allow the site to be
used for commercial office and continue to allow light manufacturing uses.
Other Minor changes: Revisions to sites to ensure that the General Plan Land Use
designations and zoning are consistent. A complete list of sites is in Table 3-22 in the
Environmental Impact Report.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Context
In accordance with State law, General Plans in California cities must contain a Housing
Element. State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a regular
cycle established in the Government Code. The Housing Element for the 2007-2014 planning
period was adopted in 2010 (see Attachment 11). For the current cycle, the updated Housing
Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period). If this adoption
854
deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or
eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four
years). State law also requires that the Element be reviewed by a State agency—the Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD)—to certify compliance with State law.
Housing Element Content Requirements
The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population. Per
State Housing Element law, the Housing Element must be periodically updated to:
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations (Needs
Assessment)
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production (Constraints Analysis)
Describe goals, policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing objectives
(Housing Plan)
Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional
growth projections per the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify
adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels (Housing
Resources)
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements
(Consistency with General Plan)
Evaluate accomplishments in implementing programs in the previously adopted 2007-2014
Housing Element, and evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of continuing these
programs in the 2014-2022 Housing Element (Review of Previous Housing Element)
A detailed discussion of these topics is provided in Attachment 12 – Housing Commission staff
report dated August 28, 2014
Housing Resources & Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
One of the primary requirements of State Housing Element law pertains to the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA is an estimate of state-wide projected housing
construction needs and is based on regional allocations provided by the Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) to regional councils of government. The Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) conducted the process to determine RHNA allocations for the
101 cities and nine counties in the Bay Area.
The City of Cupertino’s RHNA allocation is 1,064 new housing units between 2014 and 2022.
The City can take credit for a total of 62 units (30 units approved and 32 second units
anticipated). As a result, the City has to identify sites for the construction of the balance or 1,002
units. HCD typically requires jurisdictions to provide a moderate surplus of units in case sites
are not developed, or are developed at densities lower than those expected in the Housing
Element. This is more so the case, when a good portion of a jurisdiction’s sites are in mixed-use
zones and could be developed without residential uses. In the past, three of the 2007-2014
855
Housing Element sites were developed with non-residential uses (portion of Apple Campus 2,
Kiddie Academy, and Saich Way Station). Based on past discussions with HCD and experience
with Housing Elements for other jurisdictions, and since the majority of the City’s sites are in
mixed-use zones (approximately 68%), the City’s consultant recommends an additional 25-40
percent above the City’s remaining housing need or a total of 1,250-1,400 units.
Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element
The Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element (see Attachment 3) draws strongly from the 2007-2014
Housing Element. The input received after several community meetings (including stakeholder
interviews in 2013, three community workshops/open houses, and four study sessions—
outlined in more detail below under Public Noticing and Outreach), very closely reflects the
input received during preparation of the previous Housing Element. As a result, the draft 2014-
2022 Housing Plan reflects minimal changes from the 2007-2014 Housing Plan. The following
changes are recommended (most are for compliance with State and regional requirements):
Policies and programs have been reformatted to reduce redundancy and reorganized for
ease in reading and implementing;
Programs have been revised to ensure that the 2014-2022 Housing Element complies with
State law. Specifically, programs were revised to encourage housing opportunities for
extremely low-income households (AB 2634) and persons with developmental disabilities
(SB 812). Programs were also added to reflect amendments to the zoning ordinance related
to density bonuses, emergency shelters, and farmworker and employee housing to comply
with State law and to amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan to revise the method in
which residential density is calculated in mixed-use developments.
A new goal to highlight City efforts in energy conservation regarding new and existing
development has been added;
An existing general plan policy related to mixed-use development to encourage
development near transportation facilities and employment centers has been added to the
Housing Plan;
Amendments have been made in the following areas to comply with State Law and the
outcome of recent litigation:
o Redevelopment Funding: Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing set-aside funds, which
used to be a primary local funding source for affordable housing in the past, are no
longer available to assist in new affordable housing development or
acquisition/rehabilitation of existing units for conversion into affordable housing. This
loss is associated with the Governor’s 2011 State budget revisions and subsequent court
cases, making funding sources for affordable housing significantly more constrained.
o Housing Mitigation Program: The City’s affordable housing program—the Housing
Mitigation Program—has been amended to comply with recent litigation. A 2009 court-
case (Palmer vs. the City of Los Angeles) has resulted in cities suspending or amending
the portion of their Housing Mitigation program requiring affordable units to be
included in market-rate rental developments.
856
Housing Preservation Program: The existing Rental Preservation Program has been amended
to provide mitigation for impacts on displaced tenants in developments with four or more
units.
Housing Sites
The Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have conducted multiple
study sessions and community workshops to review potential housing sites to meet the RHNA.
On April 1, 2014, the City Council authorized staff to prepare environmental review for three
alternatives (A, B and C) for a maximum of nineteen (19) sites based on the criteria outlined
below. On August 28, 2014, the Housing Commission recommended adoption of the Draft 2014-
2022 Housing Element and the Low-High priority listing for the sites.
HCD Criteria for Site Selection
HCD reviews each Housing Element’s sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been
identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a “site suitability analysis” is an important step in
addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must demonstrate that identified sites
can accommodate the housing needs—by income level—within the current planning period of
the element (2014-2022). The criteria are listed below and discussed in detail in Attachment 12 –
Housing Commission staff report dated August 28, 2014.
Existing Use on the Site
Realistic Potential for Recycling
Site Size and Ownership Patterns
Development Density (to meet the minimum affordability criteria of 20 units/ac at 85% of
maximum density)
Other Criteria for Site Selection
In addition to the State-wide criteria, the Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan
(discussed earlier) contributes additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site
in the ABAG region. The City’s General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies
in the One Bay Area Plan. In addition, criteria, consistent with the City’s 2005 General Plan,
have also been identified in order to ensure functional and attractive development occurs on the
sites selected. Key themes include:
Locate development along major transportation routes with access to transit or within ½
mile of a VTA Priority Development Area (PDA).
Locate higher density housing in closer proximity to employment and activity centers
Corner lot(s) with large frontage preferred – such parcels provide the most flexibility to
accommodate mixed-use developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivity
between mid-block parcels
Incentive for redevelopment –Sites with older, under-performing retail shopping centers
have also been evaluated as to whether housing or office would be necessary to provide an
incentive to improve higher-quality retail.
857
Housing Element Sites
While all 19 sites have been studied for potential impacts in the EIR, 18 sites are available for
selection. This is because the largest property owner associated with Site 17
(Intrahealth/Office/Tennis Courts at Stelling and Homestead Roads) sent the City a letter
expressing their desire to not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory shortly after the City
authorized study of the 19 sites. The remaining sites have been prioritized by how well they
meet the criteria outlined above.
Table 3 below shows the Recommended (High) and alternate Housing Element (Moderate and
Low-Moderate) sites listed in order of priority. Sites that score low in meeting the criteria are
recommended to be removed from the Alternate Housing Sites list. A detailed table of all sites
is provided in Attachment 13. It should be noted that the density of the sites in Alternative A,
even if all of them were included, does not meet the upper end of the 25-40% surplus (1,250-
1,400 units) recommended to meet the remaining RHNA. The densities recommended in the
Balanced Plan are based on the following goals:
Provide densities for existing sites that allow enough of an incentive to assume that the sites
would be developed in the 2014-2022 period (HCD criterion).
Meet HCD affordability criterion (min. 20 du/ac at 85% of maximum density; ~ 25 du/ac).
Ensure that there are enough sites for future housing elements.
TABLE 3
Priority
No. Site Name
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density and Realistic Capacity (85% of max. density)
Alternative A Balanced Plan
(Recommended) Alternative B Alternative C
Recommended Housing Element Sites
1. The Oaks High 25 du/ac
0 du
35 du/ac
235 du
35 du/ac
235 du
35 du/ac
235 du
2.
Vallco
Shopping
District (west)
High 35 du/ac
0 du
35 du/ac
600 du
35 du/ac
600 du
35 du/ac
800 du
3.
Hamptons
(342 units
existing)
High 25 du/ac
0 du additional
65 du/ac
344 du additional
65 du/ac
344 du additional
110 du/ac
820 du additional
4. United Furniture
+ other High 25 du/ac
103 du
25 du/ac
103 du
25 du/ac
103 du
25 du/ac
103 du
5. Barry Swenson High 25 du/ac
11 du
25 du/ac
11 du
25 du/ac
11 du
25 du/ac
11 du
6.
Glenbrooks
(517 units
existing)
High 20 du/ac**
93 du additional
20 du/ac**
93 du additional
20 du/ac**
93 du additional
20 du/ac**
93 du additional
Total Units on Recommended Sites 207 du 1,386 du 1,386 du 2,062 du
858
Note: * Separate parcels on a Housing Element site shall be combined, master planned and developed under a Master
Developer.
** Indicates that site will not meet affordability criteria at Realistic capacity (85% of max.)
TABLE 3 (contd.)
Priority
No. Site Name
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density and Realistic Capacity (85% of max. density)
Alternative A Balanced Plan
(Recommended) Alternative B Alternative C
Alternate Housing Element Sites
7. Marina Plaza Mod. 25 du/ac
145 du
35 du/ac
204 du
35 du/ac
204 du
40 du/ac
232 du
8. Stevens Creek
Office Mod. 25 du/ac
134
35 du/ac
187 du
35 du/ac
187 du
40 du/ac
214 du
9. Cypress @
Finch Ave. Mod. 25 du/ac
105 du
25 du/ac
105 du
25 du/ac
105 du
25 du/ac
105 du
10. Shan, Q Mart,
Dance Studio
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
36 du
25 du/ac
36 du
25 du/ac
36 du
25 du/ac
36 du
11. Loree Center Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
27 du
25 du/ac
27 du
25 du/ac
27 du
25 du/ac
27 du
12. Homestead
Lanes+ Adj.
Low-
Mod.
35 du/ac
0
35 du/ac
151 du
35 du/ac
151 du
35 du/ac
151 du
13. Summerwinds
& Granite Rock
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
96 du
25 du/ac
96 du
25 du/ac
96 du
40 du/ac
154 du
Total Units on Alternate Sites 543 du 806 du 806 du 919 du
Sites Recommended for Removal
14.
Villages
(468 units
existing)
Low 20 du/ac**
62 du
20 du/ac**
62 du
20 du/ac**
62 du
20 du/ac**
62 du
15. Arya/
Scandinavian Low 25 du/ac
58 du
25 du/ac
58 du
25 du/ac
58 du
25 du/ac
58 du
16. Foothill/
McClellan Low 15 du/ac*
0
25 du/ac
27
15 du/ac*
0 du
25 du/ac
27
17. Bateh Bros. Low 15 du/ac*
0 du
25 du/ac
14 du
15 du/ac*
0 du
35 du
19 du/ac
18. Carl Berg Low 25 du/ac
169 du
25 du/ac
169 du
25 du/ac
169 du
25 du/ac
169 du
Total Units on Removed Sites 289 du 330 du
(Remove) 289 du 335 du
Total Units on All Sites 1,039 du
2,522 du
(2,192 du not incl.
Low priority)
2,481 du 3,316 du
859
The list of recommended Housing Element sites has been added to the Draft Housing Element.
Should sites different from the Balanced Plan be recommended, these will be incorporated in
the Draft Housing Element prior to forwarding to the HCD. In addition, the alternative
Housing Element sites list will be maintained, in case, one or more of the sites are not approved
by HCD after discussions with them. If the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element has to be replaced
with sites from the Alternate Housing Element Sites list, any necessary amendments to the
General Plan Land Use designations and zoning will be presented with the Final 2014-2022
Housing Element in Spring 2015.
General Plan and Zoning Approach for Housing Element sites
General Plan Land Use Designation – The General Plan Land Use Map will identify the base land
use standards recommended in the Balanced Plan. Housing Element sites will have an overlay
with the higher densities and height standards on the General Plan Land Use map. The
development standards will be effective per the zoning schedule described below.
Recommended Housing Element sites that require a change to the General Plan Land Use
Designation include: the Hamptons, and the Oaks.
Zoning Map Amendment – The Zoning Map amendments are scheduled to go into effect on April
30, 2015 (including the 30-day period, this represents the final date for adoption of a Housing
Element per HCD) or the date the Final Housing Element gets adopted by the City, whichever
occurs first. If changes are needed to the Housing Element sites list based on HCD review, the
revisions to the Zoning Map will be presented concurrent with the adoption of the Final 2014-
2022 Housing Element in Spring 2015. Recommended Housing Element sites that would require
a zoning change to add residential use include: the Oaks, and Vallco Shopping District. The
Hamptons will require a rezoning from P(Res)-70 (unclear how this differs from Planned
Residential) to P(Res) or Planned Residential.
Key Question 5: Housing Element Sites
a. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Housing Element sites list and densities?
b. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Alternative Sites List and priority?
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
A summary of General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations and Municipal Code text
amendments is provided in Attachment 14. The attached resolutions (Attachments 2, 4, 5 and 6)
provide additional details on the changes to General Plan Land Use, Zoning designation, the
Municipal text and Specific Plan Amendments. A redlined version of the zoning text
amendments is provided in Attachment 15. A redlined version of the Specific Plan text
amendments is provided in Attachment 16.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments
consider the physical changes that result as a consequence of projects over which they have
discretionary authority. The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a
860
project but to provide information to be used in the planning and decision-making process.
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against the
environmental effects, along with other factors. The attached Planning Commission Study
Session staff report (Attachment 17) and City Council Study Session staff report (Attachment
18) provides a detailed discussion on the EIR. A brief discussion of the issues is provided below.
Proposed Project
Alternative C was identified as the “CEQA” project because it was the one with the greatest
development potential and therefore, the possibility of the greatest environmental effects.
CEQA requires that alternatives to the Proposed Project should mitigate one or more impacts of
the project. A discussion of Alternative C has already been provided earlier in this report.
EIR Alternatives
CEQA requires the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project that
would feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any
of the significant effects of the project. As noted earlier, the following alternatives were studied.
No Project Alternative - The CEQA-required No Project alternative assumes that the Draft
General Plan would not be adopted or implemented and assumes the full implementation
(by 2040) of development envisioned under the 2005 General Plan.
Alternative A – Discussion provided earlier in this report.
Alternative B – Discussion provided earlier in this report.
Impacts
The following environmental topics are addressed in the EIR. The EIR and the Planning
Commission and City Council staff reports on the EIR study sessions discuss the impacts
related to the CEQA Project (Alternative C) and the other alternatives in detail. Table 4 below
outlines the impact in each environmental topic for the Proposed Project and alternatives.
TABLE 4
Topic Proposed Project
(Alternative C)
No
Project
Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Aesthetics LTS LTS LTS LTS
Air Quality SU SU SU SU
Biological Resources LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Cultural Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS
Geology, Soils & Mineral Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS
GHG Emissions LTS LTS LTS LTS
Hazards & Hazardous Materials LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Hydrology & Water Quality LTS LTS LTS LTS
Land Use & Planning LTS LTS LTS LTS
Noise SU SU SU SU
861
TABLE 4
Topic Proposed Project
(Alternative C)
No
Project
Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Population & Housing LTS LTS LTS LTS
Public Services & Recreation LTS LTS LTS LTS
Transportation & Traffic SU SU SU SU
Utilities & Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Notes: LTS - Less-than-significant impact; LTS/M - Less-than-significant with mitigation;
SU - Significant and unavoidable
As noted above, the level of impacts in the Proposed Project as well as all three alternatives
analyzed show the same level of impacts in each category, but in varying degrees. This is partly
due to the fact that the EIR studied cumulative impacts of the buildout of the Proposed Project
and alternatives over a 25-year period as well as the regional build-out plans. The results
indicate that the difference between the impacts of the various alternatives is not very
significant, when compared to the cumulative impacts of regional plans over a 25-year period.
In general, the EIR finds significant and unavoidable impacts to Noise, Air Quality and
Transportation and Traffic related to the Proposed Project and alternatives. In some cases, the
significant impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable because the
mitigation measures require approval from a governmental agency other than the City of
Cupertino (e.g. Caltrans) and are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City and
needs approval from the other agencies through implementation. In other cases, a significant
impact is unavoidable because the significant impact would not be fully mitigated even though
mitigation measures have been identified.
Draft EIR and Final EIR
The Draft EIR was released on June 18, 2014 and was circulated for 45 days until August 1, 2014.
A meeting was held on June 24, 2014 to solicit written comments from the public related to the
EIR. Responses to comments received during the 45-day public review period were included in
the Responses to comments (RTC) document published as part of the Final EIR on August 28,
2014. The Final EIR comprises of the Draft EIR (Attachment 19), the Response to Comments
(RTC) Document (Attachment 20), and the Supplemental Text Revisions Memo dated October 8,
2014 (Attachment 21). The RTC document has to be made available to all agencies that
commented for at least 10 days before final action is taken, per CEQA requirements. The City
meets this obligation since final action on the project will not take place until November 2014.
Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period on August 1, 2014.
While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of
the public review period, staff has been and will continue to provide responses to these
comments. As of October 7, 2014, 11 late comment letters were received. Responses to these
comments have been compiled in a late comment memo (Attachment 22.) The comment letters
862
received during and after the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially
more severe significant impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the
findings of the Draft EIR.
The Planning Commission and City Council held EIR study sessions on September 9, 2014 and
October 7, 2014, respectively. The study sessions were a forum for questions related to the EIR
and no decisions were made. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the EIR at its
meeting on October 2, 2014, determined that it was adequate, and recommended that the City
Council certify the Final EIR (Attachment 23).
Balanced Plan (Recommended)
The Development Allocation recommendations in the Balanced Plan are generally between
Alternatives B and C. However the recommended heights are similar to or lower than those
studied in Alternative B. The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the
Proposed Project or any of the other alternatives due to the fact that the (office/commercial to
residential) balance is better than that in Alternative B, which had the lowest VMT of all of the
alternatives studied in the EIR. However, it will continue to have significant avoidable impacts
for traffic, air quality and noise even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
Statement of Overriding Considerations for Recommended Project
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological
or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to
approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be
considered acceptable and significant unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the proposed
project's benefits. CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for
considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened.
The Balanced Plan (Community Vision 2040) would result in significant unavoidable impacts
related to transportation, air quality and noise, even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures. However, it would achieve community goals related to a balance of land uses,
providing active and vibrant shopping and entertainment destinations, and economic and fiscal
stability. In addition, the Plan would help ensure that regional targets for greenhouse gas
emissions and housing are met and would focus growth in major transportation corridors,
while maintaining community goals of neighborhood preservation and connectivity. These
significant unavoidable impacts and project benefits are discussed in the CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 1).
PUBLIC NOTICING AND WORKSHOPS
Noticing for the General Plan and Housing Element project has been extensive, including the
following:
Three postcards sent to every postal address in the City
863
o One for General Plan Amendment
o One combined for General Plan Amendment and Housing Element
o One announcing availability of the Draft EIR
Newspaper notices
Notices sent to prospective housing element site property owners
Creation of a project website - notice of website updates and Workshop/meeting reminders
e-mailed to over 300 website subscribers
The following is a list of meetings.
General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #1 – July 18, 2013
General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #2 – October 23, 2013
General Plan Amendment Neighborhood Meeting – December 5, 2013
Chamber of Commerce and Block Leader meetings – January 29, 2014
Meetings with Study Area property owners/representatives
Meetings with interested Housing Element site property owners/representatives
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee –December 6, 2013 & February 7, 2014
Commission Meetings, Open Houses, Meetings and Study Sessions
o City Council Meeting for the initiation of the General Plan amendment project &
contract – February 19, 2012 and March 5, 2012
o City Council Meeting for initiation of the Housing Element project, consultant selection
and contract – November 4, 2013
o Presentation at Teen Commission Meeting – October 2, 2013
o Presentation at Bike and Ped. Commission Meeting – January 15, 2014
o Joint Housing Commission and Planning Commission Presentation and Community
Workshop for Housing Element sites #1 – January 23, 2014
o Housing Commission Study Session and Community Workshop for Housing Element
sites #2 – February 12, 2014
o Open Houses #1 and #2 – February 19, 2014 and September 16, 2014
o Planning Commission Study Session on Housing Sites for environmental review –
February 19, 2014
o City Council Study Session on Housing Sites and land use alternatives for
environmental review – March 3, 2014
o Housing Commission meeting on housing policy – March 19, 2014
o Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on housing and draft General Plan
policy direction – April 1, 2014
o Public meeting for EIR – June 24, 2014
o Housing Commission Meeting – August 28, 2014
o Planning Commission Study Session on the EIR – September 9, 2014
o City Council Study Session on the EIR – October 7, 2014
Public Comments
Comments related to the Draft EIR have been discussed earlier in this report. In addition to
comments received regarding the adequacy of the EIR, several comments were received on the
project. The comments are briefly discussed in Attachment 24.
864
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council on
November 3, 2014 for certification of the EIR, adoption of the General Plan (Community Vision
2040) and authorization to forward the Draft Housing Element to HCD and use the prioritized
alternative Housing Element sites list. A second reading for the zoning ordinances related to the
General Plan and Housing Element is scheduled for November 18, 2014. The Community
Vision 2040 General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment will go into effect
upon adoption, however, the zoning ordinance text and map amendments will go into effect 30
days after the November 18, 2014 second reading.
The final General Plan document text, maps and graphics will then be formatted and prepared
for posting by staff and the consultant.
The Draft Housing Element will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for their review, which is expected to take about 60 days.
Staff will discuss outstanding items with HCD and discuss any necessary changes related to the
Housing Element sites based on the prioritized list. Upon conclusion of HCD review, staff will
present the Final 2014-20122 Housing Element for adoption to the Planning Commission and
City Council. Any related General Plan amendments or Zoning map or code amendments
related to the revised Housing Element sites list will be brought at the same time. State law
requires agencies to adopt their 2014-2022 Housing Elements by May 31, 2015.
____________________________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution 6760, Recommending Certification of an Environmental Impact Report,
adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of
Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03)
2. Draft Resolution 6761 adopting General Plan and Land Use Map Amendments (GPA-2013-
01)
3. Draft Resolution 6762 to authorize staff to forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and use the
prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites (GPA-2013-02)
4. Draft Resolution 6763 to approve Zoning Map Amendments (Z-2013-03)
5. Draft Resolution 6764 to approve Municipal Code Amendments (MCA-2014-01)
6. Draft Resolution 6765 to approve Specific Plan Amendment (SPA-2014-01)
7. General Plan Amendment and Housing Element staff reports for: February 12, 2014
Housing Commission, February 19, 2014 Planning Commission, March 4, 2014 City Council,
April 1, 2014 Joint Planning Commission/City Council
8. Concept Alternative Maps
865
9. Market Study dated February 13, 2014 prepared by BAE Urban Economics
10. Retail Strategy Report dated March 6, 2014 prepared by Greensfelder Commercial Real
Estate LLC
11. 2007-2014 Housing Element and Technical Appendix
12. Housing Commission staff report dated August 28, 2014
13. Site Priority List with criteria
14. Summary Of Land Use Map, Zoning Map And Zoning Text Amendments
15. Zoning Text amendments – Redlined version
16. Heart of the City Specific Plan amendment – Redlines
17. Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated September 9, 2014
18. City Council Study Session Staff Report dated October 7, 2014
19. Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 18, 2014
20. Response to Comments Document dated August 28, 2014
21. Supplemental Text Changes Memo dated October 8, 2014
22. Updated Late Comments memo dated October 8, 2014
23. Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee
24. Reponses to Public Comments Related to the General Plan and Housing Element
866
HOUSING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Date: February 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
2015-2023 Housing Element Update—Sites Identification
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Housing Commission accept the report on potential Housing
Element sites, host a community workshop to discuss housing site identification criteria
and sites, and reconvene to provide direction to staff on priority housing sites.
BACKGROUND:
Housing Element Overview
The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. The
Housing Element specifies ways in which housing needs of existing and future resident
populations can be met, and provides a comprehensive strategy for maintaining and
expanding the City’s housing supply available to all economic segments in the community,
including very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. Housing Element law requires that
all jurisdictions facilitate housing development by creating policies and adopting land use
plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for housing development.
State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre-
determined cycle; for this cycle, Housing Element updates must be adopted by January 31,
2015 (plus a 120-day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for
this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City
must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years).
As required by the California legislature and codified in the Government Code, Housing
Elements must include specific analysis and must meet statutory requirements regarding
contents. State law mandates that all Housing Elements must: 1) identify and analyze
existing and projected housing needs, 2) discuss constraints to housing development, and 3)
identify resources to meet housing needs (including identification of adequate sites to
accommodate housing needs of all economic segments of the community). The Housing
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
867
Page 2 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
Element must include a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible
for reviewing Housing Elements to determine compliance with Housing Element law. HCD
also is the responsible body for establishing the statewide the quantified objectives for
regional housing needs—the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”).
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is
based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts.
The RHNA estimates are also correlated with long-term regional transportation plans. HCD
allocates the RHNA to each region. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), the regional planning agency, is tasked with the responsibility of
developing a regional housing plan—with a RHNA for each jurisdiction—to meet existing
and future housing needs.
The RHNA identifies Cupertino’s regional housing needs by income levels. The income
levels are separated into four categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The
City’s housing needs allocation for the period of 2015-2023 is 1,064 new housing units. The
City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the
City’s responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to
satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy.
Income Group RHNA
Very Low 356
Low 207
Moderate 231
Above Moderate 270
Total 1,064
HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee
that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations.
DISCUSSION:
Housing Element Sites Criteria
HCD Criteria
HCD reviews each Housing Element’s sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have
been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a “site suitability analysis” is an
important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must
868
Page 3 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
demonstrate that identified sites can accommodate the housing needs—by income level—
within the planning period of the element (2015-2023).
While the site suitability review has a degree of subjectivity, HCD review primarily focuses
on the following criteria in determining the likelihood that a developed site will be
converted to some form of housing over the planning period: existing use on the site,
realistic potential for recycling, site size and ownership patterns, and development density.
1. Existing Use on the Site. HCD generally does not consider the following types of sites
good candidates for private residential development:
Sites with existing multi-family housing developments consisting of 10 or more
units, due to the potential loss of existing investment and revenue stream to the
owner, unless the owner indicates his/her interest in redeveloping the site with
additional residential uses.
Sites with condominium developments, since they typically have complicated
ownership patterns and a developer would have to reach sales agreements with
multiple owners.
Well-established organizations and institutions because of the difficulty such
organizations and institutions would face relocating to locations, unless the
owner indicates his/her interest in redeveloping the site with residential uses.
HCD requires a more detailed analysis of redevelopment potential on sites with the
above types of uses. However, where adjacent vacant space is available and existing
uses would not be removed, HCD does not generally consider the existing use on
the site a cause for concern.
2. Realistic Potential for Recycling. HCD evaluates the feasibility of redevelopment based
on a variety of factors, some of which include property owner interest in
redevelopment with housing, market factors related to location or site
characteristics, existing uses on the site that are highly valued and anticipated to
remain, the condition and age of existing development on the site, and
environmental liability risks, such as land contamination.
3. Site Size and Ownership Patterns. HCD believes that larger sites provide the
opportunity to increase capacity potential and to provide flexibility with regard to
design, public amenities, mix of housing types, and mixed use development. It also
believes that lot consolidation potential of parcels can be a factor in determining site
suitability. Lot consolidation potential can be based on ownership patterns (single,
limited, or multiple owners), history of lot consolidation in the area, and specific
knowledge of owner interest in lot consolidation. Where lot consolidation potential
is likely, the time and cost associated with development is reduced and thus the
likelihood of redevelopment is increased.
869
Page 4 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
4. Development Density. HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to
encourage the development of affordable housing in Santa Clara County due to
economies of scale that a developer can achieve. Sites that permit a density of less
than 20 units per acre would not be considered as appropriate for fulfilling the
lower-income RHNA requirement but could be appropriate for fulfilling the
moderate and above moderate income RHNA requirement.
In addition, HCD also evaluates the realistic yield for each site proposed to be on the
Housing Sites Inventory. In Cupertino, HCD has accepted a realistic yield of 85% of
the maximum density allowed on the site, based on city-specific historic project
approval data. This means that for a one acre site, the maximum yield at a density of
25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units. However, the realistic yield for Housing
Element purposes is (25 * 85%) = 21 units.
Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan and
Cupertino General Plan)
In addition to the State-wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the
Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria
regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The One Bay Area Plan
is a long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy through 2040 for
the San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan was jointly approved by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2013.
ABAG determined the City’s and other local jurisdiction’s RHNA based on the Plan.
Pursuant to SB375, the Plan includes the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the
2040 Regional Transportation Plan. The Plan focuses development in Priority Development
Areas (PDA). PDA’s are locally designated areas within existing communities that have
been identified and approved by local cities or counties for future growth. These areas are
typically accessible to public transit, jobs, recreation, shopping and other services and
absorb much of the growth anticipated in the region. In Cupertino, the Priority
Development Areas are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and
the City of Santa Clara and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Highway 280 (see Attachment HC-1 – VTA PDA Map)
The City’s General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay
Area Plan. Key themes include:
1. Location along major transportation routes with access to transit or within ½ mile of a VTA
Priority Development Area (PDA)
2. Proximity to employment and activity centers
3. Proximity to amenities
4. Corner lot(s) preferred – such parcels provide the most flexibility to accommodate mixed-use
developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivity between mid-block parcels.
870
Page 5 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
Potential Housing Element Sites
Consideration of Housing Element sites is still in the preliminary stages. No decisions
regarding rezoning, density increases, or inclusion in the Housing Element has yet been
made. Through this study session, the City will continue to discuss sites with the public.
Additional sites may be identified via public input and Commissioner discussion.
While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites
enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units. The cumulative total of the realistic yield of
all the sites listed below, at the maximum densities proposed, is 5,426. A map has been
prepared (see Attachment HC-2) which identifies all the sites discussed below.
Existing Housing Element sites:
The 2007-2014 Housing Element identified 13 sites (See Table 1 below.) Of these, four sites
have since been developed and three sites do not meet the criteria discussed previously and
have been identified in the table below with strikethroughs. For specifics on these sites,
please see Attachment HC-3 (Site Criteria).
Table 1: Existing Housing Element Sites
No Sites Address Size
(acres)
Max.
Density
(DU/gr. ac.)
Current Land Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
1. Furniture 2000 19875 Stevens
Creek Blvd 1.78 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Yoshinoya 19855 Stevens
Creek Blvd 0.24 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
2. I-Restaurant 20007 Stevens
Creek Blvd 1.35 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
3. 7-11 site
behind
Bombay Oven
10073 Saich
Way 0.77 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
4a. Grand Buffet/
Boas
20030 Stevens
Creek Blvd 1.16 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Lackey Prop.
(SCB & Blaney)
10071 S.
Blaney Ave 0.37 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Lackey Prop.
(SCB & Blaney)
10031 S.
Blaney Ave 1.36 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
4b. Corner of SCB
& Blaney
20010 Stevens
Creek Blvd 0.47 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
5. Arya 19930 Stevens
Creek Blvd 0.44 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
871
Page 6 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
No Sites Address Size
(acres)
Max.
Density
(DU/gr. ac.)
Current Land Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Arya Parking
Lot
19936 Stevens
Creek Blvd 0.52 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
6. SD Furniture 19900 Stevens
Creek Blvd 1.92 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
7. United
Furniture
10025 E.
Estates 0.92 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
United
Furniture
10075 E.
Estates 0.53 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
United
Furniture
10075 E.
Estates 0.86 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
8. Barry Swenson
Site
19160 Stevens
Creek Blvd 0.55 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
9. Loree Center 10029 Judy
Ave 0.43 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Loree Center 19060 Stevens
Creek Blvd 0.86 25 Commercial/ Office/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
10. Morley Bros. 10500
Pruneridge 2.80 25 Industrial/
Residential
P(MP,
Res)
Morley Bros. 10400
Pruneridge 5.69 25 Industrial/
Residential
P(MP,
Res)
11. Glenbrook
Apt.
10160
Parkwood 11.62 20 Med/High Density
(10-20) R3
Glenbrook
Apt.
21297
Parkwood 19.72 20 Med/High Density
(10-20) R3
12. The Villages
Apt.
20800 Valley
Green Dr. 5.35 20 Med/High Density
(10-20) R3
The Villages
Apt.
20975 Valley
Green Dr. 5.49 20 Med/High Density
(10-20) R3
The Villages
Apt.
20990 Valley
Green Dr. 6.78 20 Med/High Density
(10-20) R3
The Villages
Apt.
20800 Valley
Green Dr. 2.69 20 Med/High Density
(10-20) R3
The Villages
Apt.
20875 Valley
Green Dr. 6.79 20 Med/High Density
(10-20) R3
13. Carl Berg
property
20705 Valley
Green Dr. 7.98 25
Office/ Industrial/
Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
ML, Res)
872
Page 7 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
Sites Proposed By Property Owners
Several property owners have indicated interest in being considered to be added to the
Housing Element Sites Inventory list. Table 2 below identifies the sites and the current and
desired development potential. Sites are listed in alphabetical order and are not in any
particular order of priority. Details about the site criteria are available in Attachment HC-3.
Table 2: Sites Proposed By Property Owners
Site Size
(acres)
Existing
Density
(DU/gr.
ac.)
Desired
Density
(DU/acre)
Current Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning Current Use
Bateh Brothers (S-W
corner of Foothill
Blvd & Stevens
Creek Blvd)
±0.67 15 20 – 35
Commercial/
Residential
P(CG) Convenience
store
Cupertino Village ±12 25 35 – 40 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG, Res) Commercial
strip mall
Foothill Market
(Stevens Canyon Rd
at McClellan Rd)
±1.3 15 20 – 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG) Commercial
strip mall
Marina Plaza ±4.35 25 25 – 40 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG, Res) Commercial
strip mall
Market Place ±9.9 25 25 – 35 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG, Res) Three newer &
one aging
commercial
building
Stevens Creek Office
Center
±4.8 25 35 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG, Res) Office
buildings
The Hamptons ±12 25 65-110 High density
residential 20-
35 DU/gr ac
P(Res) Apartment
complex with
342 units
Vallco Mall ±35 35 No
change
Commercial/
Residential
P(Regional
Shopping)
Indoor Mall
Wonderland
Chinese School &
10921 Maxine
Avenue
±1.83 None/ 1-5 20 – 25 Quasi-public/
Institutional &
Low Density
Residential
BQ/R1-10 Pre-school/
After-school &
Single family
home
Yamagami’s
Nursery
±2.33 15 25 – 40 Commercial/
Office/
Residential
P(CG, Res
5-15)
Commercial
strip mall and
nursery
873
Page 8 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants
In addition to the sites that have been proposed by property owners, participants at the
January 23, 2014 workshop identified several other sites as having potential for residential
development or redevelopment. These sites have been provided in Table 3 below. Sites are
listed in alphabetical order and are not in any particular order of priority. Details about the
site criteria are available in Attachment HC-3.
Table 3: Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants
Site Size
(acres)
Current
Density
(DU/gr.
acre)
Current Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Current
Use
Comments
21731 Stevens
Creek Blvd (Next
to Post Office)
0.62 4.4 – 12 Neighborhood
Commercial,
Industrial and
Residential
P(CN,
ML, Res
4.4-12)
Strip mall Martial Arts school, dry
cleaners and beauty salon
76 gas station and
adjacent office
building (10625 N.
De Anza Blvd &
20545 Valley
Green Ave)
±0.7 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
ML,
Res)
Gas station
and office
building
Odd shaped site.
Abundant Life
Church (N.
Stelling Road)
±3.8
25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Church This site was considered
as a Housing Element site
in the 2007-2014 planning
cycle. At that time the
property owners had not
expressed interest
Caltrans (on Bubb
Road)
±2.9 20 Industrial/
Residential
ML-rc Service/
Corp. Yard
This property owned by
the State of CA is used as
their Corp. Yard.
Cupertino
Crossroads
±14.7 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Shopping
Center
A portion of the site was
recently redeveloped and
the balance of the site is
mostly tenanted with the
exception of one or two
tenant spaces.
Cupertino
Financial Center
(NE corner of
Wolfe and SCB)
±4.4 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
OP,
Res)
Office
complex
This site has recently been
acquired by JP Morgan
and has an office
building.
874
Page 9 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
Site Size
(acres)
Current
Density
(DU/gr.
acre)
Current Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Current
Use
Comments
Cypress Hotel ±1.3 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Hotel Site is developed with a
hotel that has property
lines contiguous with its
footprint.
Evulich Ct @ Linda
Vista Dr
±2.5 5 Low Density
Residential
R1-7.5 Single
Family
Older homes on
underdeveloped lots
Good Samaritan
Church
(Homestead Rd)
±1.36 25 Quasi-public/
Institutional
BQ Church Existing Church
Homestead Lanes
and adjacent sites
(20990, 20956 &
20916 Homestead)
±4.6 35 Commercial/
Residential
P(Rec,
Enter) &
P(CG)
Bowling
alley &
adjacent
strip malls
Older shopping center
Homestead Road
(21020, 21040,
21060, 21070
Homestead and
APN: 326 07 036
and 326 07 033)
±5.4 15 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG) Office
buildings,
parking lot
and tennis
courts
May be an appropriate
multi-family housing site
at a higher density.
Main Street (East
of Finch Ave)
±11.5 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
OP,
Res)
Mixed use
with hotel,
commercial
and office
Site is currently under
construction pursuant to
entitlements that the
property owner received
in 2012.
Oaks Shopping
Center
±7.9 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Strip mall
and theater
Site has entitlements for a
mixed use office building
and hotel which expires
in Sept. 2014.
PG&E Service
Yard (N. Blaney
Ave)
±21.6 N/A Quasi-public/
Institutional
BQ Corp. Yard PG&E has not expressed
interest in redevelopment
of site
PG&E lower
Substation (CA
Oak Way)
±10.6 N/A Quasi-public/
Institutional
A Power
Substation
PG&E has not expressed
interest in redevelopment
of site
Portal Plaza
(Between Portal &
Perimeter)
±5.22 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Strip mall Shopping Center.
Minimal vacancy at this
site.
875
Page 10 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
Site Size
(acres)
Current
Density
(DU/gr.
acre)
Current Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Current
Use
Comments
Post Office site ±5.2 4.4 – 12 Neighborhood
Commercial,
Industrial and
Residential
P(CN,
ML, Res
4.4-12)
Post Office This site is owned by the
US Postal Service.
St. Joseph’s Place
(Café Torre site)
±2.2 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Strip mall Older shopping center
Union Church of
Cupertino
(Stevens Creek
Blvd)
±3 25 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG,
Res)
Church,
Pre-school
Existing Church with
historic designation. This
site has recently added an
annex building to increase
services at the site.
Village Green
Apartments
±7.5 16 High Density
Multi-family
residential (20-
35 DU/gross
acre)
R3 Existing
apartment
complex
with 122
units
Based on R3 zoning,
maximum yield is 161
units. For HCD’s
purposes, realistic yield is
137 units. Therefore, this
property has the potential
to add 16 more units.
Very low yield. Open
space availability needs to
be studied.
Vivi’s Falafel
(21771 Stevens
Creek Blvd/ Next
to Post Office)
0.44 4.4 – 12 Neighborhood
Commercial,
Industrial and
Residential
P(CN,
ML, Res
4.4-12)
Strip mall Restaurant and shoe
repair store.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from
stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers,
service providers, School Districts and the business community. A summary of common
themes from the interviews is attached as Attachment HC-4.
Summary of January 23 Joint PC/HC Workshop
On January 23, the Planning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint
workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into
small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased
876
Page 11 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014
density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and
placed stickers to identify potential housing sites. See Attachment HC-5 for transcribed
comments from the January 23rd small group discussions and Attachment HC-2 for a
consolidated map of potential housing sites.
The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting:
Notice Agenda
Email sent to all interested parties
signed up through the project
website
Letters sent to current Housing
Element site property owners and
interested property owners
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the project Website (one week
prior to hearing)
CONCLUSION
The goal for this study session is to review the sites that have been presented to date,
identify any other new potential sites for consideration, to, potentially, rank the sites in
order of preference with the understanding that sites must be chosen such that the
cumulative yield of all the sites picked add up to a total of 1,064 units to make a
recommendation to Planning Commission on priority housing sites that should be
considered to meet the RHNA.
Prepared by: MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino
Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
Attachments
HC-1. VTA PDA Map
HC-2. Consolidated Sites Map – Potential 2015-2023 Housing Element Sites
HC-3. Site Criteria Matrix
HC-4. Common themes from Stakeholder interviews
HC-5. Transcribed comments from January 23, 2014 meeting
877
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: February 19, 2014
SUBJECT:
General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
a.Review the report on the GeneralPlan Amendment (GPA) Concept Alternatives to be
studied in the EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) and provide comments.
b.Discuss the land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the EnvironmentalImpact
Report (EIR) and provide direction.
DESCRIPTION:
Open House and Study Session toprovide an update on the focusedGeneral Plan Amendment
GPA-2013-01) process and review land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the
EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR). Proposed alternatives include options forCity-wide
development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, andresidential), as well as building heights
and densities for corridors, special centers, and seven study areas.
BACKGROUND:
Initial Council Direction
At itsAugust 21, 2012 meeting, the City Councilauthorized staff to proceed with the initiation
of a GeneralPlan Amendment (GPA) and directedstaff to present a scope of work for the GPA
process, including:
Theschedule for a specific and/or master plan for the Vallco Shopping District;
A proposal to fund the GPA process; and
A list of propertieswhere CG (General Commercial) zoning could be added. (See
Attachment PC-1 for the staff report andmeeting minutes.)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
17
2.
878
Page 2 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
At the March 5, 2013 meeting, the City Council approved:
The scopes of workfor theGPA, Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan, and associated
EIR;
Authorized the project budgetand consultant contracts;
Provideddirection to staff to:
Excludethe church site on Homestead and Stelling Roads as a study area;
Include the PG&E site at Blaney Avenueand Homestead Road as a study area; and
Review adding CG zoning and/or BA (Public Facility/School) uses to PG&E’s existing
BQ (Quasi-Public Building) zoning. (See Attachment PC-2 for the staff report and
meeting minutes.)
GeneralPlan Amendment Overview
The City’s current 2005 General Plan controlsthe amount of commercial, office, hotel, and
residential built in the City through development allocations in terms of square feet
commercial and office), rooms (hotel), and units (residential). Allocations are geographically
assigned in certainneighborhoods, commercial centers, and employment centersso thatprivate
development fulfills City goals and priorities, and reduces adverse impacts to the environment.
A. Development Allocations:
The primary purpose of the GPAis to replenish, re-allocate, and increase citywide office,
commercial, hotel, andresidential allocations in order to plan for anticipated future
development activitywhile keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives.
B. ConsolidateReview Of Individual GPA Requests:
The secondary purpose of the GPA is to consolidate development requests by several
property owners for amendments to the General Plan. The communityvision developed as
part of theGPA process will help evaluate the development requests along with the
associated GeneralPlan amendments being requested. The consolidated General Plan
amendment process also provides a unique opportunity for the community toprovide input
on the various requests received at a citywide level, instead of a site-by-site basis, which
only looksat a limited scope. In additionto the various property owner requests, at the
March 2013 meeting, the City Council added the PG&E corporation yard site at Blaney
Avenueand Homestead Road to the list of study areas to explorethe possibility of a
commercial overlay.
The seven project study areas and the General Plan amendments being requested by
property owners are listedbelow:
1. Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire – Increased height and additional hotelallocation
2. City Center – Increased height and additional office allocation
3. PG&E site at Blaney Avenueand Homestead Road – Add commercial overlay
4. Mirapath (adjacent to PG&E site) – Add commercial overlay
18879
Page 3 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
5. CupertinoVillage – Increased height and additional allocations for mixed-use
6. Vallco Shopping District – Increased height, land use changes, and additional
allocations for mixed-use
7. Stevens Creek Office Center (Peet’s/Panera site) – Increased height and densities and
additional allocations for mixed-use.
C. Inform Vallco Shopping District Specific and/or Master Plan:
The Vallco Shopping District contains a significantamount of existing commercial built area
approximately 1.3 million square feet), andis one of the few major commercial areas in the
City that has significant redevelopment potential. The community has also expressed great
interest in seeing the mall revitalized. It isanticipated that theGPA process will help create
a communityvision for the Vallco Shopping District that will guide the development of a
new set of land use parameters and development objectives that would provide a
framework to evaluate development requests and clear direction for itsfuture development.
Priorto the City approving anysignificant developmentapplications in the Vallco Shopping
District, a Specific and/or Master Plan will be required.
Since the City Council’s authorization of the process, a developer has approached staff with
an interest in redeveloping the entireVallco Shopping District, with theexception of the
Rose Bowl parcel, the KCR-owned parcel behind JC Penney’s along I-280, andpossibly the
Simeon-owned parcel behind the Macy’s garage along I-280.
D. Update To Address State Law And Clean Up:
Lastly, the GPA process will alsoaddressrecent State law requirements for General Plan
Amendments, including the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 – 2006), Sustainable
Communitiesand Climate Protection Act (SB 375 – 2008), General Plans and Military
Facilities (SB 1468 - 2002/SB 926 – 2004) , and the Complete Streets Act (AB 1358 - 2008). The
GPA will include other administrative “clean-up”, including correcting erroneous zoning
and densities, formalizing some existing City policies, andother language related to recent
developments, such as the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
E. Municipal Code/Zoning Ordinance Clean Up:
There may be also be additional “clean up” revisions to the Municipal Code, including such
items as revising the definition of gross density to exclude adjacentstreet widths.
Settings and Opportunities Report
In September 2013, the City released a Settings and Opportunities reportthat provides an
overview of the project, a summary of the current planning context in Cupertino, and a detailed
analysis of existing land use, design, and mobility conditions for each of the seven project study
areas (see Attachment PC-3). The report also includes an initial list of key findings of existing
conditions and opportunities.
19880
Page 4 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
Key opportunities include:
1. Exploring the possibility of creating a community benefits incentives program for
development;
2. Identifying strategies for diversifying andstrengthening Cupertino’s local economy;
improving multi-modalcirculation through the City; and
3. Identifying a viable, community-based strategy for revitalizing the current Vallco Mall and
broader shopping district so that it remains a regional shopping destination.
Market Study and Retail StrategyReport
An analysis of the sales data for Cupertino’s retail trade area indicates that there are significant
sales tax leakages in to areas outside the City. The community has indicated that thereis
support for capture of the lost sales tax revenue. In order to determine the areas in which the
City can capture some of the lost sales tax, a Market Study was prepared (See Attachment PC-
4). The purpose of the Market Studyis to assess market trendsanddemand for new
commercial, office, hotel, andresidential development in Cupertino.
The Market Study’s demand estimates that the existing ~701,500 square foot of commercial
space available in the City’s General Plan Allocationpool is adequate to meet the high end of
additional demand in the City through the year 2035. However, the study indicates market
support for an additional 3.6 million net square feet for office space; 985 net hotel rooms; and
4,420 residential unitsthrough the year 2035.
In addition, a Retail Strategy Report has been commissioned to review the estimates provided
in the Market Study and provide recommendations on the retail viability of each of the seven
study areas and alternative recommendations for revitalizing the Vallco Shopping District.
Housing Element Updateand Recent Regional Planning Considerations
The Alternatives presented in thisreport are also informedby theconcurrent Housing Element
updateand by Regional Planning considerations such as the regional Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) called the OneBay Area Plan and transit plans such as VTA’s Bus RapidTransit.
Housing Element Update
In this study session, the Housing Element Update potential sites will be discussed in
conjunction with the GPAalternative considerations. While no decisions regarding rezoning,
density increases, or inclusion in the Housing Element has yet been made, some of the potential
Housing Element sitesare from the GPA’s seven study areas, including Cupertino Village,
Stevens Creek Office Center, and the Vallco Shopping District. The property owners of each of
these andother sites proposed byproperty owners as Housing Element sites have proposed
densities ranges higher than those allowed by the GeneralPlan. As a result of the Housing
Element Update process, the Housing Element sites may be allowedhigher densities than what
are normally allowed in their respective corridor/specialcenter. The densities for these sites
20881
Page 5 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
have not been included in the General Plan Alternatives since the finallist of sites to be studied
in the EIR have not beenselected at thistime. See the Housing Element Update staff report for
more information. At that discussion, staff will look for direction from the Commission on the
densities that will be studied. Once the Council reviews the Planning Commission’s
recommendation and makes thedecision on the finallist of sites to be studied for each General
Plan Alternative, they will be included in the EIR analysis.
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Areais a long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy through
2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan was jointly approved by theAssociation of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in
2013. Pursuant to SB 375, the Plan includes the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and
the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. The Plan focuses development in Priority Development
Areas (PDA). The forecastestimates in Plan Bay Area formed the basis of the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) for jurisdictions in the Bay Area. This is discussed in further detail
in the Housing Element Update staff report.
PDA’s are locally designated areas within existingcommunities that have been identified and
approved by local cities or counties for future growth. These areas are typically accessible to
public transit, jobs, recreation, shopping andother services and absorb much of the growth
anticipated in the region. In Cupertino, the PDA’s are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard
between Highway 85 andthe border with the City of Santa Clara and along De Anza Boulevard
between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 280.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA), theSouth Bay’s regional transportation agency, is
studying the possibility of creating a Bus RapidTransit (BRT) line along Stevens Creek
Boulevard from De Anza College to the Transit Mallin downtown San Jose. The goal of this
project is to address projected increased transit demandalong Stevens Creek Boulevard, which
is currently the second highest ridership route in the VTA region.
VTA is proposing to add BRT stations at De Anza College, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard
andWolfe Road in Cupertino. Options being studied by the VTA include providing a dedicated
route for the BRT in the center of Stevens Creek Boulevard, which would involve the removal of
a driving lane in each direction, as well as, using the existing lanes in their current configuration
for the bus line with reduced stops. While a new BRT line along Stevens Creek Boulevard
would provide increased transitopportunities for residents and students at De Anza College,
there was some community concernsexpressed about removing a driving lane in each direction
along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Since BRT is a proposed regional project, the EIR analysis will include an optional analysis of
the impact of BRT in Alternatives B andC.
21882
Page 6 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
DISCUSSION:
Concept Alternatives
Three draft GeneralPlan Concept Alternatives have been prepared thatoutlinedifferent future
scenarios (Attachment PC-5 – Concept Alternatives Report). The alternatives weredeveloped to
reflect community input (workshops and online input) as well as to respond to regional
economic growth factors andhousing needs. The alternatives range from minimal change to the
current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A), to more moderate growth (Alternative B), to a
greater change in development criteria which reflect the various property owners’ requests
Alternative C).
These changes in development intensity include changes to land uses, heights anddevelopment
allocation. The alternatives specifically focus these changes on five major mixed-use corridors in
the core of Cupertino – Homestead, North Wolfe, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South
De Anza.
Major Mixed-Use Corridors
Each of the alternatives A, B andC are organized by the mixed-use corridors in which allocation
is distributed. Other Special Centers in the City remain the generally the same. The alternative
maps (on pages 27, 29, and 31 of Attachment PC-5) identify the following five mixed-use
corridors:
A. Homestead
The Homestead corridor consists of the area on the south side of Homestead Road between
the City’s eastern boundary with the City of Sunnyvale (~1/4 mile east of N. Blaney Avenue)
to the City’s western boundary with the City of Sunnyvale (~600 feet west of N. Stelling
Road). It includesproperties on the north side of Homestead Road close to the intersection
of De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road bounded by the City’s northernboundary with
Sunnyvale. This mixed-use corridor expands the boundaries of the existing Homestead
Roadspecial center in the 2005 General Plan.
B. North Wolfe
The North Wolfe corridor includes propertieson the west side of N. Wolfe Road, bounded
by I-280 to thesouth and Homestead Road to the north and includes the Hampton
Apartments site at the NE corner of N. Wolfe Road and I-280. This area consists of a portion
of the existingVallco Park North specialcenter in the 2005 General Plan, with theexclusion
of the recently approved Apple Campus 2 project.
22883
Page 7 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
C. Heart of the City
The Heart of the City corridor consists of the area currently defined in the Heart of the City
SpecificPlan, and includespropertiesalong Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85
on thewest to the City’s eastern boundary near Lawrence Expressway and portions of De
Anza Boulevard (up to Alves Driveto the north and Scofield Drive to the south) and
Stelling Road. This area also consists of the existing Heart of the City, Vallco Park South,
and City Center special centers defined in the 2005 General Plan.
D. North De Anza
The North De Anza corridor consists of the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center
boundaries in the 2005 GeneralPlan, generally North De Anza Boulevard between Alves
Drive to the south and I-280 to the north, including portions of Valley Green Drive, Mariani
Avenue, Bandley Drive, and Lazaneo Drive west of De Anza Boulevard.
E. SouthDe Anza
The SouthDe Anza corridor consists of the South De Anza Boulevard Special Center
boundaries in the 2005 GeneralPlan. South De Anza Boulevardboundedgenerally by
Scofield Driveto the north and Bollinger Road to the south. This area also includes the
portionof the city previously known as the South Saratoga-Sunnyvale Conceptual Plan area
which islocated on the west side of S. De Anza Boulevard between Rainbow Drive and
ProspectRoad.
OtherExisting Special Centers
The 2005 GeneralPlan Special Centers located outside the major mixed-use corridors will
remain as partof this GPA. Theseareas include Monta Vista, Oak Valley, Fairgrove, Other
Neighborhoods, Other Commercial Centers, and Bubb Road. With theexception of re-assigning
allocations to replenish certaintypes of development potential in mixed-use areas (Monta Vista,
Other Commercial Centers, and BubbRoad) and clarifying boundaries/names, there are no
significant changes (particularly height and density) proposed. In addition, the non-
geographically specific Major Employersallocation category will remain.
Gateways, Sub-Areas, and Nodes
Following input from the various stakeholders at community meetings, the following gateways,
sub-areas and nodes have been identified. The purpose of identifying gateways, sub-areas, and
nodes is to organize requests from applicants within the mixed-use corridors. Theseareas have
been organized to reflect requests for increased residential density and/or heights based on
locations near freeways or where they would not impact existing neighborhoods and would
provideretail and project-wide or community-wide benefits. If development is proposed in
areas that abut single-family residential development, the development is expected to maintain
a setback to height ratioof 1:1.
23884
Page 8 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
A. City Center Node
The City Center Node (one of the seven study areas) is identified as being bound by Stevens
Creek Blvdto the north; S. De Anza Blvd to the west; Rodrigues Avenue to the south; and
TorreAvenue to the east. Due to the height of the existing buildings in this node, the input
from community workshops ranged from not allowing any increased heights to allowing
some increase in heights.
B. North Crossroads Sub-Area
The North Crossroads Sub-Area consists of the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd between N.
De Anza Blvd and N. Stelling Road, with the exception of the Abundant Life Church site,
since it abuts single-family residential uses. The North Crossroads Sub-Area includes the
Stevens Creek Office Center study area. Input from the community workshopsnoted that
this area isideal for active commercial space along Stevens Creek Boulevard, similarto the
existing Peet’s and Panera developmentat the site.
C. North De Anza Gateway
North De Anza Gateway consists of the Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire study area sites at
the northwest corner of the N. De Anza Blvd and I-280 intersection. These have been
identified consistently at the community workshops as an area where some increased
heights may be acceptable due to its proximity to the freewayand distance from single-
family residential uses.
D. North Vallco Gateway
The North Vallco Gateway consists of the west side of N. Wolfe Road, bounded by I-280 to
the southand Homestead Road to the north and the Hampton Apartments site at the NE
corner of N. Wolfe Road and I-280. The width of thegatewayon the west side of N. Wolfe
Road is proposedat approximately 275 feet wide (the width of the Duke of Edinburgh and
Hilton Garden Inn sites fronting Wolfe Road). The North Vallco Gateway includes a portion
of the CupertinoVillage study area. This has also been identified atthe community
workshops as an area where some increased heights may be acceptable due to its proximity
to the Apple Campus 2 currently under development and the freeway.
E. South Vallco GatewayWest
The South Vallco Gateway – West consists of the west side of N. Wolfe Road south of the I-
280 freeway. Thisis generally bounded by I-280 to the north; Perimeter Road to the west;
and Stevens Creek Blvdto thesouth. The South Vallco Gateway East includes a portion of
the Vallco Shopping District study area. Heights directly along Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Wolfe Road are proposed to be increased to reflect a developer’s request as well as
input from community workshops. Heights adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in this
area are proposed to be lower than those directly along the major corridors.
24885
Page 9 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
F. SouthVallco Gateway East
The South Vallco Gateway – East consists of the east side of N. Wolfe Road south of the I-
280 freeway. Thisisgenerallybounded by I-280 to the north; Stevens Creek Blvd to the
south; and Tantau Avenue to the east. This hasbeen identifiedby in community workshops
as an area where increased heights may be acceptable if appropriate community benefits
were provided, due toits proximity to the freeway and distance from existing
neighborhoods. Therefore, heights reflect the workshop comments and a developer’s
request. TheSouth Vallco Gateway East includes a portion of the Vallco Shopping District
study area.
G. Stelling Gateway
The Stelling Gateway consists of thesouth side of Homestead Road, bounded by The
Markham Apartments to the east; I-280 to the south; and the City’s boundary with
Sunnyvale to the west (~600 feet west of N. Stelling Road). This areahas been identified at
the community workshops as an area where some increased height and mixed-use,
including residential development, may be appropriate.
H. Stevens Creek and 85 Gateway
Stevens Creek and 85 Gateway consists of the current Oaks Shopping Center site on the
north side of Stevens Creek Blvd between Highway 85 and Mary Avenue. This has also
been identified at the community workshops as an area where some increased height and
mixed-use development may be appropriate due to the proximity to the freeway and
distance from single-family neighborhoods.
Alternatives A – C
Each alternative is represented diagrammatically in Attachment PC-5 which showsthe
boundaries for the five mixed-use corridors andincludes tables that summarize primary uses,
maximum residential densities, maximum heights, and development allocation. Tables also
summarize specificstandards for the eight different gateways, nodes, and sub-areas identified
within the mixed-use corridors. While development allocationis divided by corridor, maximum
residential density and building heights vary through each of the eight smaller areas. Allocation
adjustments for the other existing Special Centers are identified.
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of the following themes:
Maintain thepolicies of the 2005 General Plan
Increase office and hotel development allocations
Streamline GeneralPlan area boundaries
Alternative A identifies how growth would occur if the City largely continuesthe policies of the
current 2005 General Plan, while making minor developmentallocation and boundary changes.
25886
Page10 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
Underthis alternative there are no changes to existing land use designations, height limits,
development standards and densities (with the exception of SouthDe Anza – from 15 to 25
du/ac in order to be consistent with other corridors). Thisspecifically includesfocusing office
allocation increases within the Heart of the City Corridor, which is the area that can absorb new
officedevelopment under the framework of the 2005 GeneralPlan and as envisioned in the One
Bay Area Plan adopted by ABAG and MTC in 2013. Under the land use standards in the 2005
General Plan, Vallco Shopping Mallwould remain the same underthis alternative because there
is not enough allocation or economic incentive to redevelopthe site.
Alternative A does not add additionalcitywide residentialallocation. However, it does re-
allocate the existing allocation in order to address Housing Element requirements, with the
particular goal to ensure that existing Housing Element sites are accommodated based on their
realistic yield (85% of maximum allowable density). State law requires the City to identify land
suitable to hold its regional fair share of housing for the 2014-2022 timeframe (known as the
RHNA allocation). This alternative meets current RHNA requirements given that theresidential
allocation (1,895 total) is above the current RHNA allocation of 1,064 units. However, this
alternative does not include enough residential allocations to fully achieve the OneBay Area
requirements for 2040 (discussed later under Alternatives B andC).
Alternative B
Alternative B is derived from the following themes:
Focus new growth alongmajor mixed-use corridors
Revise height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas alongmajor mixed-use
corridors
Increase office, hotelandresidential development allocations
Support the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping Districtby reallocating existing
commercial allocation
Streamline GeneralPlan area boundaries
Alternative B identifies how the City can focus development along major mixed-use corridors in
order to create morecomplete commercial, officeandentertainment areas, and to address mid-
term housing needs. It increases development allocations at a level above Alternative A in order
to bettercapture retail sales leakage and regionaldemand for officedevelopment. Heightsand
residential densities in key nodes, gateways and sub areas reflect areas alongthe five mixed-use
corridors where additional developmentallocation in the General Plan may be located. This
alternative also provides guidance on where increased heights may be considered if a
development meets certain criteria (e.g., includes a retail component, is away from residential
neighborhoods or is near freeways) and provides project-wide benefits. Similar to Alternative
A, it includes streamlining the current 2005 General Plan boundaries.
This alternative includes a broader range of Complete Streets and transit improvements than
those includedunder Alternative A which would better connect the major mixed-use corridors
to surrounding residential neighborhoods through bicycle, pedestrian and intersection
26887
Page11 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
improvements. Thisalternative also includes studying theproposed dedicated Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) line along Stevens Creek Boulevard, which connects De Anza College andmajor
intersections in Cupertino to San Jose and the greater Bay Area.
Similar to Alternative A, this alternative adds additional residentialallocation as partof the
Housing Element update. However, it adds 1,421 new residential units to the current allocation
of 1,895 units that will meet both the current RHNA requirements and 75 percent of the 2040
One Bay Arearequirement.
Alternative C
Alternative C is derived from the following themes and reflects the property owners’ requests:
Support the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping Districtby reallocating existing
commercial allocation
Revise density and height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major
mixed-use corridors
Increase office, hotel andresidential development allocations
Streamline General Plan area boundaries
Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally and
regionally significant retail, employment, housingand entertainment destination, and account
for a large portion of the City’s RHNA. Underthis alternative, the Vallco areabecomes the
downtown” of Cupertino, serving the mixed-use hub for residents, workers and the larger
region.
Alternative C also includes streamlining the current 2005 General Plan boundaries, similarto
Alternatives A and B. It also increases development allocations at a level above both
Alternatives A and B in order to fully capture retail sales leakage and regional demand for
officeand hotel development. Heights and densities in key nodes, gateways and sub-areas
reflect areas along the five mixed-use corridors where City-wide developmentallocation in the
GeneralPlan may be located. It also provides guidance on where increased heights may be
considered if a development meets certain criteria (e.g., includes a retail component, is away
from residential neighborhoods or is near freeways) and provides project-wide benefits.
Similarto Alternative B, this alternative includes thebroader range of Complete Streets and
transit improvements, such as bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements and an option
to study the proposeddedicated Bus RapidTransit (BRT) along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Thisalternative also includes updating the Housing Element as required by State law and
includes an option for an allocation of 4,421 units (2,526 units more than currently allocated in
the General Plan), consistent with 2040 OneBay Area Plan projections.
27888
Page12 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
Comparison of Existing Conditions and Alternatives A, B and C
Please refer to Attachment PC-6 for a comparison of the different alternatives prepared above
with the Existing 2005 GeneralPlan conditions with respect to allocations, heights, and
densities. In addition, please refer to page 34 of the Concept Alternatives Report in Attachment
PC-5 that shows how the different alternativesaffectthe GPA’s seven study areas.
Purpose of the Concept Alternatives
The purpose of the alternatives is to not to make determinations on the final General Plan
concept. Instead, it is to allow the opportunity for a community-wide dialogue onheights, land
uses and development allocations. The EIR will be program-level with enough detail to help
future applicants expedite environmental review by tiering off the EIR with Mitigated Negative
Declarations.
Given that the development allocation system is dynamic and allocated to projects on a “first
come, first serve” basis, allocations would be reserved for the seven study area stakeholders for
five years after the conclusion of the GPA process.
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for this project. The preparation of the
EIR will commence once the City Councilprovides its comments on the alternatives. The
Council meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2014.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that alternatives to a project should
be studied. These must avoid or substantially lessen at leastone of the significant impacts of the
Proposed Project. The Proposed Project for the EIR being requested by the study area property
owners is Alternative C. Alternatives A and B have been identified as alternatives to the project
that will avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the Proposed
Project.
Finally, CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative
assumes no change to the current GeneralPlan. The analysis for this alternative will include
buildout of the current 2005 General Plan. Under this scenario, there are no changes to existing
land use policies, height limits, land use designations, or any additional development allocation
for office, commercial, hoteland residential units.
The 30-day Notice of Preparation (NOP) period will commence soon after the March 4, 2014
City Council meeting with a scoping session scheduled for March 11, 2014.
It isanticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will take about four monthsand will be
released for public review in Summer 2014. A community open house isplanned during the 45-
day public review period. Following the close of the public reviewperiod, a Final EIR will be
prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for
28889
Page13 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
thePlanning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are
tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
Project Website
In June 2013, theproject website (www.cupertinogpa.org) was launched in order to collect and
convey information related to the project. The website provides updates onupcoming events
and recently released reports; provides background information on the process andexisting
General Plan; allows users to submit comments and questions; and provides information onthe
concurrent Housing Element Update project.
Workshops, Public Meetings, Commission/Committee Meetings, andStakeholder Meetings
Community-wide Workshop #1 (July 18, 2013) - On July 18, 2013, the City hosted a
community-wide workshop to kick off the GPAproject. A citywide postcard announcing
the workshop was sent to allCity addresses, and e-mails were sent to all stakeholders and
other interestedparties. The City’s website andproject website also announcedthe
workshop. Following a presentation, workshop participants were asked to discuss and
participate in small group exercises which included a discussion of assets and mobility,
urban design or economic challenges thatshould be addressed by the GPAand
opportunities for future development. See Attachment PC-7 for a workshop summary,
which contains a compilation of the assets, challenges, and opportunities identifiedby the
workshop participants.
Community-wide Workshop #2 (October 23, 2013) - On October 23, 2013, the City held a
second Community-wide Workshop to discuss community ideas for future uses, design
and mobility concepts along major mixed-use corridors (Homestead, De Anza, Wolfe, and
Stevens Creek) and within the Vallco Shopping District. E-mails were sent to all study
area stakeholders, Community-wide Workshop #1 participants, andother interested
parties. The City’s website and project website also announced the workshop. Following a
presentation, workshop participants were asked to participate in a Community Design
Survey and Vallco Mapping Exercise.
Public Meetings - The City held a NeighborhoodMeeting specifically for interested
Cupertino residents on December 5, 2013, which covered the same concepts from
Community-wide Workshop #2. The City held similar meetings for the Chamber of
Commerce and CupertinoNeighborhood Block Leaders on January 29, 2014.
Study Area Stakeholder Meetings – These include meetings with key neighborhood
representatives, organizations (including the Chamber of Commerce and VTA), property
owners in the study areas, etc.
29890
Page14 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
See Attachment PC-8 for a summary of Workshop #2; themeetingon December 5, 2013; and
meetings on January 29, 2014; which contains a compilation of the responses received for the
survey andpictures of the Vallco exercise maps.
Commissionand Committee Meetings
City staff introduced the GPAproject before certain City Commissions and the Cupertino
Chamber of Commerce’s Legislative Action Committee (LAC) in orderto expand awareness of
the project, receivefeedback, and answerquestions. Staffpresented the project at the:
October 2, 2013 Teen Commissionmeeting;
December 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014 Legislative Action Committee meetings; and the
January 15, 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissionmeeting
February 19th Planning Commission Open House and Study Session
The following tablesummarizes the noticing for this meeting:
Notice Agenda
Email sent to all study area
stakeholders, prior workshop
participants, and interested parties
signed up through the project website
Citywide postcard sent to all addresses
in the City
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (oneweek prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site
one week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the project Website (one week
prior to hearing)
NEXT STEPS
The goal for this study session is to review the proposed land use alternatives, collect public
input, and provide comments and recommendations for the City Council’s consideration at
their similar study session on March 4, 2014. The following additional meetings have been
scheduled:
March 4, 2014: City Council Study Session on the GPAand Housing Element
March 11, 2014: Environmental Scoping Meeting ontheGPA and Housing Element
April 1, 2014: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the GPAand
Housing Element. This meeting will involve a discussion of policies to be included in the
GPA.
Prepared by: GeorgeSchroeder, Associate Planner
Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner
30891
Page15 PlanningCommission GPA OpenHouse and Study Session February 19, 2014
Reviewed by: Approvedby:
s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Director ofCommunity Development Director of Community Development
Attachments
PC-1. August 21, 2012 City Council Staff Report andMeeting Minutes
PC-2. March 5, 2013 City Council Staff Report and Meeting Minutes
PC-3. Settings and Opportunities Report
PC-4. Market Study
PC-5. Concept Alternatives Report
PC-6. Tables with Comparisons of Existing 2005 General Plan and Alternatives A, B, andC
PC-7. Community Workshop #1 Summary
PC-8. Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary
31892
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. ______ Agenda Date: February 19, 2014
Application No.: GPA-2013-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location/APN: Citywide
SUBJECT:
Study Session to reviewHousing Element requirements and sites to achieve theRegional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 2014-2022 Housing Element
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Review the report on potential Housing Element sites and
2. Discuss potential housing sites and provide comments on the priority housing sites to be
studied in the joint General Plan Amendment and Housing Element EnvironmentalImpact
Report (EIR).
BACKGROUND:
Housing Element Overview
In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which must
contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate
housing development by creatingpolicies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes
that provide opportunities for housing development, including units that could accommodate
households with very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. For information on Housing
Elementcontent, please see Attachment PC-1.
State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre-determined
cycle; for this cycle, Housing Element updates must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-
day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planningperiod for this cycle extends
from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the
Housing Elementagain in 2019 (every four years).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
478893
RegionalHousing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing unitsthroughout the State andis based
on Department of Finance population projections andregional population forecasts.
The RHNA identifiesCupertino’s regionalhousing needs by incomelevels:
Income Group RHNA
Very Low 356
Low 207
Moderate 231
Above Moderate 270
Total 1,064
The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identifiedby the RHNA. Rather, the
City’s responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, byidentifying specific sites, to satisfy
the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. HCD generally requires jurisdictions to
show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate
the RHNA allocations.
General Plan Amendment
In addition to the Housing Element, the City is also processing a General Plan Amendment
GPA). The GPA was authorized by the City Council in August 2012 and begun in March 2013.
The GPAincludes an analysis of the following key topics:
A. Development Allocations - The primary purpose of theGPA is to replenish, re-allocate, and
increase citywide office, commercial, hotel, andresidential allocations in order to plan for
anticipated future development activitywhile keeping with the community’s character,
goals, and objectives.
B. Consolidate Review Of Individual GPA Requests - The secondary purpose of theGPA is to
consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the
General Plan. The communityvision developed as part of the GPA process will help
evaluate thedevelopment requests along with the associated General Planamendments
being requested. The consolidated General Plan amendment process also provides a unique
opportunity for the community toprovide input on the various requests received at a
citywide level, instead of a site-by-site basis, which only looksat a limited scope.
Three draft General PlanConcept Alternatives have been prepared that outlinedifferent future
scenarios. The alternatives were developed to reflect community input (workshopsand online
input) as well as to respond to regional economic growth factors andhousing needs. The
alternatives range from minimal change to the current 2005 GeneralPlan (Alternative A) to
more moderate growth (Alternative B) to a greater change in development criteria which reflect
the various property owners’ requests (Alternative C).
479894
These changes in development intensity include changes to land uses, heights and development
allocation. The alternatives specifically focus these changes on five major mixed-use corridors in
the core of Cupertino – Homestead, North Wolfe, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South
De Anza.
DISCUSSION:
Housing Element Sites Criteria
HCD Criteria
HCD reviews each Housing Element’s sites inventoryto determine if adequate sites have been
identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a “site suitability analysis” is an important step in
addressingthe adequate sites requirement. For additional detailson HCD’s site suitability
requirements and criteria, please see Attachment PC-1. A key pointto note in HCD’s criteria are
that sites with a net density lower than 20 dwelling units per acre do not qualify for meeting
affordable housing requirements. Therefore, most sites discussed later in thisreport are in areas
that are at or above this density.
Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan and Cupertino
General Plan)
In addition to the State-wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable
Communities Strategy/OneBay Area Plan contribute additional criteriaregarding what makes
a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy
and the OneBay Area Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). The
City’s General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area
Plan. For additional detailson the other secondary criteria and PDA’s please see Attachment
PC-1. Cupertino’s PDA has been identified with a yellow outline on Attachment PC-2.
Potential Housing Element Sites
Consideration of Housing Element sites is still in the preliminary stages. Through thisstudy
session, the City will continue to discuss sites with the public. Additional sites may be identified
via public input and Commissioner discussion. While several sites are discussed in the report,
the City is only obligated to pick sites enough to cumulatively add upto 1,064 units. The
cumulative totalof therealistic yield of all the sites proposed to date far exceeds the City’s
RHNA. A map has been prepared (see Attachment PC-2) thatidentifies all the sites proposed to
date. An accompanyingtable (Attachment PC-3) provides additionalinformation about each
site. Sites are not in any particular order of priority.
Sites in three categories have been identified on the map:
Existing Housing Element sites – Seven sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element
are currently available . The others have either been redeveloped ordo not meet the criteria.
o Lot Consolidation Potential – Sites adjacent to existing Housing Element sites that could be
considered for addition into the Housing Element for more cohesive development.
480895
Sites Proposed By Property Owners – Ten property owners have indicated an interest in
being included in the Sites Inventory. Most of thedevelopers have indicated a density range
higher than that currently allowed by the General Plan and zoning for their site.
Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants – Workshop participants atthe January 23, 2014
workshop identified 21 sites which could potentially be included in the Sites Inventory.
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for this project. The preparation of the
EIR will commence once the City Councilprovides its comments on the sites to be analyzed as
partof each alternative studied in the EIR at its March 4, 2014 meeting. The 30-day Notice of
Preparation (NOP) period will commence soon after the City Council meeting, with a scoping
session scheduled for March 11, 2014.
It isanticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will take about four monthsand will be
released for public review in Summer 2014. A community open house isplanned during the 45-
day public review period. Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR will be
prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental ReviewCommittee, public hearing for
the Planning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are
tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014.
DISCUSSION:
Summary of February 12 Housing Commission Workshop
On February 12, the Housing Commission hosted a workshop to continue the Housing Element
Sites discussion and prioritize sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project
update presentation, approximately fifteen (15) participants broke into three groupsand
discussed identification of new sites and prioritizing potential housing sites to meet the RHNA
of 1,064.
The groups generally seemed to agree that sites with multiple access points, minimal impacts to
schools and generate minimal level of neighborhood concerns would be appropriate as Housing
Element sites. Some of these included sites previously identified in thisreport. Some
participants also added new sites to the list. Some of the sites were prioritized by one group but
not by others and some of sites were only acceptable if new development was a mixed use one.
The balance of the sites have been left on the list since there was no consensus on whether to
keep or remove the sites. These have all been included in Attachments PC-2 and PC-3.
Comments from the Public
The following is a summary of the keypoints made at the February 12 meeting:
Building heights should reflect the character of the City.
Impacts of new housing on schools and traffic need to be carefully considered in the
siting of housing.
A balance of retail/restaurants andhousing needs to be achieved. Donot eliminate
places where residentsshop and dine out.
481896
New housing should be distributedthroughout Cupertino.
Provide opportunities for different forms of housing thatmay not be in Cupertino today,
particularly for senior residents and recent college graduates who do not need as much
living space.
Given that the city is virtually built out, ensure that in future RHNA processes that
Cupertino is not overburdened by a commitment to accommodateeven more housing.
The Hampton site is a goodlocation to accommodate a large portion of the current
RHNA.
The current stock of affordable housing needs to be preserved to the extent possible.
The Housing Commission recommended forwarding the sites highlightedby the workshop
participants. Attachments PC-2 and PC-3 highlight the sites that the Housing Commission
recommended forwarding to the Planning Commission for consideration.
EIR Alternatives and Density Considerations for Sites
The California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) requires that alternatives to a project be
studied. These must avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the
Proposed Project. In addition, CEQA does notpermit projects to be analyzed incrementally.
A combined EnvironmentalImpact Report will be prepared for the General Plan Amendment
as well as the 2014-2022 Housing Element. TheEIR will analyze the following key issues:
TheGeneral Plan Amendments – As mentionedearlier in this staff report, the City is
currently processing a GeneralPlan Amendment. Three draft GeneralPlanConcept
Alternativesranging from minimal change to the current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A)
to more moderate growth (Alternative B) to a greater change in development criteria which
reflect the various property owners’ requests (Alternative C), have been prepared for
analysis in the EIR. Alternatives A and B avoid or substantially lessen at leastone of the
significant impacts of the Proposed Project (Alternative C).
At thistime, no sites are proposed to be eliminated from the study except as discussed
below for each alternative. The preferred sites will be noted when a review and decision on
the finallist of sites is made by the City Council. The final decision on the list of sites is
expected in Fall when the information on the EIR is available. It should be noted a lower
densityon a site will increase the number of sites that need to be picked to cumulatively
reach the 1,064 units RHNA obligation.
o Alternative A will includepotential housing sites only within existing density ranges in
the General Plan. Therefore, Alternative A will not include sites that propose a
minimum density exceeding that allowed in the 2005 General Plan.
The only change to this concept is in the SouthSunnyvale-Saratoga area (De Anza
Boulevard area south of Highway 85), which is proposed to be combined with the South
De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan (West side of De Anza Boulevard between Stevens
482897
Creek Boulevardand Bollinger Road). The density in the South Sunnyvale-Saratoga area
will change from 15 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre to be consistent
with the density in the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area. One site
proposed by the property owner (Yamagami’s Nursery) is located in this area and will
be studied in thisAlternative.
o Alternative B represents moderate growth along five mixed use transit corridors.
Therefore, in this Alternative, sites proposed by property ownersalong major transit
corridors, and selected by the City Council for inclusion, will be studied at a density
between that in Alternative A and Alternative C (highest density alternative). In this
alternative, these sites would be studied at a densityof 35 dwelling units per acre
instead of 25 dwelling units per acre. In general, the current General Plan allows 25
dwelling units per acre except in the South Vallco Area where it is 35 dwelling units per
acre.
One property owner (the Hamptons at Wolfe Road and Hwy 280) has proposed a
density ranging from 65 to 110 dwelling units per acre on their site. Therefore, their site
is the only one selected at the lower end of the density at 65 dwelling units per acre. The
reason this site has been included at a higherdensity than 35 dwelling units per acre, is
that it is located near the freewayand will cause minimal neighborhoodand school
impacts (this site is served by the Santa Clara Unified School District).
o Under Alternative C (the proposed project), Housing Element sites proposed by
Property Owners, and selected by the City Council to satisfy the RHNA requirement,
will be studied at the maximum density requested by the property owner.
o Finally, CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative. The No Project
Alternative assumes no change to the current General Plan. The analysis for this
alternative will include buildout of the current 2005 GeneralPlan. Therefore, only the
existinghousing element sites will be included in the analysis. Underthis scenario, there
are no changes to existing land use policies, height limits, land use designations, or any
additional development allocation for office, commercial, hotel andresidential units. No
new sites will be studied.
OtherHousing Element Requirements
Update Housing Policies
The update of the Housing Element has been dividedintotwo areas of review. The first area of
review is the subject of this meeting - identification of adequate sites appropriately zoned in the
City to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
The second area of review is an analysis andupdate of the existing policiesandprograms
which will be presented at a later date (tentatively April 1, 2014 at a Joint Planning
Commission/City Council meeting.)
Streamlined HCD Review
483898
HCD allows for streamlined review of the Housing Element if the jurisdiction meets certain
criteria. This provides for priority review for jurisdictionsthat are eligible over jurisdictions
that are eligible for standard review and limits the areas in which the HCD staff can
comment on. These criteria include the adoption of an HCD-certified Housing Element, the
adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance that conforms with State Law, the completion of re-
zoning of all Housing Element sites that needed re-zoning with the 2007-2014 Housing
Element update, the adoption of adequate zoning to permit emergencyshelters and
transitional/supportive housing, and the establishment of areasonable accommodation
procedure. If a jurisdiction is not eligible for thestreamlined review, HCD’s review
generally takes longer—up to the 60 dayperiod they are permitted by law to review the
documents, thereby potentially delaying the adoption of the Housing Element. The
adoption deadline remains January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period.)
The City currently complies with almost all of the requirements to qualify for thestreamlined
review – the City has a HCD certifiedHousing Element that has been adopted, all the re-zoning
that was required with the last Housing Element cycle wascompleted atthe same time as
adoption of the Housing Element, completed updates to the municipal code to allow adequate
emergency shelter and transitional/supportive housingand theestablishment of a reasonable
accommodationprocedure. The final requirement – the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance
that conforms to State Law – needs to be completed prior to forwarding the draft of the Housing
Element for HCD review. The Citywould have to comply with State Law with or without an
updated ordinance. However, having an updated ordinance will allow the City to be eligible for
streamlined review. Staff anticipates preparingthis ordinance for PlanningCommission review
andCounciladoption atthe time of presenting the Draft Housing Element for forwarding to the
HCD for its review in Fall 2014.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
In additionto the workshop at the Housing Commissionmeeting on February 12, 2014, the
following outreach efforts have been undertakenon this project to date.
Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder interviews wereconducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from
stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers,
service providers, School Districts andthe business community. The following is a summary
of comments from the interviews:
Overall housing affordability and the gap between housing demandand supply at all
income levels
Need diversityof affordable rental units at all income levels and all householdtypes
Need to accommodate a growing aging population
Smaller units including innovative housing models
Support for mixed-use similarto Santana Row ordowntown Mountain View
Should be low impacts to schools, privacy, parking, noise and traffic
Significant financial constraints to affordable housing developers due to dissolution
484899
of Redevelopment
School Districts north of the city are impacted due to higher student generation rates
Looking to increase capacity by adding new buildings and temporary, modular units
Most of the Apple Campus 2 school impact fee allocated to Santa Clara Unified
District while the expectation is that most employees who move will reside within the
CUSD service area.
Summary of January 23 Joint PC/HC Workshop
On January 23, thePlanning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint
workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into
small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased
density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and
placed stickers to identify potential housing sites. The following is a summary of comments
from themeeting:
Demand for market-rate small-sized units (limited bedrooms) to cater to people
working at Apple
Add levels to school buildings to increase capacity
Concerns about:
o Churches now having to be considered Housing Element sites
o Sustainability of the OneBay Area Plan
o Size of the City’s RHNA obligation
o Loss of community amenities to housing
The following tablesummarizesthe noticing for this meeting.
Notice Agenda
Email sent to all interested parties
signed up through the project website
Letters sent to current Housing
Element site property owners and
interested property owners
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site
one week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the project Website (one week
prior to hearing)
NEXT STEPS
The goal for this study session is to review the Housing Commissions’ input and sites presented
to date, identify any other new potential sites for consideration, to place the sites in orderof
preference.
The City Council will meet on March 4, 2014 to provide staff with final direction on the Housing
Element sites and densities to be studied in the EIR. The policy portion of the review of the
Housing Element will be present to the Housing Commission in March 2014 and the Planning
Commission and City Council atthe Joint meeting on April 1, 2014.
485900
Upon completion of the Final EIR, the Draft Housing Element will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and adopted by the Council in Fall 2014 for forwarding toHCD. The Draft
Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of housing sites as well
as the related General Plan Amendments and rezoning for the sites. In addition, in order to
comply with streamlined HCD review, a Density Bonus Ordinance, will be prepared for review
and adoption. Upon HCD review and potential certification, the final Housing Element will be
presented for Planning Commission review and City Council decision in early 2015.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner
MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino
Reviewed by: Approvedby:
s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Asst. Dir. ofCommunity Development Director of Community Development
Attachments
PC-1. Housing Commission Staff Report
PC-2. Potential 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites Map, with HC Priorities Indicated
PC-3. Potential 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites Summary Table, with HC Priorities
Indicated
486901
CUPS TMNO
SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255
408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 4, 2014
Study Session to review Housing Element requirements and sites to achievethe Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 2014 -2022 Housing Element
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Review the report on potential Housing Element sites to be studied in the joint General Plan
Amendment and Housing Element EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR); and
2. Prioritize the housing sites in order of preference, if desired.
BACKGROUND:
Project Description
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location /APN:
GPA- 2013 -02
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Housing Element Overview
In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which must
contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate
housing development by creatingpolicies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes
that provideopportunities for housingdevelopment, including units that could accommodate
households with very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. For information on Housing
Elementcontent, please see Attachment CC -1 (Housing Commission Staff Report).
State law requires that each city and countyupdate its Housing Element on a pre- determined
cycle. For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015
plus a 120 -day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this
cycle extends from adoption toJanuary 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must
update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). The City Council approved the
project scope of work and authorized the budget for the project on November 4, 2013.
902
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based
on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts.
The RHNA identifies Cupertino's regional housing needs by income levels:
Income Group
Very Low ( <_ 50% ofArea Median Income(AMI))
RHNA
356
Low(51— 80% of AMI) 207
Moderate(81 - 120% of AMI) 231
Above Moderate(> 120% of AMI) 270
FTotal 1,064
The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the
City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy
the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. HCD generally requires jurisdictions to
show a surplus of sites /units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate
the RHNA allocations.
General Plan Amendment
In addition to the Housing Element, the City is also preparing a GeneralPlan Amendment
GPA) forCity Council consideration, as directed by the City Council in August 2012. The
primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re- allocate, and increase citywide development
allocations in orderto plan for anticipated future development activity while keeping with the
community's character, goals, and objectives. The secondary purposeof the GPA is to
consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General
Plan, under a comprehensive community vision.
DISCUSSION:
Housing Element Sites Criteria
HCD Criteria
HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been
identified to meetthe RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis" is an important step in
addressing the adequate sites requirement. For additional details on HCD's site suitability
requirements and criteria, please see Attachment CC -1. A key point to note inHCD's criteria is
that sites with a net density lower than 20 dwelling units per acre do not qualify for meeting
affordable housing requirements. With Cupertino's last Housing Element (2007- 2014), HCD
accepted a realistic yield of 85% of the maximum density allowed onthe site, based on city -
specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, while the maximum
yield at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units, the realistic yield for Housing
Element purposes is (25 * 85 %) = 21 units. Therefore, most sites discussed later in this report are
in areas that are at or above this density.
9903
Affordability Criteria
HCD requires an additional componentof the site suitability analysis for those sites identified
to meet the lower income portion of the RHNA (thisincludes the very low -, low -, and
moderate - income RHNA). Cupertino's lower income RHNA requirement for the 2014 -2022
Housing Element is 794 units. To identify the sites andestablish the number of units that can
accommodate the RHNA for lower- income households, the Housing Element must include an
analysis that demonstrates that the sites identified have zoning regulations and densities in
place that encourage and facilitate the development of housing forlower- incomehouseholds.
Alternatively, Housing Element law allows local governmentsto utilize "default" density
standards determinedby HCD. Per HCD's determination, suburban cities in Santa Clara
County require a minimum "realistic" density of 20 dwelling units per acre orgreater to meet
lower income requirements.
Additionally, if properties need to be rezoned toaccommodate the RHNA on the sites
identified, the zoning should be done in conjunction with the adoption of the Housing Element
to avoid additional requirements that may be imposedby the HCD. The City intends to
complete the necessary rezoning in conjunction with the Housing Element.
Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable CommunitiesStrategy /One Bay Area Plan and
Cupertino General Plan)
In addition to the State -wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable
Communities Strategy /One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes
a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The region's Sustainable Communities Strategy
and theOne Bay Area Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA).
Cupertino's PDA has been identified with a yellow outline on Attachment CC -3. The City's
GeneralPlan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the OneBay Area Plan. For
additional details on the other secondary criteria, please see Attachment CC -1.
Potential Housing Element Sites
The City has solicited public input on theselection of sites for inclusion in the Housing Element.
Through community workshops and study sessions with the Housing Commission and
Planning Commission, conversations with property owners and stakeholders, and review of the
previous Housing Element, multiple sites have been identified.
Sites in four categories have been identified on the map:
Existing Housing Element sites — Seven sites identified in the 2007 -2014 Housing Element
are currently available. The others have either been redeveloped ordo not meet the criteria.
Sites Proposed By Property Owners — Ten property owners have indicated an interest in
being included in the Sites Inventory. Most of the developers have indicated a density range
higher than that currently allowed by the General Plan and zoning for their site.
10904
Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants — Workshop participants at the January 23, 2014
and February 12, 2014 workshops identified 28 sites which could potentially be includedin
the Sites Inventory.
Lot Consolidation Potential — A few parcels indicated on the map are adjacentto existing
Housing Element sites or proposed sites —these "lot consolidation potential" sites could be
considered for addition with the adjacent site to facilitate a more cohesive development.
The cumulative total of the realistic yield of all the sites proposed to date exceeds the City's
RHNA. While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites
enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units (with some additional surplus to meet HCD's
realistic capacity and Affordability criteria requirements). A map has been prepared (see
Attachment CC -2) that identifies all the sites proposedto date. An accompanying table
Attachment CC -3) provides additional information about each site. Sites are listed in
alphabetical orderby category except lot consolidation potential sites which are listed
immediately adjacent to the site forwhich potential has been identified.
The attachments include direction andpreference as indicated by the Housing Commission as
well as the Planning Commission (see discussion below). Sites that do not meet criteria or were
suggested by the Planning Commission for removal have been indicated with a strikeout.
The consultant has reviewed and categorized sites for their potential to meet HCD as well as the
secondary criteria and listed them as Low, Moderate and High priority. It is recommended that
the sites that have been categorized "low" be removed from the list of sites to ensure a
manageable list of sites for study in the EnvironmentalImpact Report.
Summary of February 19, 2014 Planning Commission Open Houseand Study Session
OnFebruary 19, 2014, the Planning Commission held an OpenHouse and Study Session on the
Housing Element, with a focus on reviewing and commenting on potential Housing Element
sites identified to date. This meeting also addressed the concurrent General Plan Amendment
process. (See Attachment CC -4 — Planning Commission Staff Report) During theopenhouse,
residents and stakeholderswere invited to review posters to understand "What is a Housing
Element" and a map indicating potential Housing Element sites identified to date. Posters
showing the GeneralPlan alternatives were also available. Staff and consultants answered
questions at the OpenHouse from several residents and stakeholders.
Staffand consultants provided a presentation onthe GPAand Housing Element during the
Study Session and the Planning Commission received public testimony and provided
comments on the priority of on Housing Sites. The following is a summary of comments from
the Planning Commission and the public. Whereapplicable, staff comments are noted in italics.
11905
Comments from the Public
The following is a summary of the key points made at the meeting:
Building heights should reflect the character of the City and neighborhoods inwhich they
are located
New housingshould be distributed throughout Cupertino
Impacts of new housing on schools and traffic need to be carefully considered in the siting
of housing (see comments on school impacts later in this staff report)
There is a need for more affordable housing, especially rental housing
Smaller units are preferable over larger units
Planning CommissionDiscussion
The Planning Commission recommended that in addition to retaining existing Housing
Element sites that the balance of the sites be prioritized. They also recommended that the list of
potential Housing Element sites be shortened with the following criteria in mind:
Successful Shopping Centers - The Planning Commission noted that the existing uses on
sites should be reviewedcarefully to purge the list of sites thatshould not be considered
housing element sites. Particularly, the Commission discussed that sites that are developed
with currently successful commercial centers should not be priority housing sites.
Specifically, the Commission discussed not considering CupertinoVillage and Marketplace
as goodcandidates for the Housing Element sites list.
Institutional Sites - The Planning Commission agreed that sites that are owned by utility
companiesor by the State orFederal Government should not be considered as good
candidates for the Housing Element sites list since the likelihood of these propertiesbeing
redeveloped in the current Housing Element cycle is minimal.
Small Sites with low yield or no Property Owner interest - The Planning Commission
recommended that smaller sites that yieldlimited or marginalhousing or where property
owners have not indicated interest in redevelopment as a housing site be removed from the
list.
Distribute Housing - The Planning Commission recommended that the Hamptons site and
the Vallco site be reviewed as high priority Housing Element sites. In addition to these, the
Planning Commission indicated their preferenceto include sites along Foothill Boulevard
and South De Anza Boulevard to distribute potentialhousingdevelopment throughout the
City.
Encourage Development along Priority Development Area (PDA) - The Planning
Commission suggested that the City Council review densitiesalong major mixed -use
corridors and possibly amend existing densities along the City's PDA to be consistent with
existing densities alongHomestead Road and Wolfe Road. This is consistent with the
secondary criteria developed for the housing sites.
Minimize Impacts to Schools - Some Commissioners stated that the preference be that
housing sitesbe selected basedon where the school impacts might be low. The City cannot
12906
consider impacts on schools as a result of new housing developments. SB 50 (State Government Code
sections 65995 -65998 and Education Code sections 17620 - 17621) preempts CEQA consideration and
mitigation of impacts onschool facilities (such as the need for new or expanded schools dueto
additionalenrollment caused by new development). If newdevelopment pays standard school impact
fees, there is no further role for CEQA with regard to impacts on schools nor may such projects be
denied based on schools impacts (See Attachment CC -5 — Memo on Application of SB 50 to
Consideration of Development Applications). In addition, State law prohibits the City from using its
planning and zoning powers to denyresidency to, make housing unavailable to, or discriminate
against, families with children. However, for large projects, there isthe potential for negotiated
Development Agreements to result in additional benefits such as contributions towards schools,
pocketparks, and traffic improvement.
The following table indicates the sites, in addition to the existing Housing Element sites, that the
Planning Commissionrecommended as priority sites for study:
SiteSite Name and Land Use Current Size Density Realistic
No. Location Designation Zoning Acres) DU /A) Capacity
Lot Consolidation Sites (adjacentto existing Housing Element sites)
East of E. Estates Commercial/
P(CG, Res) 25
19541 Richwood Dr. Office/ Residential
East of E. Estates Commercial/ L7
P(CG, Res) 2.16* 2545
19550 Stevens Creek Blvd Office/ Residential
East of E. Estates Commercial/
10055 Miller Ave Office/ Residential
P(CG, Res) 25
Property Owner DevelopmentInterest Sites (Density requested indicated)
BatchBrothers Commercial/
P1 P(CG) 0.67 20-35 11 —19
22690 Stevens Creek Blvd Residential
FoothillMarket ( @McClellan) Commercial/
P3 P(CG) 1.3 20-25 22-27
10625 S FoothillBlvd Residential
The Hamptons High Density 686—
P6 P(Res) 12.44 65-110
19500 Pruneridge Ave Residential (20 -35) 1162
Vallco Mall Commercial/ P(Regional
P7 32.9 35 600-800
10123 N Wolfe Rd Residential Shopping)
Summerwinds & Granite Rock
Commercial/ P(CG, Res
P8 1471, 1491 & 1505 S De Anza 4.13 25-40 87-140
OfOffice/ Residential 5 -15)
Blvd
Includes portion of E. Estates Drive
13907
Environmental Review
A combined Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for the GeneralPlan Amendment
and the 2014 -2022 Housing Element projects. The preparation of the EIR will commence once
the City Council provides its comments on the sites to be analyzed as part of each alternative
studied in the EIR.
The next step of the EIR involves a scoping meeting (scheduled for March 11, 2014), which
includes a 30 -daycomment period, to consult with agencies, organizations or individuals on the
contents of the EIR, including the range ofalternatives. The final scope of the EIR, including
possible additional alternatives, will be determined following completion of the scoping
process.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the EIR to discuss a "reasonable
range of alternatives," and should briefly discuss alternatives that are considered but rejected
forfurther analysis during the scoping process. A proposed alternative need not be considered
ifit would not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, would not meet most of the
basic project objectives, is infeasible, or is not neededtohave a "reasonable range" of
alternatives.
It is anticipated thatpreparation of the Draft EIR will take about four months, and that the Draft
EIR will be released for a 45 -day public review periodin late Summer 2014. A community open
house is planned during the publicreview period. Following the close of the publicreview
period, a Final EIR and responses tocomments will be prepared. The recommendation from
the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for the Planning Commission and public
hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014.
EIR Alternatives and Density Considerations for Sites
At this time, the only sites proposed to be eliminated from the study are those that do not meet
the HCD and secondary criteria ( "criteria "), and those suggested by the Planning Commission
for removal.
In addition, each General Plan alternative will include sites as follows:
AlternativeA - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included at densities that meet
the 2005 GeneralPlan. Sites that are proposed with minimum densities exceeding the 2005
GeneralPlanor those that require land usechanges or rezoning will be eliminated except
for onesite located in the South De Anza Area. The density in this area is being increased to
25 dwelling units per acre.
Alternative B - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included at densities that fall
between Alternative A and Alternative C. This alternative will include sites thatrequire
changes to General Plan land use and rezoning but at densities lower than the maximum
densities proposed by applicants. The densities will be reviewed for building height
assumptions in Alternative B to ensure that the building envelopesdo not exceed the
14908
assumptions. Housing Element sites proposed by property owners along major
transportationcorridors will be studied at 35 dwelling units per acre.
Alternative C - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included in this alternative. This
alternative includes sites that range from those that meetthe 2005 General Plan to those that
requireland use and increased densities. This alternative includes sites at the maximum
density proposed by applicants.
It should be noted that a lower density on a site will increase the numberof sites that need to be
picked to cumulatively reach the 1,064 units RHNA obligation. Additionally, sites that do not
havedensities of 25 dwelling units per acre (realistic density of 20 dwelling units per acre) will
not meet HCD's affordability criteria.
As noted above, the final scope of the EIR, including possible additional alternatives will be
determined following completion of the scoping process. The final decision onthe list of sites
will be made in Fall 2014 upon certification of the EIR.
Other Housing ElementRequirements
Update HousingPolicies
The update of the Housing Element has been divided intotwo areas of review. The first area of
review is the subject of this meeting - identification of adequate sites appropriately zoned in the
City toaccommodate the City's RHNA. Thesecond area of review is an analysisand update of
the existing policies and programs which will be presented at a later date (tentatively April 1,
2014 at a Joint Planning Commission /City Council meeting.)
Streamlined HCD Review
HCD allows for streamlined review of the Housing Element if the jurisdiction meets certain
criteria. Streamlined review provides for expeditious review and limits the areas of the Housing
Element on which the HCD staff can comment. HCD's standard review generally takes longer,
thereby potentially delaying the adoption of the Housing Element. For details on the criteria for
eligibility for streamlined review of the Housing Element, please see Attachment CC -2.
The City currently complies with almost all of the requirements to qualify for the streamlined
review except for the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance that conforms to State Law. The
City has to comply with State Law with or without an updated ordinance. However, having an
updated ordinance will allow the City to be eligible for streamlined review and needs to be
completed prior to HCD review of the Draft Housing Element. This ordinance will be available
for Planning Commission review and Council adoption at the same time as the Draft Housing
Element in Fall 2014. The Draft will be forwarded to HCD as soon as it is adopted in Fall 2014.
The HCD has 60 days to comment on the document, after which the City has to make any
necessary revisionsto the Draft and adopt the final Housing Element. The due date for
adoption is January 31, 2015. An additional grace period of 120 days is also provided. If the
City does not meetthe deadline for adoption, the Housing Element will have to be updated
15909
every four years instead of every eight years. In addition, the City, potentially, could be subject
to litigation and automatic approval of housing on identified Housing Element sites at a
minimum density of 16 dwelling units per acre.
Other Items for Council Consideration
Gross Density vs. NetDensity
The Council has in the past indicatedthat density should not be calculated on the gross acreage
including a portion ofadjacent street area) of a property as currently allowed by the City's
Zoning Code. The number of units assumed for the Housing Element sitesare based only on net
lot area and do not include portions of adjacent streets. The related changes to the Zoning Code
will be made in conjunction with the General Plan amendment.
In addition, the Heartof the City SpecificPlan allowsresidential density to only be calculated
on the acreage of a property net of the areas that service retail development. This requirement
may reduce the yield and net density on a project site, which could either result in the mixed -
use sites not meeting affordability criteria and /or requiring additional sites to be rezoned dueto
the low yield. These issues will be analyzed and discussed in the Draft Housing Element.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
In addition to the openhouse and study sessionat the Planning Commissionmeeting on
February 19, 2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date.
Postcards
A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City toannounce
upcoming dates on the GeneralPlan and Housing Elementprojects. The postcard also provides a
brief description of the two projects and identifies the project website where interested person
may sign up for project updates and further notices.
Website
A website has been set up for the combined GeneralPlanand Housing Element projects at
www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices and other important information are
available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments at thewebsite. The
website also has a separate tab for the Housing Element project which provides answers to
Frequently Asked Questions.
Meetings
Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder interviews wereconducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from
stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers, service
providers, School Districts andthe business community. A summary of the key comments from
thismeeting is available in Attachment CC -2.
16910
Joint PC /HC Workshop
On January 23, 2014 the Planning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint
workshop tobegin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small
groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased density in
certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers to
identify potentialhousing sites. A summary of the comments is available in Attachment CC -2.
February 12 Housing Commission Workshop
On February 12, the Housing Commission hosted a workshop to continue the Housing Element
Sites discussion and prioritize sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project
update presentation, approximately fifteen (15) participants broke into three groups and
discussed identification of new sites and prioritizing potentialhousing sites to meet the RHNA
of 1,064. A summary of the comments from the workshop is available inAttachment CC -2. The
Housing Commission recommended forwarding all the sites highlighted by the workshop
participants as priority sites to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Noticing for March 4, 2014 City Council meeting
The following table summarizes the noticing for thismeeting.
NEXT STEPS
The goal for this study sessionis for the City Council to review and provide comments onthe
Housing Element sites anddensities to be studied in theEIR. City Councilmay choose to
organize priority sites into tiers based on preference for inclusion or provide direction on
removal of sites.
The policyportion of the reviewof the Housing Element will be presented to the Housing
Commission on March 19, 2014 andthe PlanningCommission and City Council at the Joint
meeting on April 1, 2014.
Uponcompletion of the Final EIR in lateSummer 2014, the Draft Housing Element will be
reviewed by the PlanningCommission andpresented to the Council in Fall 2014 for adoption.
The approved Draft Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of
housing sites to meet the RHNA (which may include sites that require General Plan
Amendments and rezoning, depending on Council's selection of sites). In addition, in order to
comply with streamlined HCDreview, a Density Bonus Ordinance will be prepared for review
17
Email sent to all interested parties Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
signed up through the project website board (one week prior to the hearing)
Letters sent to current Housing Element Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site
site property owners, interested one week prior to the hearing)
property owners and owners of sites Posted on the project Website (one week prior
identified atthe workshops to hearing)
NEXT STEPS
The goal for this study sessionis for the City Council to review and provide comments onthe
Housing Element sites and densities to be studied in theEIR. City Councilmay choose to
organize priority sites into tiers based on preference for inclusion or provide direction on
removal of sites.
The policyportion of the reviewof the Housing Element will be presented to the Housing
Commission on March 19, 2014 andthe Planning Commission and City Council at the Joint
meeting on April 1, 2014.
Upon completion of the Final EIR in lateSummer 2014, the Draft Housing Element will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and presented to the Council in Fall 2014 for adoption.
The approved Draft Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of
housing sites to meet the RHNA (which may include sites that require GeneralPlan
Amendments and rezoning, depending on Council's selection of sites). In addition, in order to
comply with streamlined HCDreview, a Density Bonus Ordinance will be prepared for review
17911
and adoption. After Council adoption, the Draft Housing Element will be forwarded to HCD
for its review. Upon HCD's review, any necessary revisions will be made and the final Housing
Element will be presented for Planning Commission review and City Council decision in
January 2015.
Prepared by: Pin Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner
MIG, Consultant to the City ofCupertino
Reviewed bv- Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development and Aarti
Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission b3: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments
CC -1. Housing Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2014
CC -2. Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Map, with PC and HC Priorities
Indicated
CC -3. Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Summary Table, with PC and HC
Priorities Indicated
CC -4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 19, 2014
CC -5. Memo - Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications
im912
i° 1 ii
Subl ect
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 4, 2014
Study Session to provide an update on the focusedGeneral Plan Amendment (GPA- 2013 -01)
process and review land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). Proposed alternatives include options for City -wide development
allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights anddensities
for corridors, special centers, and seven study areas.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Review theGeneral Plan Amendment (GPA) Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR
and provide comments.
Discussion
This report is an update to the discussion at the Planning Commission study session onthe
GPA Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR. A detailed discussion of issues is provided
in the February 19, 2014 Planning Commissionstaff report (Attachment CC -1).
Background
OnFebruary 19, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the GPAConcept
Alternatives to be studied in the EIR. Members of the public attended an open house prior to
the study session that included stations showcasing Draft GeneralPlan Community Vision and
Guiding Principles, Concept Alternatives, andthe proposed Housing Element sites. Please refer
to Attachment CC -1 for the Planning Commissionstaff report for a detailed discussion of the
GPA process overview, a summary of the variousreports that have been produced for the
project, and descriptionof the Concept Alternatives.
Also attached to this report are the other attachments including the Settings and Opportunities
Report (Attachment CC -2); Market Study (Attachment CC -3); Concept Alternatives Report
Attachment CC -4); Concept Alternatives comparison tables (Attachment CC -5); Community
Workshop #1 Summary (Attachment CC -6); and Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary
Attachment CC -7).
57913
Discussion from the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission Study Session
The following is a summary of Planning Commissioner comments at the February 19, 2014 study
session. Where applicable, staff comments are provided in italics.
Project - wide /community benefits to be considered for future projects with heights and /or
densities above the base allowances in any corridor should notallow heights anddensities
beyond the maximum contemplated in the General Plan — The GPAalternatives propose
specific heights and densities even for projects that provide project - widelcommunity benefits.
Therefore, projects that require heights and densities beyond those proposed will not be allowed under
the proposed General Plan alternatives.
Project - wide /community benefits for increased heights and /or densities should be clearly
stated in the General Plan and should not be negotiable — It is intended that the General Plan
provide a clear list of project- widelcommunity benefits related to height and/ordensity.
Visualizations of the different heights and densities proposed in each of the Concept
Alternatives should be provided — These will be provided at the presentation at the March 4, 2014
Councilstudy session.
Impacts to schools should be considered with respect to increased development potential —
The City cannot consider impacts on schools as a result of new housing developments. SB 50 (State
Government Code sections 65995 -65998 and Education Code sections 17620 - 17621) preempts
CEQA consideration and mitigation of impacts onschool facilities (such as the need for new or
expanded schools due to additionalenrollment caused bynew development). If new development pays
standard school impact fees, there is no further role for CEQA with regard to impacts on schools. In
addition, State law prohibits the City from using its planning and zoning powersto deny residency
to, make housing unavailable to, ordiscriminate against, families with children. However, for large
projects, there isthe potential for negotiated Development Agreements to result in additional benefits
such as contributions towards schools, pocket parks in the development, traffic improvements beyond
required mitigations, etc.
The specific allocations for the Vallco Shopping District should be clarified under each of the
Concept Alternatives — Allocations are distributed by corridors and other existing General Plan
Special Centers in the Concept Alternatives Report in order to allow flexibility of use across a greater
area. Therefore, there are not specific allocations assigned for the Vallco Shopping District. However,
the following are assumptions for the Vallco Shopping District in Alternatives A -C:
Vallco Shopping
District
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Office (s.f.) 0 (no change) 1,000,000 2,000,000
Commercial (s.f.) 1,267,601 (no change) 625,335
Hotel (rooms) 150 400
Residential (units) 0 (no change) 600 800
914
Densities along major mixed -use corridors should be reviewed and possibly amended to
provide residential densities that are consistent with that along Homestead Road and Wolfe
Road — The GPA Alternatives do not contemplate changes todensitieson a corridor -wide scale, with
the exception of the SouthDe Anza Corridor, from 15 to 25 du /ac, to ensure that Housing Element
sites in the corridor meet density requirements for affordable housing. However, there are targeted
changesto densities in the sites proposed in the Housing Element (see staff report for the Housing
Element).
The Commission also asked if stakeholders had reached out to the community with their
specific projects — The applicants have not solidified their site specific plans as yet. This will be done
once the Council has made a decision on the General Plan amendment and the allowable heights and
densities have been determined. This process allows community involvement at a much earlier level
than is typical for mostprojects. Once the developers draft their site - specific plans based on the final
adoptedGeneral Plan, neighborhoodmeetings will be scheduled to gather community input on the
projects.
There may be concerns with Alternative C since therehave been historic community
concernson higher levels of development and increased heights and densities.
There are concerns with BRT, particularly with the option involving a dedicated BRT travel
lane.
The Vallco Shopping District should be redeveloped. Residential development should only
be allowed with a complete redevelopment including viable retail.
Residential uses in the Vallco Shopping District may not guarantee viable retail.
Potential office and residential components in the Vallco Shopping District could be
synergistic with a retail component.
There is heightened community sensitivity with school and traffic impacts.
Consider distributing housingdevelopment throughout the Cityin order to balance
potential impacts.
The following is a summary of public comments atthe February 19, 2014 study session:
Vallco Mall needs to be revitalized.
Height limits shouldremain unchanged.
Maintain existingresidentialneighborhoods and shoppingdistricts.
New developmentshould consider school and traffic impacts, as well as traffic estimates
from recentlyapproved projects.
Consider traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road onthe east side of
Cupertino, and the traffic impacts to neighborhoods boundedby these streets.
Neighborhood traffic impacts should be included in the EIR.
Cupertino residents' input on densities and heights in the Concept Alternatives should be
considered, rather than that of property owners and developers.
59915
Residentialallocations in the Concept Alternatives should consider previous ABAG
projections — The previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2007 -2014 Housing
Element (1320 units) was greaterthan that for the 2014 -2022 Housing Element (1064 units).
Consider the seven study area sites and others to meet ABAG residential projections.
In the community designsurveys, Cupertino residents should have been able to give their
preference on existing Cupertino buildings and streetscape features.
What criteria determine retail and project - wide /community benefits?
Residentialallocations should be distributedthroughout the City, particularly in the Monta
Vista area and along Stelling Road and Foothill Boulevard.
The City has sufficient office and commercial development.
Mixed -use development is not desirable.
Residential densities should be low.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is not desirable, particularly the option involving a dedicated BRT
travel lane.
Not enoughnotice was given for the community workshops.
Noticing
In addition to the open house and study session at the Planning Commission meeting on
February 19, 2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date.
Postcards
A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce
upcoming dates on the GPA and Housing Elementprojects. The postcard also provides a brief
description of the two projectsand identifies the project websitewhereinterested persons may
sign up for project updates and further notices.
A previous City -wide postcard was sent in July 2013 announcing Community -wide Workshop
1 (discussed below).
Website
A website hasbeen set up for the combined GPAand Housing Element projects at
www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices, and other important information are
available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments atthe website.
Workshops, Public Meetings, Commission/Committee Meetings, and Stakeholder Meetings
Community -wideWorkshop #1 (July 18, 2013) - OnJuly 18, 2013, the City hosted a community -
wideworkshop to kick off the GPA project. As discussed above, a City -wide postcard was
sent to all City addresses, and the City's website and project website also announced the
workshop. In addition, e -mails were sent to all stakeholders and otherinterested parties.
Following a presentation, workshop participants were asked to discuss and participate in
1916
small group exercises whichincluded a discussion of assets and mobility, urban design or
economic challenges thatshould be addressed by the GPA and opportunities forfuture
development. See Attachment CC -6 for a workshop summary, which contains a compilation
of the assets, challenges, and opportunities identified by the workshop participants.
Community -wide Workshop #2 (October 23, 2013) - OnOctober 23, 2013, the City held a second
Community -wide Workshop to discuss community ideas forfuture uses, design and
mobility concepts along major mixed -use corridors (Homestead, De Anza, Wolfe, and
Stevens Creek) and within the Vallco Shopping District. E -mails were sent to all study area
stakeholders, Community -wide Workshop #1 participants, and otherinterestedparties. The
City's website and project website also announced the workshop. Following a presentation,
workshop participants were asked to participate in a Community DesignSurvey and Vallco
Mapping Exercise. See Attachment CC -7 for a workshop summary.
Other Public Meetings — The City also held the following additional meetings which covered
essentially the same concepts from Community -wide Workshop #2:
Follow -up meeting for interested Cupertino residents onDecember 5, 2013
Meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on January 29, 2014
Annual meeting of the Cupertino Neighborhood Block Leaders on January 29, 2014.
See Attachment CC -7 for the meeting summaries.
Commission and Committee Meetings — City staff introduced the GPAproject before certain
City Commissions and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Action
Committee (LAC) in order to expand awareness of the project, receivefeedback, and answer
questions. Staffpresented the project at the:
October 2, 2013 Teen Commission meeting;
December 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014 Legislative Action Committee meetings; and
January 15, 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissionmeeting
Stakeholder Meetings — Meetings with key neighborhood representatives, organizations
including the Chamber of Commerceand VTA), property owners in the study areas, etc.
were held from May 2013 through February 2014.
The following table summarizes the noticing for the March 4, 2014 Council meeting:
61
Email sent to all study area Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
stakeholders, prior workshop board (one week prior to the hearing)
participants, and interested parties Posted on the City ofCupertino's Web site
signed upthrough the project website one week prior to the hearing)
Citywide postcard sent to all addresses Posted onthe project Website (one week
in the City prior to hearing)
61917
Environmental Impact Report
The goal for this study session is for the Council to collect public input and provide comments
on the Concept Alternatives.
The next step of the EIR involves a scoping meeting, which includes a 30 -daycomment period
to consult with agencies, organizations or individuals on the contents of the EIR, including the
range ofalternatives. The final scope of the EIR and additional alternatives may be identified
through the scoping process.
CEQA requires the EIR to discuss a "reasonable range of alternatives," and should briefly
discuss alternatives that are considered but rejected for further analysis during the scoping
process. A proposed alternative need not be considered unless it would reduce significant
impacts, meet most of the basic project objectives, is feasible, and is needed tohave a
reasonable range" of alternatives.
It is anticipated thatpreparation of the Draft EIR will be released for public review in late
Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the 45 -day public review period.
Following the close of the publicreviewperiod, a Final EIR will be prepared. The
recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for the Planning
Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively
scheduled for Fall 2014.
Next Steps
The following additional meetingshave been scheduled for the GPA:
March 11, 2014: Environmental Scoping Meeting on the GPA and Housing Element
April 1, 2014: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the GPA and
Housing Element. This meeting will involve a discussion of policiesto be included in the
GPA and Housing Element.
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development and Aarti
Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approvedfor Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
CC -1. February 19, 2014 Planning Commission staff report
CC -2. Settings and Opportunities Report
CC -3. Market Study
CC -4. Concept Alternatives Report
CC -5. Concept Alternatives Comparison Tables
CC -6. Community Workshop #1 Summary
CC -7. Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary
Z918
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: April 1, 2014
Subject
Study Session on major policy topics to be considered in the focused General Plan Amendment
(GPA-2013-01) process.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council:
Review policy topics for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and provide comments.
Discussion
Background
Recent Study Sessions
On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the GPA Concept
Alternatives and Housing Element sites to be studied in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). Members of the public attended an open house prior to the study session that included
stations showcasing Draft General Plan Community Vision and Guiding Principles, Concept
Alternatives, and the proposed Housing Element sites. On March 4, 2014, the City Council
conducted a similar study session and directed staff to study the three proposed Concept
Alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and C) in the EIR for the General Plan and Housing Element.
The Council will make the final decision on the preferred alternative in the fall.
Modifications to the Concept Alternative Diagrams
Since the March 4, 2014 study session, minor modifications have been made to the Concept
Alternative diagrams based on Council’s comments and selection of Housing Element sites to
be studied in the EIR. The modifications are only for the purpose of study in the EIR and are
summarized below:
The geographic distribution of residential allocations in Alternatives B and C was updated
in order to be consistent with the Housing Element Update sites selected by the Council for
study in the EIR.
The residential density for the Stevens Creek & 85 Gateway was updated to be consistent
with the Housing Element site selected by the Council for study in the EIR in Alternatives B
and C.
919
The residential density for the North Crossroads Sub-Area was updated to be consistent
with the Housing Element densities for Stevens Creek Office Center and Marina Plaza
selected by the Council for study in the EIR in Alternatives B and C. These two Housing
Element sites are being studied at increased densities and are located at two ends of the
North Crossroads Sub-Area (Stevens Creek Office Center and Marina Plaza). The density
increase was applied to the North Crossroads Sub-Area for consistency in the EIR.
Clarifications to notes and allocation tables.
Clarification that retail is not required for certain additional heights for The Hamptons
Housing Element site selected by the Council for study in the North Vallco Gateway, since
the site is currently zoned residential only and will continue to be zoned for residential
purposes.
Please refer to Attachment A for the revised Concept Alternative diagrams.
Update on the Retail Strategy
On March 6, 2014, the City published a Retail Strategy Report that analyzes retail in Cupertino,
particularly each GPA study area’s suitability for retail development. The report is intended to
help inform community discussions regarding potential changes to future land uses, heights
and intensities, and development allocations along Cupertino's major mixed-use corridors. The
report pays particular attention to future repositioning or revitalization options for the Vallco
Shopping Mall and larger shopping district. Please refer to Attachment B for the Retail Strategy.
General Plan Amendment Policy Topics
The General Plan Amendment process is a focused update of the 2005 General Plan. While the
majority of the General Plan’s content will remain the same, there are several major policy
topics that will be addressed through new or updated goals, policies, standards or programs.
The policy topics are broken down in the following three major categories:
Major Policy Concepts: Ideas that have emerged during the General Plan Amendment process
for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Recent State Requirements: Recent State laws that need to be addressed in the amended
General Plan.
Clean-up Items: Updates and corrections that are proposed to be included in the amended
General Plan.
Each of the major policy concepts and several recent state requirements prompt questions for
the input from the Planning Commission and City Council.
Major Policy Topics
A. Draft 2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles
The draft 2040 Community Vision is based on the current 2005 General Plan’s vision, and has
been updated to reflect extensive community input on Cupertino’s future conducted in 2013.
This includes ideas, thoughts and desires from residents, local business and property owners,
920
study area stakeholders, elected and appointed officials, and other members of the Cupertino
community.
The draft 2040 Guiding Principles provide additional detail about Cupertino’s future. Similar to
the Community Vision, the Guiding Principles build from the current 2005 General Plan’s
Guiding Principles and have been updated based on extensive community input conducted in
2013. The Guiding Principles were refined based on additional community input and reviewed
by the Planning Commission and City Council in February and March 2014, respectively. Please
refer to Attachment C for the Draft Community Vision and Guiding Principles.
CC/PC POLICY QUESTIONS:
1. Are there any topics that are missing from the Draft 2040 Community Vision that should be
added?
2. Are there any topics that are missing from the Draft 2040 Guiding Principles that should be
added?
Action:
Following comments by the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will present the Final
2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles in the Draft General Plan.
B. Development Allocation System Changes
The City controls growth through a Development Allocation system that establishes a City-
wide “pool” of available future residential, hotel, commercial, and office allocation which new
projects can draw from. The purpose of this system is to ensure that new development fulfills
community goals and priorities, while minimizing traffic and quality of life impacts.
Allocations are assigned to various geographic areas in the City to provide general guidance as
to where growth is expected to occur, to study environmental effects, and to plan the circulation
network and infrastructure needed to support growth.
The City currently allocates development potential on a case-by-case basis to private projects
based on the community benefits the project would provide. The current system intentionally
allows flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographical area. Allocations may be
redistributed from one geographical area to another if necessary and, if significant
environmental impacts, including traffic impacts, can be mitigated.
For the purposes of allocation in the seven GPA study areas, it is assumed that development
allocations will be reserved for a period of up to five years depending on the Planning
Commission and Council’s input. Allocations for the Vallco Shopping District will be
permanently set aside as to incentivize revitalization.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This concept would apply to Guiding Principles #6, #7 and #11.
921
CC/PC POLICY QUESTION:
1. Should the existing Development Allocation policy be kept flexible or should it be updated
to require additional review to move allocations between different geographic areas?
Action:
Any changes to this policy would be addressed through revisions to existing policies in the
Land Use/Community Design Element.
C. Community Benefits Program
During the GPA process, workshop participants have suggested that in order to build talle r
than the maximum allowed heights, new development in the major mixed-use corridors should
provide a retail component and/or direct benefits for the City and the community. These
benefits would include items that have been discussed by the community as being needed or
desirable in Cupertino. The rationale for this approach is to ensure that new, more intensive
development directly benefits the broader Cupertino community, beyond just economic or
fiscal or project benefits.
Under the Community Benefits Program discussed in Alternatives B and C, the Planning
Commission and City Council would have discretionary approval to allow additional height
under two “tiers.” Tier 1 projects would include a retail component for a moderate height
increase. Tier 2 projects would include both a retail component and a community benefit for
greater height increases. The specific increases by geographical area are shown on the Concept
Alternative diagrams for B and C in Attachment A. Community benefits would have to be
above and beyond what is required for projects that build within the standard height limits.
The initial list of potential community benefit categories includes:
Affordable Housing:
o Provision of housing within a project above and beyond BMR requirements
o Provision of land to build an affordable housing project
o Provision of funding to build an affordable housing project
Arts and Cultural Facility
Community Facilities:
o Senior center
o Childcare center
o Teen/youth facility
Conference Space
Museum
Parks and Open Space (accessible to the public):
o Contribution towards parkland
o Provide park/open space in a project
o Rooftop parks/open space
922
Schools:
o Funding for operations or facilities
o Providing facilities in a project
o Partnerships for projects
o Teacher housing
Tax Revenue Generators
o Retail
Transportation Improvements:
o Bike and pedestrian trails
o Transit amenities
o Contribution towards transit
o Community shuttles (to move people around to key commercial centers)
Ultimately, the specific list of community benefits would be included in the General Plan, and
potentially, in applicable Specific and Master Plans, and the City’s Municipal Code. Timing and
funding of the various projects and criteria would be included in project-specific conditions of
approval and/or Development Agreement.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This concept specifically implements Guiding Principles #5, #6, #7, #9, #10 and #11.
CC/PC POLICY QUESTIONS:
1. Should a comprehensive Community Benefits program be developed and included in the
amended General Plan?
2. What should the list of Community Benefits include?
3. Should there be the program have two tiers for height allocation, or should the program just
focus on community benefits from the approved list?
4. If two tiers are acceptable, what types of projects would be considered “retail?”
Action:
This change would be addressed through revised policies in the Land Use/Community Design
Element and Circulation Element.
D. Healthy Community Strategies
A healthy community promotes a positive physical, social and economic environment that
supports the well-being of its residents, workers and visitors. Healthy communities are places
that encourage healthy eating and physical activity. A typical healthy community strategy for a
general plan includes components such as:
Walkable and bikeable communities with “complete streets” designed for all modes of
transport, as well as dedicated trails
Transportation options and access to public transit
Community focal points, a sense of place
923
Parks, open space, public spaces, and trails
Access to nutritious food
Recreation, nutrition, and education programs
Adequate housing including mixed use neighborhoods and housing choices to
accommodate different life stages
Healthy schools with healthy nutrition and physical activity policies and practices
Access to appropriate health care
Worksite wellness initiatives
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This concept specifically implements Guiding Principles #1 through #10.
Community Input:
There was strong community workshop support for improved access to open space and
walkable/bikeable areas in Cupertino.
CC/PC POLICY QUESTION:
1. Should the City incorporate Healthy Community strategies and policies throughout the
amended General Plan?
Action:
This change would be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the Land Use and
Community Design Element, Circulation Element, and the Health and Safety Element.
E. Technology Infrastructure and Access
Efficient and accessible technology is critical to improving the quality of life of residents and
ensuring local businesses have the infrastructure necessary to be competitive in a global
economy. While most technology-related infrastructure is privately financed and constructed
(e.g., telecommunications, fiber optics, WiFi), the City has the ability to work with the private
sector to expand access to technology infrastructure throughout the Cupertino. The City can
help identify technology deficiencies, coordinate public and private entities to expand
infrastructure, and ensure that there is adequate access for all residents, workers and visitors.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This concept specifically implements Guiding Principles #1, #9 and #12.
Community Input:
Improved technology infrastructure was a common theme at the workshops.
CC/PC POLICY QUESTION
1. Should the City develop policies to expand technology infrastructure and access throughout
Cupertino?
924
Action:
This concept would be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the Land Use and
Community Design Element, and Health and Safety Element.
Recent State Requirements
In addition to major policy concepts, there have also been recent changes to State law that affect
the legal and content requirements of a general plan. While the City has flexibility on how to
meet these requirements, the final General Plan Amendment document will need to adequately
address recent State laws and regulations. The following is a summary of these requirements.
A. Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Assembly Bill 32 (2008) requires the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that
achieve 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2020. To achieve these statewide emissions reductions
targets, CEQA Guideline Amendments (SB97), require agencies to determine, consider, and
mitigate project greenhouse gas emissions impacts. To simplify this process for local
governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines outlines steps
to develop a qualified-greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy or climate action plan in
accordance with OPR Guidance, which sets forth a process for tiering and streamlining the
analysis of project-related greenhouse gas emissions:
To achieve these requirements, the City must demonstrate how it will achieve greenhouse gas
reduction standards through land use decisions, including the general plan. The law also
includes Smart Growth Principles that should be included within the amended General Plan as
a major strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some recommended principles include
encouraging mixed-use and transit-oriented development, expanding pedestrian and bicycle
corridors, creating a job/housing balance, establishing incentives for developments that have
flexible development standards and shared parking arrangements, creating density bonuses for
affordable housing and live/work developments, and reducing vehicle trips through land use
and urban design.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #3, #4 and #10.
Community Input:
Improved air quality and reduction of traffic congestion was a common theme at community
workshops.
Action:
These requirements will be addressed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) being developed
concurrently with the GPA process, but CAP’s are not required by State law. The Climate
Action Plan will include a detailed strategy and policy framework to show how the City will
meet local, regional and State greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability targets and achieve
925
emissions reductions that will arise from the GPA. This Climate Action Plan, once adopted
following certification of an EIR, may be used in the cumulative impact analysis of later
projects. The General Plan will include a reference to the Climate Action Plan for consistency
and to realize the emissions reductions mitigations established by the Climate Action Plan.
Also, the General Plan EIR will include an inventory and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
and reduction strategies.
B. Sustainable Communities Strategies
Senate Bill 375 (2008) is the primary implementation tool of AB 32. The law requires regional
agencies (MPOs) to demonstrate how regional land use, housing, and transportation planning
decisions will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To do this, the law requires all MPOs to update
their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and prepare Regional Housing Needs Allocations
(RHNA) that result in development patterns and supporting transportation networks which
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. It also requires MPOs to prepare
land use and transportation planning strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which
are to be incorporated as an additional element of its RTP.
A major focus of this law is to achieve regional sustainability. As a major implementation piece,
the law requires regional agencies to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in
conjunction with Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). ABAG and MTC recently developed the
regional SCS for the Bay Area, known as the One Bay Area Plan. The SCS will effectively act as
a blueprint for future regional land use and transportation decisions. It will identify the general
location of uses, residential densities and building intensities within the region. It will also
describe how the development pattern and transportation network can work together to
feasibly reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the reduction targets allocated by
State.
Having the General Plan consistent with the SCS will also allow the City to streamline the
environmental review of certain future projects, so long as they are consistent with the SCS.
This can be a large incentive for the development community, and can be leveraged by the City
to gain support for sustainable growth policies and programs.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #1 through #6, #9 and #10.
Community Input:
Varied support was received at community workshops for sustainable development and
locations of increased growth.
Action:
The Concept Alternatives prepared during the GPA process allocate future residential and
employment growth consistent with the One Bay Area Plan. The forecast estimates in the One
Bay Area Plan form the basis of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for
jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The residential allocations in the Concept Alternatives exceed the
926
RHNA for Cupertino (1,064 units). The One Bay Area Plan identifies the Stevens Creek and De
Anza corridors as Priority Development Areas (PDAs) as potential areas where residential and
employment growth may occur because they are major transportation and transit corridors.
Alternatives B & C of the EIR anticipate that development in Cupertino will occur consistent
with the One Bay Area Plan.
In addition to land use and development allocation assumptions, the General Plan will also
address local, regional and State sustainability targets through new policies and/or programs in
the Land Use/Community Design Element, Circulation Element, Housing Element,
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element, and Health and Safety Element.
C. Complete Streets
Assembly Bill 1358 (2008) requires local jurisdictions, upon any substantive revision to their
circulation element, to plan for a balanced multi-modal transportation network. This includes
meeting the needs of all users of streets, roads and highways, including motorists, pedestrians,
bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of
public transportation. The City’s General Plan will need to include policies related to complete
streets and identify specific areas for improvements in both standards and the Circulation
Diagram. These changes will result in not only a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but
also promote a better quality of life for Cupertino residents, since they will have greater options
for how they move around the city.
There is flexibility on how the City addresses Complete Streets requirements. The following
comments raised during community workshops are potential policies that can be
included/expanded upon in the General Plan:
Improve connections from neighborhoods to schools and community facilities (e.g., parks,
community centers, neighborhood shopping, etc).
Retain and improve school and community facilities and neighborhood centers around
existing residential neighborhoods.
Create more separated pathways to schools, not just sidewalks, to provide safe walking and
bike access from new developments.
Develop bike and pedestrian paths on existing public easements for safe and easy access.
Identify ways to retrofit and improve major streets for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #1, #3 and #4.
Community Input:
Improved mobility from neighborhoods to schools, parks, and shopping for all users of the
street (including bicycle and pedestrian users) was a common theme raised by participants
during community workshops.
CC/PC POLICY QUESTIONS:
927
1. Should the City create more detailed policies and programs related to the draft list included
above?
2. Are there other key projects or ideas the Planning Commission and City Council would like
staff to include in the draft General Plan?
Action:
This requirement will be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the Circulation
Element and Land Use/Community Design Element.
D. Level of Service (LOS) Changes
Senate Bill 743 (2013) creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are
analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, the law requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating
transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria
must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Measurements of transportation impacts
may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip
generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” OPR also has discretion to develop alternative
criteria for areas that are not served by transit, if appropriate.
Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay, as
measured solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic capacity or congestion, will no longer be
considered a significant impact under CEQA. Transportation impacts related to air quality,
noise and safety must still be analyzed under CEQA where appropriate. The law also amended
congestion management laws to allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards within
certain infill areas.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #3, #4 and #10.
CC/PC POLICY QUESTIONS:
1. Should the City continue to use a Level of Service (LOS) based system for determining
roadway functionality and for evaluating projects during CEQA review?
2. As part of SB 743, should additional factors be evaluated with LOS to determine roadway
functionality for all users, including bicycles, pedestrians, and transit? For example, a multi-
modal LOS is currently being developed by the VTA. Other cities in the Bay Area also
analyze trip generation in addition to LOS.
Community Input:
Traffic and congestion concerns were recurring themes at the community meetings.
928
Action:
This optional approach can be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the
Circulation Element.
E. Military Facilities
Senate Bill 1468 (2002) requires the general plan land use element to consider the impact of new
growth on military readiness activities. It also adds military installations to the list of locations
that counties and cities must include in their circulation elements, and prohibits conservation
elements from relying on military installations' habitat or conservation programs as mitigation
measures for endangered or threatened species.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #2 and #10.
Action:
This requirement will be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the Land
Use/Community Design Element, Circulation Element, and Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Element.
F. Urban Water Conservation
Senate Bill SB X7-X (2009) mandates water conservation targets and efficiency improvements for
urban water suppliers. The Statewide urban water reduction target is 10 percent by 2015 and 20
percent by 2020. The General Plan will need to include policy language addressing these
targets. In addition to mandating water conservation, this law also restricts communities from
planning future growth that it does not have the adequate water resources to support
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #10 and #11.
Community Input:
Ensuring that future growth is adequately served by water and other public infrastructure was
a common theme raised by participants during workshops and the scoping session.
Action:
This requirement will be addressed in the Climate Action Plan being developed concurrent with
the GPA process. The Climate Action Plan will include a detailed strategy and policy
framework to show how the City will meet local, regional and State water conservation and
water supply requirements.
G. Tribal Consultation
Senate Bill 18 (2004) requires cities and counties to consult with California Native American
tribes during the general plan update process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal
929
Cultural Places. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) maintains a list of
California Native American Tribes with whom local governments must consult.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principle #8.
Action:
City staff and the project consultants will consult with local tribes as part of the General Plan
Amendment process.
H. Sea Level Rise
Executive Order S-13-08 (2008) directs State agencies to develop a climate adaptation strategy
and consider a range of sea-level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100 in order to assess
project vulnerability and reduce expected risks, and increase resiliency to sea-level rise. The law
established the California Climate Action Team (CAT) to coordinate statewide efforts to reduce
emissions and adapt to climate change.
Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:
This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #2 and #10.
Action:
This requirement will be addressed in the Climate Action Plan being developed concurrent with
the General Plan Amendment process. The Climate Action Plan will include a detailed strategy
and policy framework to show how the City will meet local, regional and State climate change
adaptation targets. The General Plan will include a reference to the Climate Action Plan for
consistency.
Clean-Up Items
City staff has identified several areas within the 2005 General Plan that are in need of updates,
corrections, or clarifications. The following is a summary of these refinements:
Updating/correcting land use designations for various properties, as well as maps and
tables
Updating the Historic Resource inventory
Including references to newly adopted or anticipated policies, programs, and plans, such as:
o Climate Action Plan
o Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
o Storm Drain Master Plan
o ADA Transition Plan
o Proper disposal of organic waste
o Cleaner outdoor areas
o Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater measures
o Drought-tolerant/native landscaping
930
o Extended producer responsibility
o Wireless Master Plan update
o Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Public Noticing and Outreach
The following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date.
Postcards
A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce
upcoming dates on the GPA and Housing Element projects. The postcard also provides a brief
description of the two projects and identifies the project website where interested persons may
sign up for project updates and further notices.
A previous City-wide postcard was sent in July 2013 announcing Community-wide Workshop
#1 (discussed below).
Website
A website has been set up for the combined GPA and Housing Element projects at
www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices, and other important information are
available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments at the website.
Workshops, Public Meetings, Commission/Committee Meetings, Stakeholder Meetings, Study
Sessions, and Scoping Session
Community-wide Workshop #1 (July 18, 2013) - On July 18, 2013, the City hosted a community-
wide workshop to kick off the GPA project. As discussed above, a City-wide postcard was
sent to all City addresses, and the City’s website and project website also announced the
workshop. In addition, e-mails were sent to all stakeholders and other interested parties.
Community-wide Workshop #2 (October 23, 2013) - On October 23, 2013, the City held a second
Community-wide Workshop to discuss community ideas for future uses, design and
mobility concepts along major mixed-use corridors (Homestead, De Anza, Wolfe, and Stevens
Creek) and within the Vallco Shopping District. E-mails were sent to all study area
stakeholders, Community-wide Workshop #1 participants, and other interested parties. The
City’s website and project website also announced the workshop.
Other Public Meetings – The City also held the following additional meetings which covered
essentially the same concepts from Community-wide Workshop #2:
o Follow-up meeting for interested Cupertino residents on December 5, 2013
o Meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on January 29, 2014
o Annual meeting of the Cupertino Neighborhood Block Leaders on January 29, 2014.
Commission and Committee Meetings – City staff introduced the GPA project before certain City
Commissions and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce’s Legislative Action Committee
(LAC) in order to expand awareness of the project, receive feedback, and answer questions.
Staff presented the project at the:
931
o October 2, 2013 Teen Commission meeting;
o December 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014 Legislative Action Committee meetings; and
o January 15, 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting
Stakeholder Meetings – Meetings with key neighborhood representatives, organizations
(including the Chamber of Commerce and VTA), property owners in the study areas, etc.
were held from May 2013 through February 2014.
Planning Commission Study Session and Open House (February 19, 2014) – See background
section. As discussed above, a City-wide postcard was sent to all City addresses, and the
City’s website and project website also announced the study session and open house. In
addition, e-mails were sent to all stakeholders, past workshop participants, and other
interested parties.
City Council Study Session (March 4, 2014) – See background section. As discussed above, a
City-wide postcard was sent to all City addresses, and the City’s website and project website
also announced the study session. In addition, e-mails were sent to all stakeholders, past
workshop and study session participants, and other interested parties.
Notice of Preparation (NOP) – On March 5, 2014, the City posted a notice of preparation (NOP)
on the project website and sent it to public agencies and interested organizations to solicit
comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The last day for comments is April 7, 2014.
EIR Scoping Session – On March 11, 2014, the City held a scoping meeting to discuss the
environmental review of the combined General Plan Amendment and Housing Element
update project. The meeting provided an opportunity for the community to comment on the
scope and content of the EIR. As discussed above, a City-wide postcard was sent to all City
addresses, and the City’s website and project website also announced the scoping meeting. In
addition, e-mails were sent to all stakeholders, past workshop and study session participants,
and other interested parties.
The following table summarizes the noticing for the April 1, 2014 joint study session:
Notice Agenda
Email sent to all study area
stakeholders, prior workshop
participants, and interested parties
signed up through the project website
Citywide postcard sent to all addresses
in the City
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the study session)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site
(one week prior to the study session)
Posted on the project Website (one week prior
to study session)
Next Steps
The goal for this study session is for the Council to collect public input and provide comments
on the major policy concepts. These comments will be used to develop policies and programs in
the Draft General Plan, which is anticipated to be released for public review in Summer 2014,
around the same time as the Draft EIR. An open house will be held in Summer 2014 when the
Draft General Plan is available. The Planning Commission and City Council is expected to
formally review the Draft General Plan Amendment in Fall 2014.
932
____________________________________
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development and
Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Revised Concept Alternative Diagrams
B. Retail Strategy
C. Draft 2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles (excerpt from Concept
Alternatives Report)
933
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. OCTOBER 14, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Plannin g Commission meeting of October 14 , 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners prese nt: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
Senior Planner: Piu Ghosh
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the August 26 , 2014 Planning Commission Meeting:
• Page 2, second paragraph, reference to parking stalls; change “low” to read “allow”
• Page 10 second bullet point, change “occupational” to read “occupancy”
• Page 8 heading that reads “Marriot Rep” should read “Hyatt Rep”
• Page 10, two comments made by Chair Brophy, V ice Chair Lee, one of them says Vice Chair Lee
and the other one below said Com. Gong. Change to include comment by Chair Brophy as well.
• Page 9 and other references, change “Dr. Lun” to read “Dr. Lum”
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5 -0-0 to
approve the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended.
Minutes of the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting:
• Change spelling of names of the Apple repre sentatives who spoke at the meeting: Mike Foulkes,
Jason Lundgaard
Motion: Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting as amended.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Noted distribution of written communication related to Item 3
934
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
2
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
GPA -2013 -01, Z-2013 -01 Certification of Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan
GPA -2013 -02, Amendment, Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning;
MCA-2014 -01 General Plan Amendment to establish citywide development
SPA-2014 -01 allocations for commercial, office, hotel and residential uses and
EA-2013 -03 development parameters for key study areas (including Vallco
City of Cupertino Shopping district); General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022
Citywide Location Housing Element as required by State Law; Rezoning of certain
Parcels in conjunction with the citywide General Plan Amendment;
Municipal Code Amendment to comply with State Housing Law and the
Housing Element of the General Plan and other zoning code amendments
for clean-up and consistency; Specific Plan Amendment to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan related to maximum residential yield calculations and
an updated map to conform to the General Plan. Tentative City Council
hearing date November 3, 2014.
Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Summarized the format of the presentation; the city’s planning consultant on the project from MIG
will present the project, followed by staff’s recommendation and a brief presentation on the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the city’s environmental consultant Place Works, followed by
staff’s closing remarks .
Dan A msden, MIG:
• Provided an overview of the General Plan Amendment process. The General Plan is the city’s guiding
policy document; it is the overarching land use environmental sustainability policy document for the
city required by state law and acts as the blueprint for future change and growth in the community.
The focus of the General P lan is to est ablish a citywide vision for the future , supported by more
detailed goals, policies, and strategies. All cities specific plans, master plans, and zoning requirements
must be consistent with the General Plan; however, the General P lan itself does not improve or entitle
any specific development project, property owners have control of when they wish to propose a
project, and all final decisions on future development are manned on a case-by-case basis by other
city staff, P lanning Commission, and/or C ity Counc il. In the last 1-1/2 years, through the General
Plan A mendment process, we have had 22 community workshops, meetings, study sessions, with the
various commissions in the city along with the city council. This extensive community input process
has led to 3 different alternatives on future change in the city.
• He reviewed in detail Alternatives (Alts.) A, B and C as outlined in detail in the attached staff report.
Alt . A maintains the policies of the 2005 General Plan, with some increases to office and hotel
development allocation by a modest amount, it does not increase residential allocation; it combines
So. DeAnza and South Sunnyvale -Saratoga Blvd into one area. Alt. B assumes more development
allocation and more growth than Alt. A, it is the modest growth alternative for a 25 year period from
2015-2040. Alt . C includes the highest amount of growth and development allocation. It includes
enough future residential allocation to be consistent with Plan Bay Area through 2040. Similarly with
increased development allocation it also envisions a redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping Mall into
more of a shopping district or downtown for the city of Cupertino.
935
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
3
Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner:
• Reviewed in detail the State and Regional regulations and best practices, including the Climate
Change, Land Use and Transportation; Complete Streets and Connectivity; Performance Measures for
Mobility, and Housing Element, as detailed in the attached staff report. She then reviewed the
community ideas and best practices, as outlined in detail in the staff report, including: community
benefit, walking and biking to schools , parks and shopping; design of mixed use projects; Vallco
Shopping District; and calculation of residential density. The way the Community Vision 2040 has
been laid out is at the beginning a new chapter has been added called Planning Areas which divides
the planning areas into special areas and neighborhoods.
• Planning areas are already part of the 2005 general plan, whereas neighborhoods are partially
discussed in the 2005 general plan. This chapter highlights the special characteristics in the
community vision for each planning area and special areas are generally consistent with the 2005
general plan with minor changes as discussed. We also included major mixed use corridors where
changes are expected in the future specifically in the heart of the city along Stevens Creek Blvd,
Vallco Shopping District and North Vallco Park. Neighborhoods are mosty residential where
everything will be preserved with improved connections to parks schools and other services.
Piu Ghosh:
Elements:
• The Land Use and C ommunity Design section includes general policies as well as specific policies
for the Planning Areas. It retains the policies in the 2005 general plan of urban design, connectivity,
and pedestrian-orientated design. Further detail is contained in the staff report.
• The mobility element contains policies with a vision to complete a “complete streets approach” which
acknowledges the need for streets that are designed to be used by pedestrians, bicycles and transport
modes , not just automobiles. It also incorporates mitigation measures that are identified in the EIR
such as the implementation of the transportation impact fee to mitigate transportation impacts
• Recreation and Community Services section primarily retains the existing policies while including
principles of sustainability and master planning of parks and recreational programs. More comments
are a part of the staff report. In the infrastructure element, policies have been consolidated from the
land use and environmental resources sections it has been updated for content with current
information and it also includes principles of sustainability and master planning. The sustaina bility
section has been updated to comply with regional requirements and to reflect the city’s current
policies in the Climate Action P lan . The Health and Safety section has been updated per new local
and regional requirements.
Balanced Plan
Please refer to the staff report wherein the following was read into the record: Development Allocation;
Economic & Fiscal; Office; Hotel; and Residential;
Key Question 1:
Development Allocation 1. What should the City plan for in terms of Development Allocation for office, commercial, otel and
residential units through 2040?
Community Benefits Program
• As mentioned before the community benefits program came about through community input and is
considered to be one key tool to help finance and achieve amenities that will be necessary to maintain
the livability in the community and it also will maintain and increase the communities quality of life.
This program will allow the community to get amenities in return for allowing additional specified
936
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
4
heights within specified areas of the city. It also provides certainty as to what these additional heights
might be, and where they can be placed. It would require development agreement which would mean
the city would have to agree to the benefits and amenities provided. Changes to reflect this program
have been incorporated to the proposed municipal code amendments. Key elements include (that are
highlighted on the slide) include:
1. The proposed level of benefit is equivalent to at least 15% of the project valuation attributed to
the increase in height (decided through preparation of a project proforma)
2. Projects must provide a ground floor retail component; and one or more of the following benefits:
a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements
b. Public Facilities (land or space)
c. Senior Housing
d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities
e. Parks and Open Space
Key Question 2:
Community Benefits.
1. Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program?
2. If yes, does the Planning Commission have any revisions to :
a. Value of the community benefits?
b. Specific program items – retail requirement or other items?
Refer to attached staff report Page 9 “Heights” wherein speaker read content into the record.
Key Question 3 :
Building Heights:
1. Does the Planning Commission have any recommended changes to the Balanced Plan heights
recommended in the Special Areas?
Refer to Page 13 of the attached staff report “Vallco Shopping District” wherein speaker read content into
the record.
At this point the city has two basic options: The first being to basically do nothing, which would not
provide any incentive for a developer to redevelop the site. The other alternative would be to
introduce more profitable uses on the site which include office and residential uses
Key Question 4:
Vallco Shopping District:
1. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Specific Plan and “town-center” concept with a mix
f retail/entertainment, residential and office in the Vallco Shopping District?
• The city has also received a request from Sandhill Development Property Company regarding the
allocation of the Vallco Shopping District. The letter indicates that Sandhill is amidst acquiring the
Vallco properties for potential redevelopment and in order to develop a feasible plan they would like
for Vallco to be allowed a development allocation of 2million square feet and additional heights
consistent will alternative C as reflected in this slide. The city’s retail strategist states that residential
and office are highest and best uses for this site and because the BAE market study found that new
demand of 2.4 and 3 million sq ft of office that up to 2million sq ft could be reasonable and necessary
in make the project viable. Staff recommends that if the commission does recommend increasing the
amount of sq footage in the Vallco Shopping District that the excess square footage be replenished in
the city wide office allocation in order to retain some office allocation for the city wide pool.
• Part A of this question is what should Vallco Shopping District allocation really be?
937
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
5
There were other revisions made to the general plan including some land use designation changes at
the PG&E and Mirapath Site to add commercial uses and other revisions have been made to ensure
the general plan land use designation and zoning are consistent.
The housing element is the only element that actually requires state approval and authorization. State law
requires that the city plan contain a housing element and that it be updated on a regular basis
established in the government code. READING REPORT
• Please refer to staff report Pag 15, Housing Element Content Requirements which was read
into record by presenter.
• Please refer to staff report, Page 15, Housing Resources & Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) which was read into the record by presenter.
• Draft 2014 -2022 Housing Element: Page 16 of staff report read into record by presenter.
• One recommendation that has been proposed with regard to Housing Preservation Program the
current housing preservation program for redevelopment of sites which cause loss of existing rental
units requires that at least two of the following 3 conditions be met as identified on the slide. It also
requires for the inclusion of a tenant relocation plan with provisions for relocations of tenants on site
as much as possible and usually that has been interpreted to meet to CBGP? Requirements or greater.
The staff recommends that the conditions that redevelopment may be approved be eliminated
however to retain the requirement to provide mitigation for impacts on displaced tenants but to clarify
the size of development in which such mitigation is needed, which is four or more units.
HOUSING SITES
The potential sites for housing elements was developed through public workshops study sessions with
commissions and city council. The potential sites have been studied at varying densities in each
alterative from minimal change in alternative A all the way up to Alternative C where the densities
were studied at the developer proposed amounts and at the maximum densities proposed.
HCD Criteria for site selection Considers the existing use on the site, the realistic potential for recycling
of a site, the site size, the minimum site size that HCD requires is roughly 2 acres, and ownership
patterns. Additionally the affordability factor of 20 dwelling units per acre at 85% of the maximum
density whether a site meets that criteria or not.
OTHER
Other criteria both regional and local criteria that include identification of sites within ½ a mile of a VTA
PDA, locate housing close to employment and activity centers. Verify whether they are corner lots
with large frontages which are preferred so that the sites can be developed in an esthetic manner.
Whether housing is needed as an incentive for redevelopment.
Housing Element
• The overhead presentation includes the sites that are being recommended. While 19 sites were studied
in the EIR based on existing available housing element sites, sites proposed by property owners and
based on developer interest and sites proposed by workshop participants only 18 sites were available
for selection. This is because the largest property owner associated with one of the sites sent a letter to
the city expressing their desire not be included in the housing sites inventory. The density and sites
recommended in the balance plan are based on the goals listed in the staff report and read by
presenter.
• The rezoning of this properties that are recommended for inclusion has been structured so that zoning
goes into effect at such time as the HCD approves the site as a housing element site. And should
HCD not approve a site as a housing element site, staff recommends an alternative list be authorized
938
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
6
for use. The Hampton sent in a letter and that in their letter they indicated that had expected to be
studied at 100% of the density that they had proposed, but since HCD only allows85% of the realistic
capacity at a site, they were not studied at the maximum densitity that they had expected to be
studied. In order to allow the Hamptons the ability to develop the desired unit count the densities for
their site would have to be at the low end, 76 dwelling units per acre, and at the high end 129
dwelling unit per acre. However the EIR did not study the 129 du/acre. So the bounding factor is the
110 dwelling units per acre that that site was studied at.
• This slide represents the alternative sites in the priority that it is listed in the table. The last slide
shows the low priority sites and scored low in the meeting criteria that were discussed previously, and
are recommended to be removed from the alternate housing sites list. It should be noted that the
density of these sites in Alternative A even if all of them are included that is including the low priorty
sites, does not meet the upper end of the 25-40% surplus recommended to meet the RHNA.
Key Question 5:
Housing Element Sites
1. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Housing Element sites list and densities?
2. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Alternative Sites List and priority?
Please refer to Page 20 of staff report wherein presenter read material from staff report.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
• There have been several other amendments made with regard to conformance with the Balance Plan.
A change has been made to the General Plan in the residential density from gross acres to area of the
lot, as a result of request from the Council. The zoning map has been updated to reflect Ge neral Plan
conformance; changes to the Municipal Code have been proposed as a result of the housing element,
including the density bonus ordinance. Also non-substantial clean up changes have been made to the
Municipal Code ; and the housing element analysis found a constrictive development due to a
requirement in the HOCSP where the residential density mixed use development is calculated net of
the area dedicated to non-residential development, and as a result changes have been made to the
HOCSP text to address this. Changes have been made to building plane line in the So. Vallco area
along Stevens Creek Blvd . to reflect the General Plan recommendation.
Steve Noack , PlaceWorks:
• Provided an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state’s primary
environmental protection law that requires that public agencies disclose environmental impacts that
have physical effects on the environment as follows: effects found to be not significant, significant
impacts, ways to mitigate or avoid impacts, effects that cannot be mitigated, and alternatives. CEQA
does not dictate that the project approval or denial.
• The EIR looked at a 2040 buildout horizon, because the General Plan is a large scale and long range
planning document. The buildout of potential future development is based on the year of 2040 and
the EIR is analyzed growth occurring between 2014 and 2040 which is a 26 year buildout horizon. It
should be noted that 2040 is consistent with Plan Bay Area. As a program EIR this document
addresses large scale long term projects encompassing a broad scope of physical development issues
including General P lans, specific plans, master plans, and zoning ordinances. A program EIR
analyzes full buildout scenarios that accounts for all development allowed under General Plan . The
EIR allows for subsequent project level environmental review for future development to tier off the
program EIR. Individual projects under the General Plan that warrant further analysis under CEQA
are reviewed including identification of impacts and mitigation measures at time of project proposal.
It should be noted that because we are looking at cumulative impacts over a long term scenario we are
looking at some levels regional in nature such as air quality impacts and traffic impacts and those are
factored into the impact analysis. To the extent feasible, where environmental impacts are identified,
939
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
7
CEQA requires that impacts be avoided, minimized, rectified, reduced, eliminated, or compensated.
CEQA also permits incorporation of mitigation measures designed to protect preserve and enhance
environmental resources as goals policies and strategie s; in this case the General Plan include s goals ,
policies and strategies that help to address potential environmental impacts identified in the EIR.
• The EIR looked at a full range of impact areas, found that there are no impacts or less than significant
impacts in a number of areas; focus will be more on the areas where we did find potential impacts.
The EIR did find there were a number of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation
and some were found to be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. The EIR carefully
looked at a range of project alternatives and these mirror the alternatives in the plan itself. The
majority of the impacts were less than significant or were able to be reduced to less than significant
with the mitigation. However even with implementation of feasible of mitigation and compliance
with mandatory regulations including General P lan policies, impacts to transportation and noise and
air quality would be found to be significant and unavoidable at the General Plan level. Th e No
P roject Alternative would be environmentally superior in this case because it would not allow for new
development to occur beyond what is planned for the 2000-2020 general plan which would result in
the least amount of development in the city and therefore reduce the consumption of renewable and
nonrenewable resources and would place fewer demands on public service providers which would
require new facilities and would also fewer roads sewer energy and water infrastructure
improvements and would genera te less waste. However in accordance with the CEQA guidelines, if
the environmentally superior alternative is found to be the CEQA required no project alternative, the
EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alterna tives.
• In this case the next environmentally superior alternative was found to be Alt. A since less
development would occur over the projected buildout for the plan itself. Each alternative was
analyzed at the same level of detail independent of the proposed project and CEQA requires that the
lead agency identify mitigation measures and alternatives in order to avoid or substantially lessen
impacts, but they don’t always lessen the impacts to bring them below the significant thresholds. It
should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR would apply to all the
alternatives that were studied and compliance with mandatory federal state and local regulations
including both existing and proposed general plan policies designed to reduce environmental impacts.
Six comment letters were received from public agencies, 19 comment letters from members of the
general public; most of the comments did not pertain to the adequacy of the draft EIR; the city has
received a number of late comments raised subsequent to the closure .
Piu Ghosh:
• The Development Allocation recommendation in the Balanced Plan are generally between
Alts. B and C; however, the recommended heights are similar to or lower than those studied
in Alt. B. The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the proposed project which
is Alt. C or any of the other alternatives due to the fact that the office/commercial to residential
balance is better than that in Alt. B which has the lowest VMT of all of the alternatives studied in the
EIR. It will continue to have significant unavoidable impacts where traffic, air quality and noise even
after incorpor ation of all feasible mitigation measures.
• Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the key questions posed in the presentation for its
recommendation to the City Council.
• Said Alts. B and C allow them to meet the housing element for this cycle; because in Alt, A you
would have to select all the sites that were studied in the EIR in order to meet the housing element
and it would not meet the higher recommended number of units with consultation with HCD.
Vice Chair Lee :
• Even though Alt. A is before us , it wouldn’t meet the housing element; they cannot select Alt. A as an
alternative .
940
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
8
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Alt. A by itself yes, you could modify the alternatives in terms of height and other things; it is correct
in that if Alt. A was chosen, the sites that were selected at the densities selected don’t get up to the
1400 number being recommended. Adjustments to the housing element sites would have to be made.
For an alternative just to meet the housing for this cycle, in terms of the RHNA number, it is 1002
residential units; but based on our consultant’s recommendation, it is 1400. If the number is not met,
when cities have residential allocations, and they are not common, they are seen as growth restrictions
and there have been lawsuits such as Pleasanton and other cities where people or advocates have seen
these as being restrictive; our recommendation is if you meet Plan B area you would keep the resident
allocation system. Another alternative is to take out the allocation system entirely and just allow the
densities allowed in the General Plan. If you kept the allocation system, staff recommends keeping it
but meeting Planned Bay Area so that at least if anyone had to securitize our General Plan we could
say we have met regional targets. What we have done is in order to manage growth in the future we
are recommending some changes to the General Plan so if mixed use sites are not housing element
sites, residential can become a conditional use and that way residential development on such sites can
be scrutinized more carefully.
Vice Chair Lee :
• Does that mean, one of our handouts and maybe consultant said before, that in order to meet our
Planned Bay Area we would have to increase residential to 1,405 units. Does that hold true. If we
add residential units of 1,400 it will meet the housing eleme nt, it will meet the Planned Bay Area
thing.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• We have said generally 1,400 so we don’t have to get that specific. Said it would meet the RHNA
allocation but it wouldn’t meet the Planned Bay Area target; in this case it would be 4,400 through the
2040 period, which is three housing elements worth; it is a 25 year plan. We are recommending that
we do meet Planned Bay Area. It is not a mandate, but it could
Chair Brophy:
• It would not be an issue if we removed the residential allocation
Aarti Shrivastava:
• That is an option, we could remove the allocation system entirely and let development happen based
on the densities provided in the General Plan. We have always had an allocation system which is
why we had one in here, continued with it; it doesn’t have to stay.
• Said the most effective way to conduct the discussion and question and answer portion of the hearing,
in the past a multi layered approach, e.g. the Green Building Ordinance was followed; wherein it was
recommended that the Commission take straw votes on each question; and then decide on the final
recommendation. Staff has organized the discussion in the form of questions to make it easier for the
Commission to discuss it is the Commission’s decision on how to best move forw ard.
Com. Gong:
• Asked staff how they can ensure if they go with the housing allocation, a mixed use project actually
built out the residential units? Could they propose it or could it be allocated, as we know it doesn’t
always happen.
Aarti Shrivastav a:
• The city has the ability to say this is a housing element site and we want a mixed use project; there is
always that ability because it is a discretionary permit if they come in with non-residential uses .
941
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
9
Com. Gong:
• How can we ensure that if we recommend the allocations we recommend tonight, how that those
projects do go forward if the developer chooses to.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the city has control over two things; zoning the property and reviewing pro ject when it comes
forward; through that process the city has the ability to manage the approvals; beyond that it is up to
the developer to decide what they build or don’t build and it depends on the economy. What is under
the city’s control, we have an approval process that allows the city to c ontrol it. If they came in with a
proposal to build a mixed use without the residential allocation, the Commission might say this is a
housing element site and we want to see a mixed use project with residential. In choosing the
recommended site, said the y go through a criteria including HCD criteria and other criteria discussed
over time with City Council, Planning Commission and Housing Commission.
Com. Gong :
• Why did staff choose to go with similar or lower heights than were recommended in Alt. B?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• We heard a lot of community input; partly there was a lot of consternation about too much height in
the city; we wanted to be thoughtful about where that height could be located; that is why we created
the nodes and gateways and we created a community benefits program so that if additional heights
were given, the community would get something. We wanted to balance economic and fiscal growth
and stability with the community’s concerns about height and the character of their city.
Com. Tak ahashi:
• Referring to the discussion about allocation vs. density, he said he wanted to clarify that they
currently have an allocation system and are looking to replenish that allocation based on the preferred
sites, etc., but the other option is to abandon allocations and strictly go based on dens ity at specific
preferred sites.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the allocation system referring to the option to remove the allocation system is only for
residential, not for non-residential; the city has always had an allocation system to say this is how
many units you could build in a given period . The other option is to not have an allocation system
because the density can control it; we already have density controls. Presently for non-residential we
don’t have FAR controls which is why we have the allocation controls. In the residential we have the
belt and the suspenders, you don’t need both if you choose not to. Based on a discussion with the
EIR consultant, our assumption in the project is that regardless of whether there was an allocation
system or not , for residential projects we would develop based on the Planned Bay Area, which is
about 4,400 units over the 25 year period; that is the assumption that we have made and it is a
reasonable assumption since it is based on some regional targets.
Com. Takahashi:
• With regard to the 15% community benefit calculation, I understand we would allow more height
with a community benefit and the valuation of that is 15% of the added va lue associated with that
height. What was the general thinking behind that concept and how do you actually go about
calculating the true dollar amount with that added benefit?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Thought was given and programs were researched; there isn’t a discussion of what that value needs to
be, it talks about some community benefits and it lists things and in the end it is similar to the concept
942
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
10
of horse trading ; but we felt was not a good idea because we wanted some level of certainty, which is
why we have a number. Other communities had a per square foot cost but that really doesn’t keep up
with the economy and market at the time, so we felt the best way to do it was using market valuation
and perform an analysis as a fairly true and tried common method when you look at things.
• The ordinance for public art is based on a percentage of the performa; our own ordinance recognizes
that, which is why we felt it was the best way to w ork. We had a discussion with our consultant who
said this is the range you want to stay in, added benefit; which is why we came up with it and we
wanted to be specific about the amount, very specific about location of where these heights could be,
and ve ry specific about what those additional heights could be; we didn’t want them to be open
ended.
Com. Sun:
• The entire planning is based on the city’s future growth, including population and economy. Is there
any particular number to share with the public?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• We can look at those numbers and give you the increase in population estimated with each
alternative.
Com. Sun:
• Yes, but that’s the fundamental for our entire planning, next 25 years. Second question; when we
allocate the land use commercial/office/residential, what is the base to our located office, the square
footage … one million, two million, three million .. for me I want to know where the base, how you
calculate that one; a lot of business is going to move there.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• A market study was done that said that the market based under analysis can support so many square
feet of office, so many hotel rooms, so many residential units and that number is generally consistent
with Alt. C. The future economy could support the kinds of numbers that were studied in Alt. C. In
terms of staff’s recommendation , staff wanted to recommend more of balanced plan that balanced
office and residential, so our numbers are lower, our office numbers are more consistent with Alt. B.
The numbers were studied in the market study and they say that the economy can support over the
long term about so much office in the city.
Dan Amsden:
• The EIR did look at what it would take to mitigate those impacts that were found to be significant and
unavoidable and there were a number of reasons specifically for each intersection as to why it was
found that the mitigation was not feasible ; and it would range from the need to take private property
to expand a intersection; there are jurisdictional issues where some intersections could not be
completely controlled by the city of Cupertino. It was outside their jurisdiction therefore they could
not implement the mitigation measures and there were some issues where it would affect operation of
the intersection as well, so you are building intersections that don’t look at pedestrian and bicycle
movement to the same degree and that would be found to be unfeasible.
Com. Sun:
• Question about the community benefit, we know Cupertino is famous for its school system, we
cannot touch school issue; any way when city working with new developer , consider the new
development will generate extra traffic and put into the contract part of the mitigation for the entire
city traffic including the school impact is possible.
943
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
11
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Because of state law the mitigation that developments pay to schools is the impact fee; they already
pay the impact fee; so we cannot add more mitigation in the EIR, however, the community benefits
program has a cash in-lieu option and should the Council want to avail themselves of the cash in-lieu
option, they can choose to give it to another entity which could include schools. It can be done
through a development agreement; it won’t be done throu gh conditions on the project; it is more of a
development agreement issue as part of a community benefit program.
Com. Sun:
• For the community benefit program there is only condition about the height. Can we put another
criteria when the city is working with developers to put in the community benefit there?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• As part of the EIR, once they know what the final plan is, they will draw up a transportation plan for
the entire city that implements all of the mitigations, and then projects will be charged a
transportation impact fee so that they would pay that amount so the city can go ahead and make those
improvements. In the case of large projects they will mitigate their own impacts; there is a plan to do
that; set up a program and a fee to do citywide mitigation.
Com. Sun:
• Next issue is regarding allocation of the housing element; for the first six we put the priority to meet
the requirement; for the next level it is an alternative; the first year of priority the six locations the
developer didn’t develop.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said no, the idea is to get through HCD; if HCD is happy with the first six sites and they have no
questions, then that is the final list; if they have questions on some sites or they feel like certain sites
should be taken off, that is when we go to the alternatives list; our recommendation is we just have
enough sites to meet that 1,400 amount and once that list is finalized by HCD, we will bring it back to
the Commission and Council for final approval and those are the only sites that will be housing
element sites. The Commission and Council can choose to add more sites than required if they wish.
Com. Gong:
• If the HCD approve the six that are recommended, none of the other sites are able to build residential
units.
Vice Chair Lee :
• No. 14 and how it doesn’t meet the affordability criteria and what can be done about that. The
Villages were previously recommended as high acceptability.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The villages has a density of 20 dwelling units per acre and if you then go down to 85% of that
capacity you are down to 17 units; you need to meet a minimum of 20 in order to qualify as an
affordable housing site; which is why the Villages don’t meet the affordability criteria. It could be
rezoned, although increasing the density of the Villages was not analyzed. It was a site in the last
housing element; at the time it had 13 sites and a good part of them met the affordability criteria; now
there are 6 sites and Glenbrook Apts does not meet the affordability criteria.
Reviewed the HCD Criteria for Site Selection, Other Criteria for Site Selection, Housing Element Sites,
and discussed the details of Table 3 in the staff report.
944
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
12
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Defined Balanced Plan, which signifies the preamble to the discussion to try to balance the city’s
future economic fiscal stability with a need to maintain the community character. It also speaks to the
balance of land uses when comparing office to residential, trying to make sure they make regional
targets so it hits a lot of issues.
Chair Brophy:
• In the EIR when looking at our residential labor force and number of jobs that were within the city of
Cupertino, there were more jobs located within the city, as there were people living in the city and
working. That was done before, and did not reflect the fact that last year we approved 3.5 million sq.
ft. for the Apple 2 campus. My point is that when we approved the apple 2 campus last year we
knowingly went to a very un balanced split between residence in the labor force living in Cupertino
and the number of people who will be working within the city limits.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Yes, and the balance plan tries to bring the housing more into balance.
Chair Brophy:
• We are putting in housing because the state requires us to, but the proposal, what I am trying to focus
on is the office recommendation of the Balanced Plan where you recommend adding an additional 2
million feet in addition to the 540,000 feet that are already in the general plan. The question is that 4
people per 1,000 which is a reason able estimate for the office space, 2 million feet is another 8,000
emplolyees , in a city where we will be vastly out of balance or will be once the Apple 2 campus
opens up, how do we call a recommendation that has 10,000 more employees coming into a fully
built out city; how does that become “ balanced”
Aarti Shrivastava:
• If you put it that way it is not completely balanced but we are looking at trying to provide a balance
between get the units and it’s semantics but if you were to completely say we want to house e very
person who is employed in the city, then you are right.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was concerned that when they approved the Apple 2 campus, they knowingly accepted a
substantially out of balance set of numbers between the number of people working within the city
limits and the number of people in the city who are in the labor force. They are now volluntarily
suggesting that they throw in another 8,000 employees who will come into the city every day through
some means, mostly via private car. Said he was befuddled why they are going even farther to the
imbalance and calling it a “balanced Plan”.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she could not respond; but felt they tried to balance a number of city obje ctives.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked what were the benefits/objectives that staff sees from putting in another 10,000 jobs into the
city, given their limited ability to add housing? Where do we envision all the jobs being created in
Cupertino; where will all the people live?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Staff felt that by meeting Planned Bay Area the city met its regional obligations in terms of housing.
In terms of job growth, Planned Bay Area does see some job growth in the city; it doesn’t see zero, so
945
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
13
they felt that somewhere in that range was generally acceptable. If you compare the 8,000 jobs they
are adding with the population increase that would be accommodated with the housing. She said they
were doing well, and are in the 9,000 range not counting the 14,000 working at Apple.
Chair Brophy:
• Part of the RHNA and one of the issues I have made in one of the study sessions, was that there is no
part of planning theory that says that all cities have to exactly balance their residential labor force and
the number of jobs within the city. The problem is that every other city in our neighborhood is doing
exactly what you are proposing tonight which is adding vast new office complexes.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Regionally there is a lot of office being added. We were trying to be a little more responsible.
Chair Brophy:
• When we talk about sustainability and meeting SB375 and we are worrying whe ther an apartment
complex is on Stevens Creek or a few blocks away, that has nothing to do with sustainability but
where people live does have a great deal in terms of vehicle mile travelled. Said that one of the most
important issues facing Cupertino in the upcoming election was the traffic problem in the city; would
they agree that the more development that is approved in Cupertino, the worse the traffic will get,
which is a significant and unavoidable problem.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said if they look at the data and traffic analysis, it is question of degree and the degrees don’t change
so much; primarily it is the regional growth and the economy that determines the traffic. In our No
Project alternative where we don’t envision growth beyond the current General Plan, there is still a
significant unavoidable impact as far as traffic, noise and air quality and the differences aren’t much
between that and the other alternative, so it isn’t vast degrees of change. The alternative isn’t a whole
lot better, so we tried to balance the issues.
Com. Lee:
• Even though the units are already spelled out, whatever gets approved, the number of units, if 600
units get approved for this parcel, then can Council say we will approve the 600 units but we wanted
all studio apartments or one bedroom; does it have to be in a mix and how restrictive can it be later or
does it need to be in the housing element?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they don’t talk about the type of units generally, they try not to be too restrictive but in the past
they have been ame nable to looking at smaller units; they have talked about trying to house the
workers and their needs.
Com. Gong :
• As part of the community benefit plan could we add an incentive to a developer to build a certain type
of unit that we would pre fer or that would be attractive?
Veronica Tam:
• Said in order to get to their objective of having some of the smaller units, it is a much better approach
to incentivize that by providing community benefits of a range of housing. Perhaps they could put in
the provision that if they include a larger proportion of smaller units they would get some kind of
incentive . It is much better to incentivize that vs. restricting it to only studio units because you
would probably run into fair housing situation where you are precluding families and restricting it to
just studio units.
946
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
14
Chair Brophy:
• On any given site in order to meet some of the goals for very low and low and moderate income
housing, can we condition the housing element allocation for a given site that it have a given
percentage of very low or low income housing?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she thought cities had done that; Cupertino has not done in the past and is something we can ask
our consultants to help with. We try not to combine the community benefits with affordable housing
because then you start getting into density bonus issues and we figured we would keep that separate
but if the city wanted to designate sites for affordable housing, can they do that?
Veronica Tam:
• Said they normally don’t like to do that because there are only six sites and if you designate a
particular site for affordable housing projects, you have to commit to having funding to make that
project into an affordable housing project because you cannot require a private property owner to
commit to doing that particular site and turning into an affordable housing project.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Chair Brophy noted that because of the late hour the meeting would be continued to the next meeting,
tentatively scheduled for Monday, October 20th.
Jeff Pauls e n, Randy Lane:
• Clarified that he was speaking as a private citizen and not in his role as Vice Chair of Parks and
Recreation Commission. Said he was excited about the direction the P lan was taking; the Balanced
Plan is a lot of what they worked for over the years a nd it includes a lot of wonderful elements.
Highlighted some points; said they should not be afraid of height; height can be made attractive; no
one wants to live in the urban canyons of Manhattan; nonetheless certain architecture elements, certain
setbacks as the building steps back to a higher height, can be attractive; they should not limit
themselves to a certain height.
• He suggested there be more coordination between the various types of planning, the EIR talks about
transportation levels of service dealing with only traffic, whereas the Balanced Plan talks about
incorporating newer requirements for considering other levels of service such as bicycle and
pedestrian. It is important to make sure all the different elements of the planning process agree with
each other although not always possible because of various regulations and stipulations.
• Said he would like to put in a good word for the trees, which can add a number of elements to a city,
not just aesthetics but add to property value s which translates to increased tax revenue; they can relate
to decreased urban runoff; and also improve air quality both through production of oxygen and the
filtering of particulates from freeways; and also can reduce the urban temperature; the problems with
trees is they don’t fit in one place; a lot of times they are considered a Public Works issue; in another
sense they are an economic development issue because they do increase property values. I would
encourage that to be a part of the plan and keep up the good work; you are doing a great job.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said it was the second housing element since the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood annexed in 2000
from the County and brought 5,000 residents in to Cupertino. Said it was a large complicated
snowballing project; with a General Plan Amendment mixed in with a housing element, rezoning
housing element sites which all seem to be shopping centers. She said she was now a No Project
Alternative type of person and didn’t like where the Plan was going. She does not like the One Bay
947
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
15
Area Plan, it doesn’t fit into Cupertino’s future; it means other people who don’t live or work in
Cupertino are planning its future; most of those people end up in other areas of the state but have no
comprehension of what it is to be in the South Bay or the Peninsula. She said No Project Alternative
and no community benefits; this thing keeps seeping back in every time we have changes to the R1; it
is like let the developers run whole hog and let them build as high as they want because what we are
going to do is, we give them; in fact the term was density bonuses, every time we go into this, this
thing creeps back in; we are going to let them have reduced, they can go higher if they pay more
money , they don’t have to have as much parking, they can have higher density on the housing; let’s
don’t go there. Also, I am confused as it sounds like Vallco is on the list for a housing site; how did
that happen? When did the Oaks go on? I heard Marina is gone on too; does that mean that Vallco is
being considered for a housing element site; that is outrageous. Could you please verify that; that
means that we are rezoning that entire center for housing; I am concerned about that, plus the Oaks.
Let’s don’t go there.
Carlene Mat chniff, Irvine Co.:
• Said that Irvine Co. submitted a letter, stated that they appreciated the job staff has done, but they also
have to look at some of the criteria that HCD places on the idea of redeveloping sites and one of them
is to provide enough units to give the incentive to redevelop. I think we have to look at the economics
of that. In the case of the Hamptons site we have 342 units existing there and to come in at the
numbers where staff is it doesn’t make sense to invest in an assessment district for the Wolfe
interchange for example and all of the other public improvements and community benefits, the park
fees, school fees, everything that goes along with a development of that magnitude and we want to
offer a first class development, first class architecture, class A apartments, we want to come in and
provide Cupertino with an excellent project. In order to do that we need about 400 more units added
to the numbers that where staff is to make sense out of this. I wanted to go over a few of the benefits
for the public to really know what we can offer at this site. It is rather unique in that it is adjacent to
the new Apple spaceship campus as you mentioned earlier, it is going to provide a lot of employment
to Cupertino and we can offer housing that people who live there can walk to work; they can bicycle or
walk to work; it is very connected; it is sustainable and it would be built to a high level of green
standards and reduce the VMT for those people who live there and those people in the region who
want to live a little closer to Cupertino. In addition, we told you last time we were here that we were
working with Apple on some language for a General Plan Amendment; we have reached that
agreement and have given that to staff, as well as we have provided a cooperative agreement for the
redevelopment of the Hamptons to Apple for their review; so currently we are working on a
cooperative agreement that would be a private party agreement that would guide the development, deal
with issues such as security and privacy and those issues that are important to our neighbor. We have
also hired an expert landscape architect to look at the issues of interface between the properties so that
we ca n insure their privacy, incorporate some of our large redwood trees that are 70 to 80 feet already
on the site and keep those and keep them in the plan. In addition, we will be contributing to the Wolfe
interchange and we have been told by staff that some form of assessment district is going to be created
that will take in that area; we and going to contribute to that and we know that from the get-go. In
addition we are not in the Cupertino School District, but are in the Santa Clara School District so we
do not impact Cupertino schools in terms of students in Cupertino schools. We are working out a
mitigation agreement with the Santa Clara School District; and have begun an analysis of that and
begun communication with them.
• She pointed out that the Irvine Co. doesn’t sell their assets; it is a 150 year old company, which stays
in the community and builds in the community; they are the landowner, the developer and the property
manager; they guarantee their brand will stand behind the project and will deliver a high quality
project. When allocating units across these sites, you really need to understand; are they going to be
built in the future; are they really going to help that jobs housing balance because I do have an out of
balance situation here as you mentioned, and there are other cities now that are saying maybe we
948
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
16
should build housing closer to the job so that people can get off the freeways and spend more leisure
time with their families and I think we can offer that in this case.
Chair Brophy:
• Said as he read the Irvine letter, it said that if offered 344 units in the housing element, that simply is
not enough to make the project work. Ms. Matchniff said it would be 686 with their existing 342; in
order to scrape those units and start over it doesn’t make economic sense; they would have to have
about 400 more. Said essentially at 344 they would have to drop Irvine Co. from the housing element.
Carlene Matchniff:
• Said they wouldn’t have to drop them, if that was their choice. She said at this time redevelopment
would not be feasible given the 344 figure.
Chair Brophy:
• Said given the letter, it would be hard to imagine if HCD would see the letter or hard to envision them
accepting this as a housing element site .
Aarti Shrivastav a:
• Said they would have to have a discussion.
Albert Wa ng, representing Marine Foods and Marina Plaza:
• Said they have provided service to the community for over 30 years and are aware that with the
addition of a new hotel and the Apple campus, they have to update their site . Their vision is to have a
mixed use village and want to bring back as much retail space as they currently have; and have Marina
Foods return as an anchor tenant to provide continued support to the other retail stores and
community. He felt their site was located along the corridor of Stevens Creek; if they make a deal at
the center for residential and retail activities , the residents can generate the foot traffic needed to
support the Heart of the City retail activities.
• Said it was important for them that the project be a success, and have brought the Dahling group on
board as their architect to design a project which they will blend adequately with both the original
corridor and also along Alice Drive. They will work with the city to make their project the best ever
for everyone in Cupertino. Said they feel their location is an ideal site for housing in Cupertino ,
located at major crossroads of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Blvd. which is the financial area of
downtown Cupertino. The Marina site is adjacent to both the major transportation corridor and retail
corridor in the city. The Marina commuter has easy a ccess to Hwys. 85 and 280 and the bus stop in
front of Marina goes to the new Apple 2 campus to the Caltrans station and as far as downtown San
Jose. They will better serve the community with outdoor seating area, beautiful landscaping and retail
offering that will be for all the citizens of Cupertino. He said the Marina site fits all the criteria that a
city is looking for regarding the housing allocation, and they hope to bring something special to the
Heart of the City.
Chair Brophy:
• Commented that Marine Foods is a successful grocery store; one of the concerns of putting housing in
the Marina area, is will that undercut the ability of the grocery store to serve the current customers.
Albert Wang:
• Responded they have adequate parking and will have underground parking also.
Glen Simmons, Dahling Group:
• Architect with Dahling group; has done mixed use projects in and around Cupertino and has been
working with Marina Plaza people to develop some conceptual designs for their site. Their site is a
949
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
17
perfect one for housing because it already has a supermarket, banking office, restaurant and support
services on site; they plan on trying to maintain those and adding residential to create a complete urban
village. According to Balance d Plan it looks lik e there could be 200 units allocated for that site; they
have looked a t studies which include underground parking and above ground parking garages which
would free up the site and make for a walkable neighborhood and create some community open space
and plazas. They are listed currently as an alternative site; would like to be on a recommended site
because they are located in HOC and makes a good fit for the housing element. They are highly
motivated and would like to turn a 60s shopping center into an urban village.
Chair Brophy asked Mr. Simmons:
• In your conceptual work so far is it possible, one of our concerns is maintaining strongly performing
shopping centers and not giving them up for housing; in your opinion and experience, do you believe
that you can add housing and still have the same kind of strength that the center currently has? Would
it work productively in terms of customers having ingress and egress and still want to shop there?
Glen Simmons :
• Said yes, they are currently looking at about 50K square feet of retail which is about what is there now ,
and they want to maintain that amount of retail on the site. Yes, not just retail; there are some food
services there; dry cleaners, eye glass store, etc. It is not just direct retail, it is also services that will
help the people who are living there.
Com. Gong :
• Questioned Mr. Simmons, he is working with the owner Mr. Wang now; if the property were not
placed on the housing element site would he continue with redevelopment of the plaza in whatever
capacity he is envisioning it?
Glen Simmons :
• Said the question would best be answered by the owner; he is interested in trying to do something
different with that site.
Albert Wang:
• Responded that without the housing, it would not be economically viable for them to pursue.
Glen Simmons :
• Currently for their design, they are using a module of 2 bedroom units, it could range from studio to 3
bedroom; using a general module now because it is very conceptual.
Claudio Bono, representing DeAnza Properties and Cupertino Inn:
• Said they planned to build a hotel next to Cupertino Inn; 300 rooms, 4000 square feet of meeting
space; underground parking; valet. He thanked staff for their recommendation of 90 feet for the hotel;
but said they were requesting 110 feet instead of 90 recommended by staff, in order to make the
commitment of 300 rooms as well as over 4000 sq. ft. of meeting space, convention area. It would be
a full service hotel and are asking for the Commission’s consideration on it.
Com. Gong:
• Asked staff what was the special consideration for including convention meeting spaces and what is
the criteria for it to be determined convention rather than just meeting spaces?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they did not get detailed about it; but those areas were along Wolfe Rd by Cupertino Village and
Cupertino Inn. It was specific request for hotels; said the recommendation in the area of Cupertino Inn
950
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
18
the base is 45 feet 60 with retail and going all the way up to 90 if there is a hotel or major convention
center for community benefit.
Claudio Bono :
• Said the meeting space can vary to the convention being requested; the convention would be part of
the plan that we currently have over 5000 square feet of meeting space which means it would allow
400+ people within those rooms which currently the largest one is the Cypress Hotel which can only
commit up to 200 to 225 , which would add an added value to the city of Cupertino. The new hotel
would generate hotel taxes revenue for the city of Cupertino as well as over 100 new full time jobs.
Robert Mc Kibbin:
• Said the process doesn’t reflect the wishes and desires of the Cupertino citizens; it mainly reflects the
desires and wishes of the builders , developers and property owners. There is blackmail going on too;
3 developers and owners got up and spoke about it; Marina is talking about 208 housing units; keep in
mind that Rosebowl reflects 204 housing units; they are looking at taking a structure that size and
putting on that site. There is Cupertino Inn, now at 45 ft. elevation they can build; their proposal is 90,
they don’t want that; they want 110, otherwise they will go home and somewhere else. Said Irvine
Company’s density is where it is and the proposal from the city was a lot higher and they won’t accept
that; they want something bigger, otherwise they will pull out of the process and I think Com. Brophy
showed the letter that said if you are proposing this and we don’t give it to you, then they will walk out
and we will have to go back and redo our housing unit.
• Look at the audience, this is not an amendment to the General Plan; it is a major revision to the
General Plan and Cupertino’s general public is not at the meeting; the process is so convoluted and
complex, it has mainly been taken over by the developers, etc. It was a better process 10 years ago
when we went through the housing element. Going out 26 years and talking about that is
unimaginable; most will be gone in 26 years. If they go with the proposal of a 4500 housing units that
is like taking Rosebowl at 204 units and building a Rosebowl at least one a year for the next 26 years;
that gives us perspective and keep in mind the city of Cupertino essentially built out; a speaker said
don’t worry about height and density; you do; people are already talking about the concrete canyons of
Cupertino; that is what we are developing now.
• An example is go to the Rosebowl and Vallco and see what is going on; at meetings the citizens got up
in regards to Vallco and were dead set against housing at Vallco; dead set against anything but retail
and what we do is get the proposal that talks about 600 housing units of Vallco which the citizens of
Cupertino do not want and who knows how much office over there; the idea when the citizens had the
chance to speak was to keep that 100% retail. You talk about maintaining retail space; it is not going
to happen; the retail is going to disappear as already happened with Promethius, it went from 21,000
sq. ft. retail down to 8,000 which is an example of what will happen if this is proposed.
• Said his recommendation for the housing is disregard the 26 units and the 4500 units , disrega rd the
1400; the recommendation is 1002; go with that and plan what we have for the next 5 or 10 years, not
out 26 years with this example; same thing with regards to office space, etc. they can come back to the
City Council and Planning Commission and ask for exceptions to the General Plan if there is a need
for higher density and more square footage. It is getting ridiculous where they are giving 2 million
square feet here, 3 million here, 100 million here; Cupertino is built out.
Com. Sun:
• Said he expected that more residents would have attended the meeting, and expressed frustration why
more people were not attending. Do the residents not care anymore; is the plan too complicated?
Robert McKibbin:
• Said they came to the Planning meetings where they voiced their opinion and thought they would be
heard; instead they weren’t he ard. The Commission came back with a report from staff with high
951
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
19
density and it caught many people by surprise ; the plan that they are talking about is huge . They
don’t understand the process and don’t understand how huge this is and what a major impact it will
have on the city of Cupertino the next 10 years. It is about 4500 housing units over that time period;
one Rosebowl being built for the next 26 years; every year; where is it going to go?
Com. Sun:
• He said his understanding was to fix the problem, get more people involved in the city’s development;
only thing that they can improve on is go through the procedure, extend the notice from 300 to 500
feet or more. Will it draw more people to the meetings?
Robert McKibbin:
• Said it is a breakdown in the process; there are major revisions to the General Plan, and they are not
amendments, and somewhere in the process there is a breakdown where you and staff have not reached
out effectively to the citizens of Cupertino in regards to the major impact it will have on the city,
schools and traffic. It is hard at this point because it goes from you to the City Council on Nov. 3;
how will you reach out to the public between now and Nov. 3? He said he did not have the answer but
knew it reflects a major breakdown in the process if you can’t get the public out here for this major
impact on the city of Cupertino.
• There was a discussion on how to get the people to the meetings. Mr. Mc Kibbin said at the earlier
meetings, one of the options for Vallco should have been to keep it retail; that wasn’t given as an
option when the meetings were held; that is not comparing it to what the citizens really want, and
many of the citizens at those meetings said they wanted 100% retail. It is not brought up at the
meeting. He said it was a frustrating process, the citizens feel they do not have a say in it.
Mark Tersini, K T Properties :
• KT Properties is a commercial and residential development company in Cupertino for over 25 years ;
the land was purchased in late 70s with visions of office environment; building built in 1984; have
been around the Stevens Creek Corridor and in and around the Oaks Shopping Center all that time;
Oaks Center is in contract and currently in escrow scheduled to close shortly. He commended staff for
their work on the General Plan and Housing Element update. They are currently in e arly stages of
considering what to do with Oaks Shopping Center and how to redevelop it to its highest and best use.
It is a commercial center comprising 55,000 sq. ft. commercial/retail space, some successful and some
not in the center over the years . Said he viewed the Housing Element as one that could help energize
the center, a mixed use opportunity for not only viable retail but housing and potential for hotel or
office use. Said they have a long way to go before any formal application to staff and look forward to
working with staff and the Planning Commission and City Council for the ultimate redevelopment of
the property.
Beverly Bryant , Ph.D :
• Disclosed she was working on behalf of KT Properties. Congratulated staff for putting the program
together; it is a huge commitment, a GPA and EIR, including all of the different elements. Other
communities in the Bay Area are well aware that the growth in California in the next 20 years is going
to be incredible; but the growth in the Bay Area is going to be significant; 2.1 million people was
projected in addition in 2010 and the growth and jobs in that same period of time will grow by a
million or over a million. When we are talking about growth we have looked at Cupertino tonight and
Com. Takahashi had some great charts about what the percentage in the city would be, Bay Area 30%
if it is 22% in Cupertino it is going to be somewhat less than the overall Bay Area, but I feel Cupertino
will feel the impact of growth and jobs and need new housing no matter what it wants to do as will
every other city in the Bay Area.
• She urged the Commission to be as forward looking as possible and really think about the future
planning because it is going to happen, and the Alt. C meets 100% of the targets and looking at that
952
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
20
alternative it is realistic. The people who have done the work on the housing particularly as well as
the office and whatever else might come with that, really have considered the possibilities. The Oaks
sit e does lend itself , it is on a transportation corridor that’s very important; it is really within bicycle
range of Bubb Road and the Apple building is on that facility; also it is in bicycle range of crossing the
bicycle bridge and getting onto t he campus on the other way so there is opportunity for transportation
in that way as well as the transportation on a major corridor of this community. The property lends
itself to building high and using the heights and perhaps an increased height just because of its
proximity to this freeway and putting buildings that are not going to be impacting a lot of neighbors in
that particular area is important. Cupertino has an opportunity to be a leader not only in jobs but in
housing, and we hope that you will do that.
Phyllis Dickstein, resident:
• Said she agreed with previous speakers Jennifer Griffin and Robert McKibbin. One of the reasons
more people don’t turn out at the meetings is because in Silicon Valley people work until 11 p.m. and
the other reason is people who are not retired cannot attend approximately 22 meetings. It is hoped
that the process is not just some type of fig leaf to pretend to have consultation when all the decisions
will simply be taken by the Planning Dept., Planning Commission and C ity Cou ncil who may have
had some ideas to begin with as to what they wanted,. There is a certain disconnect as pointed out by a
speaker between what the residents want which is not Alt. C development and what planners tend to
want. The one thing that most struck me trying to read online today, there is one thing fundamentally I
disagree with, which is that in order to preserve all the other neighborhoods in the city, those of us who
live in the Heart of the City area, in the areas of Cupertino or Wolfe Rd. or DeAnza are going to be the
sacrificial lambs. Why is it that all development has to be concentrated in one area and even now try
to drive on Stevens Creek and getting out onto Blaney; the traffic problem is not going to go away and
I think that concentrating development in one area and trying to develop at Level C or even between
level b and C is overdoing it.
Todd Dewell, Kimco Realty:
• Property owners and operators of Cupertino Village at Wolfe and Homestead Rds., have been working
on redevelopment at the site for 7 years and opened the parking garage last week, signifying the end of
the first phase. It took 7 years because of the recession, to get through and get to a point where they
could realize their project they first saw 6 years ago.
• Commended staff for their work and trying to foresee where Cupertino will be in 10 to 20 years and
they are pleased to have been a part of it; and leaving options for the future with heights, density; gives
them an opportunity to see what they can do with their site 15 years down the road. Said they support
staff and will continue to do so.
Chair Brophy:
• Cupertino Village is an extremely productive center and one of our concerns has been to give
additional zoning to productive shopping centers that might undercut their role as a shopping center;
maybe from the owner’s perspective might work out better if you could do mid-rise offices or
apartments or things like that but from a city perspective we are concerned about protecting, not doing
things that would undercut the viability of the existing center.
Todd Dewell :
• Kimco operates shopping centers, and does not veer from that; they would look at a mixed use project.
Said the existing tenants may change over the years but Ranch 99 being the anchor is the mainstay of
that center and that is going to stay in any kind of development they look at. They may go to a low -
rise or mid -rise, adding some office, looking at potential housing but the core retail will still be part of
the center today and in the future.
953
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
21
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing and declared a recess.
• Regarding community benefit dis cussion; one of the questions posed to the Commission is, should
community benefit be allowed to extend heights of specific projects and the community benefit be
funded by the benefit that the developer gains from those heights? Funding community developme nt
does allow community improvement; said he was hesitant from the standpoint of some of the heights
getting to be too high, which is a concern. Said in general he supported community benefit.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was skeptical, have some experience and some knowledge about how community development
benefits have worked in other communities and the answer is what happens inevitably with the best of
intentions going in is that you wind up having discreet negotiations between would-be developers and
the professional staff and with individual City Council members, and then what happens when an
agreement in principle is reached and the matter is offered to the city, everybody is shocked when the
residents rise up in anger.
If you are in a community such as Cupertino where the number one issue is traffic, by very definition
adding more building space makes the problem worse and no community benefit can change that.
Said he felt in the interest of openness and transparency they should just say no to it.
Com. Gong:
• Said in general she felt that the community benefit can be structured such that they can incentivize the
developers to provide a community benefit. Said she did not support the cash in-lieu of contribution;
it is an easy out to just pay for not providing the benefit and putting the burden on the city to provide
the benefit. The developer should take the responsibility if they are getting the benefit and also there
should be a provision in the development agreement that the benefit is maintained with the property
not with the owner if it changes hands. The subsequent owner must maintain the community benefit at
the level as dictated at the time of the development agreement.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she did not support the community benefits program; the project should benefit the community
itself.
Chair Brophy:
• Summarized that there were 3 votes in favor of community benefits but more formal polling will be
done. He cautioned some developers who are anxious to start spending the few hundred thousand
dollars of their money on the expectation they will negotiate a community development concept with
the staff, there is a long history in this area of them finding out that what the staff felt was a good idea
and what Council members privately told them was a good idea turned out to be very different when
the people showed up.
• Commented on the issue Com. Su n was raising with Mr. McKibbin about the reasons why no
community members were at the meeting, other than interested land owners. He said the General Plan
and housing elements are not treated by the average citizen as a real project because it is a conceptual
thing in most minds. A couple of years ago there was a request to add 80 or 90 units at Biltmore, and
there were about 15 unhappy neighbors here; tonight it is a request for 600 units at Vallco and there
are no other public commenting other than Jennifer Griffin. He said he would guarantee that when an
application comes forward 2 years from now the room will be packed with very unhappy re sidents;
only the future Council will have to state that the decision was made in 2014; and that goes for all the
sit es. Given that the Cupertino citizens don’t focus on conceptual issues such as the General Plan and
housing element, it is all the more incumbent on the Planning Commissioners and for the City Council
as well to make sure that decisions are made are not ones that will come back to bite the community.
954
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
22
• Said he has been a Planning Commissioner for almost 7 years and felt he has had good personal and
professional relationships with staff and as a result of that it is painful for him, although not always
obvious, that when he was questioning them earlier, he was doing it not because he doubted their
skills, integrity, but felt the direction that the General Plan Amendments are going and to a lesser
extent some of the housing element decisions are fundamentally wrong, which will lead the
community to a deterioration of the quality of life. He said there was a phrase in one of the
conversations where somebody said that the purpose of things like community benefits are to maintain
the livability of the community. He said he would rather not approve projects that screw up the
livability of the community and then ask for something back to make it not quite as bad; and to the
extent that Cupertino is a suburban community, it doesn’t have a core downtown like San Mateo or
Palo Alto where you have a traditional downtown where it could be created to more of an urban type
setting, Cupertino is defined by two six lane strip highways; and doesn’t have the ability to be an
urban community; and to the extent that they start injecting urban type densities into the community ,
certainly unnecessarily in the case of additional office space but even in the case of residential, we
don’t have to go in the direction we do, it is extraordinarily important for us to stand up for the
citizens who aren’t here tonight who I am confident don’t support this kind of urbanization. Nothing
in the public hearings I have attended indicated that is the case; now occasionally you can frame
questions in a way that give you the answer you want; what benefits would you want in exchange for
higher density? When you frame it like that, people come up with their Christma s list.
• Mr. McKibbin said that people are not looking for high density, they expect us to maintain, to
recognize that buildings get old, they need to be changed; there will be locations that can be improved
in zoning but the residents are counting on us not to approve the kind of changes that staff is
recommending. Again I just want to re -emphasize that I have the highest regard for staff, in my
professional career I have dealt with probably 3 dozen or more planning departments throughout
California and o ur Planning Department is well above average in terms of competence and response to
citizens, but in this case the philosophy they are proposing is simply wrong.
Com. Takahashi:
• Directed the following statement to Chair Brophy: You have had a lot of opportunity to express your
strong opinion on this which is a good thing, but the rest of us have been silent on the whole general
element with regards to where we stand on this, and there is an element of equal time needed. I want
to start with Vallco because from a resident’s perspective I think there is a very widely held opinion
that the current course of that shopping center is not acceptable; it hasn’t been for quite some time and
keeping it as a retail only is not a viable solution in terms of any large scale redevelopment of that
center, and to make it viable does need other elements to make it succeed; and the staff worked very
hard in terms of trying to assess what would the community vision of Vallco look like in a successful
environment. I think it is important for the Vallco project that mixed use, adding residential and
adding office to that site is imperative for it to succeed, and so I definitely recommend we go that path
for the Vallco center. Hotels have been pretty quiet and I wanted to express my opinion on the hotels;
I feel like it is a significantly under -serviced area for the community and that it poses especially Paul
to your point in terms of adding office when you add office it tends to attract business travelers to the
region and the business travelers need a place to stay; when they stay in the city it generates revenue
for the city; it generates revenue in terms of taxes but also they eat near the hotels they stay in, so there
is further revenue that comes to the city with the restaurants. I haven’t heard any dissenting opinions
on the hotel rooms but that is to be heard, but I fully support the decision with regard to the staff and
the hotel room allocation.
• With regard to the Balanced Plan and the staff’s attempt to generate this plan that really balance is a
very strong word from the standpoint of trying to weigh varying opinions into a solution that in this
case you have got effectively nobody happy with it in terms of developers wanting more and reside nts
wanting less, so what is that balance that can be achieved. I commend staff for their efforts in trying
to reach that balance because two competing factions really generate different requirements and
955
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
23
demands of the staff; I think from the standpoint of the outlook that staff has taken, I think it is the
right outlook. I don’t necessarily feel qualified enough in terms of my own knowledge of the areas
and the heights to make a strong opinion about the heights other than the maximum heights that are
currently specified a 160 feet really seem to stick out as a very tall building in the city; likely the
tallest building we would have if allowed to go to 160 feet; so that is something I would be concerned
about. Clearly heights are sensitive near residential and the plan looks to mitigate that as best as
possible, I think that is positive. We already have an established height at Vallco that is driven by the
movie theater and allowing heights over that should just be evaluated based on what does that look
like, and what does the site look like from a clearly economic viability standpoint. Sandhill is going to
want to maximize those heights and so I think it is to Chair Brophy’s point setting those guidelines in
the General Plan and not having it discussed further, I think is a little risky.
• Marina seems like it is a good site with regard to its location; if it indeed can be a well architected site
and planned with access; so I am not sure why it didn’t make the cut, especially having a willing
owner is helpful and it is in the Heart of the City and it could fit the model and allow for achieving
some of the goals we have. The challenge that everybody has had with this plan, or that I have had
with this plan is the horizon is very far, 2040 and what I have tried to imagine is what can be done to
really keep the elements of the city we hold dear, so neighborhoods and schools are clearly high on
our list of things we want to maintain; and I think the plan as written attempts to address that; the
reasoning for growth is clear from the standpoint of you have to allow some level of growth. I think
Beverly Bryant was quoting some in terms of population and office growth, those are real numbers
that will occur around us and as a community making sure our plan takes into account what those are
and what we can comfortably work in and plan for and be at points of access and minimize impacts as
best we can is important. I am a proponent of controlled growth. If we try to choke it off completely,
that has ramifications downstream that are not healthy for a city. There has to be some level of growth
just to maintain a city’s vibrancy.
• The densities that are the housing and the housing densities proposed, my preference would be
between B and C in terms of the number of units because of the impact on population and the impact
on schools, but I feel like the growth as planned in terms of the locations and densities are where the
growth needs to happen to facilitate access to where the jobs are. With the office growth doing things
to promote housing near those offices is in the best interest of the community. I look forward to
seeing how this plays out and how the city balances the needs of the residents and property owners and
the community. We have the opportunity to continue to make Cupertino a great place to live and a
better place than we have now; the staff is really focused on applying urban development in a way that
will give us something resembling places to gather vs. the fragmented things we have now. A lot of
the development that has occurred lately is in line with that and will promote better access and a good
place to live.
Com. Gong:
• Said in line with what Com. Takahashi said, the only constant is change, and so to have a forward
vision, a strategic vision to manage the change in how we want it to be, to manage and create a vision
of incorporating the growth while keeping the essence of the city we love is necessary; we can’t have a
vision that is three years out that’s even 8 years out, 2040 vision, it will be here sooner than we know.
It is a vision, not set in stone; it’s not said that these are the elements, these will be built. It is a well
thought out plan that they hope to present. It is difficult to look out at 2040 and the elements of it, but
we have to know that there is change and she said she felt the deve lopment is somewhere in between
the zero growth voices and the Alt. C voices .
• Said she has spoken to residents who are attending some of the meetings that staff has had as well as
those not attending and there is a lot of appetite for redeveloping Vallco; no one wants to see a dying
property there; how it is developed has varied opinions; there is zero growth, zero change we have
heard, and there is total forklift, mow it down and start over. Said she felt it is in between; we know it
has to be revitalized; it can’t remain as is. Deny it and we can’t move ahead without addressing it and
956
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
24
without having a forward vision for it; it is only in our best interest so that we can maintain the city
and essence of the city that we love.
Com. Sun:
• Just want to clarify, you prefer Alt. B or just zero grow th. (Com. Gong said no, there are elements in
all of it). Said he wanted to addres s procedure, public involvement which is very important. Said he
was surprised that more stakeholders were not present at the meeting and he was deeply concerned on
how to get people involved with conceptual discussion. He suggested for future meetings they give the
public more time and more intense outreach to emphasize how important it is so they can get more
public involvement.
• Said he respected Chair Brophy and was surprised that the study session for the General Plan has been
going on for so long. We can at the beginning express some of concerns at the beginning and the
general philosophy may be wrong but at this stage we can say you prefer zero growth; most people in
this room for the business they want to make money, drive property value s up, probably go to Alt. C.
Most of the citizens in Cupertino want to maintain the balance , the urban life; they want to enjoy the
city services but want to keep quiet neighborhood; we need some balance.
• He said Cupertino is in the center of Silicon Valley; and they cannot simply ignore the development;
people flood in regardless if there is a standard of zero development or not; students come in to the
schools, for city staff or Planning Commission we still think about something happen ing in other
jurisdiction s which is why he strongly supports community benefit for bringing extra funding to the
city and solve the traffic issue.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she was concerned about jobs and housing imbalance in Cupertino and just looking at recent
developments and approvals, really concerned about Cupertino’s future, fairly concerned about air
quality, traffic that comes along with more jobs in Cupertino; do share Chair Brophy’s opinions on
that. Said she did not support a lot of increase in office; as a health care provider there are a lot of
propositions she has strong opinions on and are talking to residents; residents are asking why there are
so many housing developments; said the citizens count on the commissioners to look out for their best
interests.
• The residents are concerned about the quality of life issues and she feels it is her responsibility to
represent them. It is difficult to sit on the Planning Commission discussing additional housing units
since it is not okay with the resident, which is a reason she does not support a lot of increase in office.
Said she does not support any increase in office squares; does support some hotel rooms, supports
1,000 hotel rooms; residential because of a lot of public outcry and residents’ concerns and traffic
issues. Said she was supportive of increasing enough residential housing to meet the housing element.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he agreed that Vallco is a terrible center and will get worse; there is a secular decline in brick and
mortar shopping and two of the three anchors are clearly in a secular decline. Any revitalization of
that property will require some other uses. Said he was not opposed to the concept of housing at
Vallco, but extremely opposed to putting units into the housing element at Vallco because once you
put it in the housing element, you have basically agreed on the number of units and it is just a question
of details. Said he was willing to put in strong language about the need for Vallco to be revitalized
with a mixture of uses containing a strong retail component, but would like to see rather than give a
commitment to a developer, see a process something similar to what was done with Sandhill on the
Main Street project where they worked as the community with the developer and discussed what the
economic realities facing the developer were; but also recognized that there were limits as to what the
citizens were willing to accept. Said he hoped they could separate a statement of intent for Vallco as
opposed to making a commitment.
957
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
25
Com. Gong:
• Asked how they address the HCD requirement.
Chair B rophy:
• We are going to have to find 1400 units elsewhere; we will find a way; it will not necessarily be the
priorities staff had but a lot of the ones they set were based on preferences based on city policy not on
state policy. We have to respond to state policy but we can pick a different set of priorities as the
advisory citizen committee, but I understand that we have to find replacement units.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he could respond as he had been here since the last housing element; the answer is No, we had 12
or 13 housing elements sites last time; one was developed for housing; approving housing element
sites does not mean that they will all be housing 8 years from now. Said there was a letter from
Sandhill properties saying that staff recommendation of 1 million sq uare feet at Vallco is not sufficient
for them to redevelop it and they would like to have 2 million square feet.
Vice Chair Lee:
Stated zero earlier.
Existing General Plan which is 540,000
Said she would be open to taking the 523K of that currently in major company and making it part of a
general pot.
Com. Gong:
• In the near term A, 500,000 sq, ft, but we are looking out for 25 years, not just for 8 years ; support the
2 million extra to get 2.540 million; there is no specifics that 500K must be built in the next 8 years;
this is just a broad stroke 25 years . Said she would support it being one big pot on all the numbers
Com. Takahasi:
• Said given the time horizon he was looking at something in between A and B; would accept B but a
little apprehensive as to the total, for lack of coming up with something in between for now, Alt. B.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he would prefer to agree with Com. Lee and keep it at the existing 540,000; however to get 3
votes I will vote with Com. Sun and go for Alt. A with the hope that Com. Lee would consider casting
the deciding vote for A rather than B.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it could be dropped; no ramifications other than units with conditional uses might bump up
against a General Plan Amendment issue; but residential uses are conditional based on staff
recommendations. Our feeling is if it had to be a number it shouldn’t be such a restrictive number that
we make ourselves vulnerable; we meet the regional target. It would be saying we met our regional
target; I think that would be a much more defensible number; the alternative would be to take it out.
Said they could choose to have it; they have recommended keeping it or taking it out.
Com. Gong:
• Said she would prefer to remove the cash in -lieu contribution and also to have verbiage to enforce the
community benefit in perpetuity of the property rather than owning with the owner;
Chair Brophy:
• Said t ypically the community benefit is a one -time project; it is not ongoing.
958
Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014
26
Com. Sun:
• Three conditions; one is no cash; the service remains attached to the property, continuity
regardless if it transfers ownership; my proposal is to put a transparency procedure into the
negotiation about the community benefit; that means it is not the Council or city staff’s power to
negotiate the community benefit; it is going to have a public hearing procedure. Is that possible ?
Com. Takahashi:
• Said he was changing his vote to No.
• Said they had not touched on the topic of community shuttle which he felt was somewhat
pervasive in a lot of the community outreach meetings. It is a concept that other cities have tried
and no idea how successful they have been. Is there a reason that the smaller contract with the
VTA couldn’t be worked as opposed to creating all this infrastructure; has it been looked at?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The Public Works Department has had conversations in the past with the VTA, but staff could
have another one with them. They likely look at why would they change the current program and
what is in it for them in terms of profitability. If a case can be made for it, they may want to do it.
It would require conversation with the VTA and it has not yet been done.
The topic of heights and densities is deferred to the next meeting .
OLD B USINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No report. Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Motion by Chair Brophy, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously
carried 5 -0-0 to adjourn the meeting to the continued Public Hearing on
October 20, 2014 at 6:45 p.m.
• The meeting was adjourned to the continued public hearing on October 20, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
959
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVED AMENDED MINUTES
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6:45 P.M. OCTOBER 20, 2014 MONDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The adjourned Planning Commission meeting of October 20 , 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
Senior Planner: Piu Ghosh
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Letter from L. Wang, Marina Foods
Letter from Stevens Creek Office Park
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR : None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Robert McKibbin, resident:
Said he read the report relating to Vallco, and read terms like active community gathering place,
regional destinations, town center style project, mixed use pedestrian oriented; have heard a lot of
these terms before and don’t get regional retail locations out of these projects; basically get high rise
office buildings and large parking structures and hotels, not the retail that these kind give an
impression of. Mr. McKibbin stated that Vice Chair Lee pointed out at one of the meetings about how
she was dissatisfied with Main Street because it was essentially mainly office space and hotel and not a
regional retail location. He continued by stating that for the Vallco area, the same language is being
used and there is discussion about 600,000 sq. ft. of retail which is fairly fine; 600 housing units is
being proposed to be developed at Vallco. It must be kept in mind that Rosebowl is 200 units, which
means that it would mean putting three Rosebowls in this location along with everything else. Also
375 hotel rooms are being planned; not to mention the proposal for a million sq. ft. of office space.
Vallco is not a regional retail location like Stanford or some of the others in the area; it is different.
960
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 October 20, 2014
He went on to state that Chair Brophy and Com. Sun discussed the reasons the public was not coming
out to the meetings and engaging; part of the reason is that it is hard to grasp these numbers and
visualize it. He used the example of Rosebowl because it is built already and it is a big structure with
200 housing units . If this information was presented in that light to the public and citizens adjacent to
Vallco , one would have 200 people out to the hearing talking about it; but because people cannot
visualize what is being proposed, they are missing what is happening. Also mentioned that this is one
project; there are dozens of projects throughout the city for which a zoning change and change to the
development criteria is being considered.
Cupertino is built to capacity; there is a carrying capacity for everything and what appears with the
numbers under study is capacity is being maxed now and with these new proposals over-extend it all.
There are several alternatives written in the program; one of them is to leave the zoning as is especially
at Vallco and he would recommend that because if the developer wants to add these things, they can
come to the Planning Commission and City Council and say they want to change the zoning. This is
doing it backwards; they are saying they want all of this without giving a concrete proposal as to its
location, what it will look like, etc.
Said he zeroed in on Vallco because he went to a lot of the planning meetings ; the public was there,
and in his opinion, the vast majority of the public do not want this type of development; the vast
majority of the citizens said they wanted retail and not a huge housing development, no huge offices,
nor a huge hotel area.
Peggy Griffin, resident:
Said she attended study sessions where residents said they did not want housing or office, but keep
Vallco retail; and now both are going to go in. This General Plan is supposed to be an amendment but
it feels like a rewrite, and when looking at what has already been built going down Stevens Creek and
Tantau across the street there is a nice office building set back with trees and grass; across the street it
is in-your-face concrete and on Blaney and Stevens Creek it is the same thing. The Biltmore was a
nice apartment complex but what has been added looks tacky, cheap and concrete and not wanted in
Cupertino. They need retail, big spaces, not little shops; Target and Whole Foods have been
successful. Please keep the big chunks of retail; they are needed.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she was concerned about how large the General Plan Amendment is getting. There are supposed
to be 7 sites, not housing sites, under the General Plan that were to be looked at for possible
redevelopment; then under the housing element part umbrella of this project, there are a number of
sites that are under the domaines of the state. Said she was not sure which one of those Vallco was on;
still confused as to how they ended up on the housing element and would like to ask questions or have
someone talk about when there are properties under the housing element.
Properties are going into the housing element as they have a number of properties here; There are
shopping centers, retail sites, etc., some apartment complexes; said she assumed that as of January
when the housing element is adopted by the state, at that time those properties are rezoned at the
higher density. How would that affect Vallco; how would it affect their property value; does that mean
that henceforth Vallco would have a housing element number on it? What does that do to the property
value? There are a number of sites: Marina, the Oaks, and shopping centers; if DeAnza College came
in and decided they wanted to put their property up as a housing element, would that mean the college
would get rezoned as higher density housing? Could someone explain that? When one has a site as
big as Vallco, the public needs to be informed of what is happening; the public has put years into
studying and understanding Vallco even when it was under the Redevelopment Agency and are still
struggling to understand it, nobody wanted apartments at Vallco.
Chair Brophy:
Asked staff to respond to some of the points raised, the role of the housing element is vs. the GPA
961
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October 20, 2014
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager, responded to concerns raised by three speakers relating
to the role of the housing element vs. the General Plan Amendment:
The General Plan was started because there were about 7 applicants who had General Plan
Amendment requests and the idea was not to do them separately because that is one of the complaints
the city received from the public when one gets projects one at a time; the idea was to combine all of
them to understand better what the impact would be on the entire city. At the same time the city got its
final housing element numbers, and as Com. Brophy pointed out, this is a state requirement where
every city is required to plan for a certain number of units and because they came in at the same time,
they were combined because that would give everybody a good sense of the changes that would have
to be made in the community. That is the genesis of why this project has all the elements it has.
At the previous meeting, the Commission took straw votes on development allocations and on the
community benefits and there are the other issues of heights, housing element sites, densities and the
issue of Vallco.
CONSENT CALENDAR : None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. GPA-2013-01, Z-2013-01 EIR, General Plan Amendment, Housing Element, Rezoning
(EA-2013) GPA -2013-02 Municipal Code Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment.
MCA-2014-01 Recommend certification of final EIR and adoption of findings,
SPA-2014-01 statement of overriding considerations and MMRP to the City
Citywide Location City Council. Continued from the October 14, 2014 meeting
City of Cupertino Tentative City Council hearing date: November 3 , 2014.
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager, s ummarized results of the October 14, 2014 meeting
discussion/action:
Citywide development allocation: 5-0 straw vote to eliminate the residential allocation numbers
Commercial: No change to staff recommendation
Hotel: 5-0 straw vote to add 1,000 hotel rooms to the hotel allocation
Office: 3-2 straw vote to pick Alt. A, 500,000 sq. ft. additional and to eliminate the major company
office allocation pool so they could be combined together
Community Benefits Program: 3-2 straw vote not to have one.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said there were three issues that called for the Commission’s preference on which one to take first;
the heights issues, the housing elements sites issue, and Vallco.
Heights
Vice Chair Lee:
What is the height the Hamptons wanted?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said 85 was the tallest height; received letter from Hamptons that having consulted with Apple they
were okay with the recommendation of the balanced plan. The current height limit is 60 feet.
Relative to heights, she said they can help determine what heights they want; the discussion of heights
in the heights map at least in the balanced plan Alt. A, B, and C reflect the densities on the housing
element sites as well. If the Commission was interested in going with a certain density on a certain
housing element site, staff could help with what height would be needed to build that density. They
962
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 20, 2014
would go back to the height issue when doing the housing element; they could decide they wanted to
do the housing element first.
Chair Brophy:
For sites that are potentially housing element sites but also could be used for non-housing purposes,
they can cover the Hamptons; can they have different sets of heights?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they could; some of the sites in the study area; at least 4 areas where housing was not proposed
are the Stevens Creek office site, City Center site, Cupertino Inn as well as the Kimpco Hotel site;
those are 4 sites in the study areas where their first choice was not to put in housing; they wanted to
put in either office or hotel, but they had requested height limits to be increased. That’s an example of
sites where there wouldn’t be housing element sites but the height issue would still come up as an
issue. Said they currently have that as density, if the Commission wanted that as heights that could be
done.
Housing Element
Chair Brophy:
Said he already expressed his concerns to staff last week, his views are different of what priorities
would be; the issue was clearly raised by the three speakers tonight and revolves around Vallco. He
said he felt that in order for Vallco to be redeveloped, it has limited future as a purely retail facility,
and no matter how much they may want that, it has clearly been declining. There are universal
declines in brick and mortar retail and most importantly two of the three anchors there have serious
declines in their business nationwide, so it’s not going to survive. Some sort of mixed use would be
planned but Vallco should not be in the housing element site. He strongly urged that they discuss later
about how best to handle it in the General Plan Amendment , but on the housing element he would not
want to see any units assigned to Vallco.
Com. Gong:
One of the speakers asked for clarification if a site is on the housing element , how would the current
zoning be affected?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said some sites don’t currently allow housing, e.g., the Oaks, so the zoning would change to put in
housing; some sites already allow housing and in that case they would be permitted to build housing; it
all depends on the sites. The city would have to change the zoning to make that happen; that is part of
the mandate.
Com. Sun:
What was the Housing Commission’s recommendation for sites?
Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner:
The action item that the Housing Commission voted on is looking at the priority of the sites as
opposed to specifically recommending sites as housing element sites; they looked at the criteria that
staff and HCD had identified and based on that there was a recommended sites list; the sites were
prioritized based on that and the Housing Commission agreed or recommended that the Planning
Commission use that criteria to prioritize the sites that would have been recommended. The Housing
Commission agreed with the priority listed, but they weren’t asked to finalize the list of sites.
963
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 20, 2014
Chair Brophy:
Said he had concerns about the criteria for site selection; the ones that HCD sets were locked in and
those are logical ones from a regulatory agency but he disagreed with some of the ones that have been
added by the city. Said he felt criteria that are unreasonably eliminating sites located on major
transportation routes with access to transit or within half mile of VTA priority development area and
also located near higher density housing in close proximity to employment and activity centers. Said
his concern with these criteria is the reality in Cupertino of the extreme low use of public
transportation by people who live anywhere in the town; the only people who ride the bus are those
who have no access to cars. Santa Clara County is a sprawling suburban location and to the extent we
would say that, i.e., the Biltmore on Stevens Creek Blvd. is a better location because it is in the
transportation corridor; however, in fact a maximum of 1% or 2% of the people take the bus; we
should not choose locations on Stevens Creek over locations that are not on Stevens Creek.
As a general planning principle it works fine in places where you have substantial use of public
transportation to work, but he said he didn’t see how choosing one location over another in town
would change the use of public transportation.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they recognize that presently the public transit is not at a level that makes it easy to use; however,
VTA has plans for certain areas. The Commission doesn’t have to agree; staff is fine with wherever it
is put in. Said all they have to go by are the plans that VTA has because the city doesn’t plan public
transportation but they look at the planned routes. Stevens Creek/DeAnza is a VTA priority
development area ; if any transportation improvements are going to come in, that’s going to be the
location; no other part of town is going to have it.
The second idea is and this may or may not be of interest to the Planning Commission; transportation
state funding is moving more towards giving cities funding for infrastructure and planning in those
PDA’s; so the city over the years may stand to gain some additional help in building infrastructure in
these areas rather than in any other areas.
The final reason they did this is one of the big community concerns with housing was school impacts.
While these are not specifically supposed to be considered, areas where housing has been proposed are
most likely going to be areas that have the lively town center formats that will be more attractive to
young workers or active seniors and that helps with the school impacts. It doesn’t mean the
Commission has to agree with them; the Commission is free to recommend other sites. Said to the
extent that every one of these sites has multiple ownerships, it becomes difficult to convince HCD
(State Department of Housing and Community Development ) that these are going to happen in the
next 8 years; therefore, they would recommend a balance of sites to go with a strong list to HCD that
meets HCD criteria because time is an issue. Once they forward the draft it takes about 60 days to
respond and because time could run out, they want to go in with a good list.
There is not a lot of time for back and forth discussion.
Vice Chair Lee:
Asked Chair Brophy what he was proposing if he was saying that purely retail will not work due to
declining retail and big box shopping. Said they discussed office at the last meeting and how they
would be further imbalanced if they add office; talking about 40 acres or something in the Vallco
Shopping district; the only other thing is residential; it says Alt. C or balanced plan 600 or 800.
Chair Brophy:
Said his argument was that he did not know what will happen to Vallco; it will get worse and it will
have to be redeveloped but absent an owner who comes in with a specific plan, he believes that
housing can play a role at Vallco; but at this time he was not willing to put Vallco onto the housing
element sites list where in effect the city has given the presumption that housing will be approved at
any site on the housing element. Said he was happy to put language in the General Plan saying they
964
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 20, 2014
understand that it is badly in need of redevelopment and it will likely include mixed use but he was
not willing to commit the city. Said he would look at other sites; leally they have 1002 units that have
to be approved by HCD which converts into having 1400 to send to them to allow for their refusing or
downgrading sites, but they have to propose 1400 units. He said he had ones that are on the low list or
no list at all that he submitted to staff, and they can provide their impressions.
Shared his insights; said he would add units in the Hamptons; the letter received from Irvine Co.
points out that there is no way the owner of the Hamptons can justify tearing down 340 units and
replacing them with 600+ units. Given the unique location of the Hamptons, where it is immediately
adjoining a 14,000 employee campus; it doesn’t come near any residential areas; it would be mid-rise
housing with a limited number of school children; it is next to the Hwy 280 interchange that he would
look at numbers similar to what the Irvine Co. has requested in the letter. They state that adding 344
units would not justify tearing down the existing 342; they are requesting permission to build 1,090
which is a net new increase of 748. A significant percentage of the people living there would be
working at the Apple 2 campus. Concerns that staff have is that it is a large number on a single site
and HCD may look askance at that type of request.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they could say they had 6 sites on the current list and want to keep that many regardless of how
many the Commission may want to give one site or the other because last time they had 13 sites; the
idea if they have a couple of sites and meet all of the unit requirements, the odds of convincing HCD
about those redeveloping are much lower. They might have a chance to do a lot of back and forth if
they had a lot of time and they don’t.
Chair Brophy:
Said the first place to look for housing is the 748 number that the Irvine Co. mentioned in their
October 14 letter.
Com. Gong:
Suggested since they started on this path, to consider buildup to the HCD numbers with sites that they
want to put forward; not 13 but the 6 or 7 that city staff is looking to put forward.
Chair Brophy:
Said he supported that; if they drop out the 600 from Vallco, they will need more than that; perhaps
two or three sites to replace Vallco. In terms of the discussion during the last housing element, one
aspect that HCD has been most willing to be responsive to, is on apartment complexes built in the 60s
or 70s at much lower densities and that could reasonably be upgraded, similar to what was done with
other projects where they squeezed in more. One place to look at more would be the Villages, adding
it to Glenbrook. HCD has expressed some concern that these sites were on the last housing element
and nothing happened.
Com. Gong:
Said if they are looking at the current recommended housing list and already bumped Hamptons up to
748 rather than the 344, they are only looking at other 400ish units; not looking at a critical mass.
Chair Brophy:
Said it would be a net increase of just over 400; they are down 200 if throw out Vallco; 235 units at
the Oaks; the Oaks is an example of a center that also has seen better days; 235 is a high number there
and suggestion to staff is they look at a number half that and that would still allow for a substantial
development right on Stevens Creek Blvd that would minimize impacts on school enrollment and on
traffic in residential areas , and still allow for a small rebuilding of a neighborhood shopping center that
serves the DeAnza community as well as the residential area there. Said he thought the number was
965
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October 20, 2014
120 that he suggested to staff, which would require them to find between the first three if they raised
the Hamptons by 400, dropped 600 at Vallco and a little over a 100 at the Oaks, would have 300 to
make up. The first one that jumps out to make up for it just sticking to the top list, Glenbrook is 517
units existing and it’s presently 20 units to the acre; that is a much lower density than would be built
today on that parcel; nobody would build that low density; said by his calculations at 30 to the acre
they would get 265 additional.
In terms of large numbers, one would be the Villages, the same sort of thing; 20 per acre, if going to
30, that’s another 265; another site along Stevens Creek, that would be less likely to affect school
enrollment is Stevens Creek Office Center which they had requested.
Those are the 3 big ones; Glenbrook going from 20 to 30; Villages going from 20 to 30 and Stevens
Creek Office Center at 214 with 40 per acre with 60 ft. height as was originally suggested. If you take
away the 600 from Vallco out of the housing element and take away half the units at the Oaks as he
suggested, there are still plenty of places to meet the state requirement; but if the majority want to put
the Vallco units into the housing element, then much of this is moot.
Com. Sun:
Expressed his concern about Vallco; everyone is concerned about how to revitalize Vallco as a center
of Cupertino; he said at this stage he was not clear if they entirely take Vallco out of the housing
element, is it good for the future planning to have a mixed use center? Said he might prefer to keep
some element of housing there; perhaps reduce from 600 to some number to give the developer some
room to revitalize some incentive as some residents are going to have concerns; they have some
preconditions; they have to have continued study session and make sure because they have already
held 3 study sessions. He said he was surprised that it came to the Planning Commission with 600
housing element which is contrary with the former 3 study sessions with the public input. Said he
wanted Cupertino to have the capacity to revitalize Vallco as nobody is happy with its current state.
Said for housing purposes, he felt 200 to 400 is possible but they have to have a pre-condition. He said
he did not feel confident about the transportation in that area. If they put 400 units or 200 units and
combine with mixed use, the public transportation problem has to be solved within that certain area
because it is going to be a traffic congested area; so far there is no clear picture or solution for that. If
the Vallco element is put there, it is going to cause more trouble.
Com. Gong:
Asked Com. Sun if he was proposing that there be public input and that the developer must come up
with a viable traffic mitigation plan?
Com. Sun:
Yes, it is the second condition; we need some number to the public and developer from economic
reasoning, what is the number they can have as an incentive to revitalize the center?
Barbara Coutts, Consulting Attorney:
Said in terms of the sites and the adequacy of the sites the test is whether there is evidence in the
record that the sites can be developed in the way you show them in the housing element in the next 8
years. The issue about a traffic mitigation condition is that if it didn’t seem like something that could
be resolved and it made it questionable whether the site would be developed that could be problematic ;
that is what the test is; whether it seems that the sites have the capability of being developed at the
density that you are showing in the housing element in the next 8 years.
Com. Sun:
The second issue for the top priority is the lease, have some uncertainty about the ownership and the
future construction; if there is nothing happening in the next 8 or 10 years. If there is no transaction
happening so the potential buyer couldn’t build any house; is it possible to put some certain
966
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October 20, 2014
ownership; they have a concrete plan to build there to put into the priority list; what is the logic there?
Consulting Attorney:
Paraphrased Com. Sun’s question; if he would like to say that you can be in the priority list if you have
a concrete plan to develop? The difficulty is you have to submit the plan to HCD now as your
Community Development Director is telling you and if you wanted to have that kind of condition, they
would have to meet it now.
If you are planning 8 years into the future you don’t know what is going to happen; what you have to
have in your housing element now is your best projection based on what the owners have indicated
their interest in and what you know now about which sites are likely to be developed in the next 8
years, recognizing that 8 years is a long time. Staff tried to pick sites where the owners had shown an
interest in redevelopment; not sites where someone said they have no interest in doing anything
anytime, so to the extent that you can know the future right now, these are the sites that seem likely to
develop.
Chair Brophy:
Said they need to resolve Vallco first; If they don’t include Vallco in the housing element, there is
nothing that prevents a future Planning Commission and City Council from approving a project that
has a thousand units there if they so desire. He doesn’t want to lock the city into a situation where in
effect they are telling the developer they are guaranteeing them that he will have 600 or 300 units and
then the burden is on the city to prove that the scheme he is proposing is not desirable. Said he did not
have a problem with saying that Vallco needs to be reused; said his objection is having it as a housing
element site.
Com. Gong:
Said her concern with Vallco now is that there is not a plan; there is still fragmented ownership as it
stands and going forward without any plan other than this is their dream. Said she was hesitant to allot
them the maximum amount of housing they are looking for without understanding and without having
community input into what will transpire. She is hesitant to add it to the list now for the next 8 years.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said she could support removing it from the housing element site; a maximum of up to 200 units, but
there are other sites they could give more housing units to and not add additional housing elements to
the list.
Com. Gong:
Because as Chair Brophy said, it doesn’t preclude them from having one buyer come in and drawing
up plans and presenting them to the city and public; there is nothing to stop them from proceeding.
They are discussing the housing element list; if they don’t include them it doesn’t prelude them from
moving forward.
Chair Brophy:
Noted for the record that they received a letter from Sandhill Properties saying that they have all the
parcels under control and would like to move forward; the staff suggestion was 600 units in the
housing element and one million square feet of office; Sandhill requested two million sq. ft. of office.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Explained the reason it was put in the housing element by staff, once they had 1400 units worth of
housing, adding more housing in the city could be an issue and they were trying to achieve a number
of goals with the housing element and not necessarily require more housing to achieve the goals. If the
Commission feels otherwise and they feel they could support other uses of Vallco regardless in
967
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October 20, 2014
addition to the housing element, that is a recommendation they can make.
Chair Brophy:
Said they were presently addressing only the housing element. Ms. Shrivastava’s point is if they
approve all these others they will be built and then they will come back and somebody request housing
at Vallco, although as pointed out in the last meeting, they had 12 or 13 sites and only one got
developed in the previous housing element round.
Aarti Shrivastava:
The difference between then and now if there wasn’t a lot of owner interest solicited at the time where
people didn’t come in with sites; this time it is changing and HCD is looking for some of that. Said
they could review the level of interest with all the owners of the recommended sites. She reviewed the
sites where they have received interest from the property owners. The Oaks, Vallco, Hamptons, and
Barry Swenson is another site a developer is looking at for affordable housing. In terms of United
Furniture and Glenbrook no active letters have been received; but staff ensured that all the owners of
all those sites have received letters from the city saying that they have been recommended or are being
looked at as a housing element site. Relative to the Swenson site, there is a developer who is looking
to purchase the site for an affordable housing project in partnership related to another project. Noted
that sites 4, 5 and 6 are existing housing element sites; they are currently in the 2007-2014 housing
element.
Piu Ghosh:
Said they had not heard anything new from them so recommended removal; it is site at the southwest
corner of Homestead and Stelling, church (not reflected on the list).
Aarti Shrivastava:
Reported that they have interest from Marina Plaza, Stevens Creek Office had requested a density of
40 units per acre at one point; have not received active interest on the part of sites 9, 10, 11 or 12; 13 ;
do have interest at 40 units per acre. This is the final list consisting of items 14 and 15; 14 have not
received any letters; 15 the property owner had some questions about it and not sure if they received a
No or Yes from them.
Piu Ghosh:
We have not yet heard a No from property owner; however there was someone looking at potentially
redeveloping it ; 16 and 17 interest, 18 no owner interest received in redeveloping the site at this time;
18 is on the current housing element; 14, and 15 are currently on the housing element list.
Chair Brophy:
Said he was willing to move away from Stevens Creek to get some of the units; the Hamptons begin
with over 748 units if they are approved by the request of Irvine Co. in their letter; looking at the
Villages according to the numbers, if you take an existing complex at 20 and go to 30 which is well
below what new projects are being built, that would be 265; Glenbrook the same thing going from 20
to 30 would give you 305; thought the Karl Berg site was not at 30 per acre, 203 units at 25 per acre,
169; this is an existing housing element site; an office complex at the north end of Bandley (next to the
Villages). On the Aria scan design the reluctance of the staff is because it is a mid-block site and it is
only a couple of acres to begin with. He suggested if it was made into a housing unit, that it be
included with the credit union building and the gas station with the understanding that it would involve
a site assembly of 3 parcels which is less than ideal, but in a fully developed community like
Cupertino, not uncommon for what happens if we look at the example of the Biltmore expansion that
was 3 parcels. He said the Aria site was not a big site but if it could be expanded to the corner, you
would get 87 units at 25 per acre. Said he removed Loree Shopping Center which was one of the ones
968
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 October 20, 2014
on that list; the Barry Swenson Cyprus building site was combined; didn’t realize there was somebody
interested in the Barry Swenson site, but the Cyprus property next to it gives 5.53 acres; at 25 or 30
you would be at 116 to 139; United Furniture site at 25 to 30 is 103 to 124; the two sites on Foothill,
Foothill and McClellan don’t have a problem with them, they are not very large; those are what they
are requesting, it is 19 units and 27 units; Stevens Creek Office Center which is the office center that
includes the Panera and Peets; they requested 40 per acre; 60 foot height at 214 units; that seems a
little high; would consider 35 per acre at 187 units, although I would be willing to go to 40 if that’s
what we need to meet our target; the last one is the Granite Rock Summerwinds on So. DeAnza there
at 40 per acre, 154 units, that seemed high to me; I thought maybe 35 per acre would get you down to
135 units; and the last site not on the list this is the parking lot in City Center which the owners are
cognizant of but haven’t responded formally. The argument there would be the parking lot if you put
an apartment building, this is the one example where I would look at a higher height, an apartment
building at the same height as the neighboring apartment building; I don’t have a count for that but
would guess it’s 75 or 80 units.
There is a parking lot next to an apartment building; not sure if it is La Boulinger; there is a residential
along Stevens Creek, all of it is City Center. If you use the parking lot and put another apartment
building there, no taller than the existing one, you could get 75 units.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Depends on the density you want to build it at; you could get up to 130 units on that site if you built it
at the same density as Montebello.
Chair Brophy:
Said that concluded his list which he has discussed with staff for some time and wrote them out as
possible sites.
Com. Gong:
Said it was 12 properties well over the 6 or 7; trying to give lots of options. That’s not all
recommended, there are some alternates.
Chair Brophy:
Said those are the ones he would be comfortable with; some more so than others. The two on Foothill
are small; the Bateh Bros. and Foothill McClellan site ; staff is not enthused by those.
Com. Gong:
Stated her recommendations; said as a result of listening to the community and developers her list
included the Oaks at 150, Hamptons at 748, United Furniture at 103, Barry Swenson property since
learning there is a possible developer for affordable housing it goes to the top even though it is at 11
units; Glenbrook at 300, the Marina at 232, and the Bateh Bros. at 19. It distributes the housing
element sites amongst the city limits instead of concentrating it in the Stevens Creek corridor which is
what was heard from the community, that they would like more distributed options. This feels like
more distributed, sharing the burden, the game plan; they are looking for about 1400 units. Oaks 235,
no talk about Vallco; if putting a number it would be 200, Hamptons 748; balance the plan 344
additional, either meet their requirement or zero.
Chair Brophy:
Clarified they are talking about tearing down 320 units, but said they can’t tear down 320 top of the
line apartment units to build 700 to get the only 700; would you agree that the original staff
recommendation of 344 is not a viable option?
969
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 October 20, 2014
Com. Sun:
748 for Hamptons; United Furniture drop off the list; 11 for Barry Swenson, small, don’t care; keep
the 11 there; Glenbrook keep it at 93; agree with Gong to up No. 7 Marina Plaza to 200.
Vice Chair Lee:
Oaks 150, Gong said as well; Hamptons 748, United Furniture 103, Barry Swenson 11, Glenbrook
300; the last two sites Village 265 and delete Karl Berg.
Chair Brophy:
Oaks 120, Hamptons 748, United Furniture 103, Glenbrook 300, Villages 265, Stevens Creek Office
Center 35 to the acre which is 187. One center not discussed is Summerwinds. (staff said it is on the
alternatives sites list and they could bring up the numbers if they wished to.
Said he would look at Granite Rock Summerwinds at 35 to the acre ; get 135 and Marina Plaza, which
was not included. Said it is a mini version of his my argument against Vallco; it is a thriving retail
center and to give them 200 to 230 units he said he was not convinced that they could effectively
develop that many units to use. Mr. McKibbins termed another Rosebowl there and still make the
retail work on that site. If they were to come in with a plan requesting a conditional use of 25 to the
acre he would consider it, look at their plan, make sure it still works as an effective retail; but for
housing element purposes he was not willing to include that or the housing element.
He reviewed the sites where there is most agreement. Summarized that all have included Hamptons at
748; all have Oaks on the list; Chair Brophy has 120, 150 two people and 235 is Com. Sun, 150 Com.
Lee and Com. Gong. Com. Sun said he would go with majority under 150. Said he felt they could get
Barry Swenson out of the way;
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they can go to United 103, 3 people for United Furniture; (Don did not have United 103) and
Barry Swenson and Glenbrook 300, 3 people and Sun have 93; Glenbrook ahead of United Furniture;
just counting Hamptons, Oaks, Barry Swenson and Glenbrook we are just over 1200; Glenbrook 3
people. Vice Chair Lee and Chair Brophy put Villages down for 265; neither of you put Villages;
what is your feeling on Villages? Com. Sun feels Villages too crowded; difficult to put housing there.
Com. Gong prefers Summerwinds over Villages, but if a compromise, would ask for Summerwinds
and a reduction on villages.
Chair Brophy:
Summerwinds put 35 to the acre; 135 units. Com. Gong has Summerwinds on list also; not okay at 135
for Com. Sun.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said her concern was a small lot and the height would jump up; stand out a lot. Com. Gong ok with
Summerwinds at 96 since it is a smaller lot and further out; 25 units to the acre at 35, it should be in
the 45 foot range and might have to build smaller units to get within 45; if it is still 45 that’s ok that is
most of the height; 3 floors; Com. Gong can compromise on 96 at the 25.
Chair Brophy:
There is nothing to prevent a developer from coming in and asking for more; question of housing
element here; Granite Rock Summerwinds at 96, just about 1400. How does anyone feel about
Stevens Creek Office Center? Is he the only one for that one?
Com. Gong:
As opposed to come somewhere in between on the Villages? Is Com. Sun at zero at Villages,
Summerwinds.
970
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 October 20, 2014
Com. Sun:
Yes on Villages; can go with 96 for Summerwinds; consensus on 96.
Chair Brophy reviewed:
748 Hamptons; 150 Oaks; 11 Barry Swenson; 96 Granite Rock/Summerwinds; 3 votes for 300 at
Glenbrook; 3 votes for United at 103; gets to 1408; Is more needed to go to Council?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Give time to look at the sites; may need more time to look at the HCD criteria but the numbers look
good and the numbers sites are good. If Granite Rock is approved at 25 the heights would be in the 45
foot range. Does anyone want to give the City Council any alternatives over 1400?
Com. Gong:
Willing to look at the Villages at not the 265; perhaps 100 … alternative sites for the Council.
Chair Brophy:
The Villages at their existing zoning of 20 according to the earlier studies, you could gain 62 just by
going up to 20; tey could add 62 under their existing zoning; it is simply going to 100.
Com. Sun:
The traffic on Wolfe and Homestead is going to be jammed; perhaps take the Villages off the list;
don’t put it from alternative up to the priority. Said he visited Marina Foods who intends to put in
some mixed use whether they are given enough housing to build it and he said they need to listen to
them because the ownership is fairly certain whether they are given an upgrade from 140 to 200.
Most of the priority list is Oaks, Vallco and some others; the ownership is uncertain; for Marina
Foods this traffic is closing to cross street DeAnza and Stevens Creek and if senior housing element is
there, it is putting about 10% to 2% senior active element there. It is good for the future of
Cupertino’s seniors to stay there because Cupertino is now 35 to 40% seniors already; they downsize
from big house to small house; it is the only place to reduce traffic to put some seniors there.
Chair Brophy:
Said they had the issue come up last week; asked the consulting attorney if they could create a
housing element site that would be limited to senior housing.
Consulting Attorney:
Explained there are issues about limiting sites to senior housing when the owner has not requested to
build senior housing there; there is a protection in the Fair Housing laws both state and federal laws
against discriminating against families with children; whereas if an owner requests senior housing
there are ways to do it, but if a city requires that the only housing is senior housing, there could be a
fair housing issue, so it is not something she would advise.
Chair Brophy:
Said it was his understanding that if they put it in the housing element, they cannot make it subject to
being senior housing.
Com. Sun:
Said he didn’t want to mandate senior housing, just express his concern for the seniors and said they
can ask the owner if they are willing to do the senior housing; senior housing has two types, either
long term senior care related or just active senior housing.
971
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 October 20, 2014
Aarti Shrivastava:
At this point what might make sense given that there are six sites being recommended, is to read it off
the list and say if the priority is correct; then go to the sites the Commission may want to remove
entirely or leave the rest of them on the alternative sites list and talk about what densities those might
be. The Hamptons is one, the Oaks two, United Furniture is three, Barry Swenson four, Glenbrook
five, Granite Rock Summerwinds six; that is the list at this time. The alternative sites list: the Villages
100 units; and we can determine if the Commission wants to add other sites to that alternative sites list.
Chair Brophy:
Said he spoke against the Marina; and two have spoken in support of it.
Com. Gong:
Said at the previous meeting she asked for clarification; currently Marina is zoned for housing (Aarti
Shrivastava: mixed use/residential is allowed at 25 units).
Vice Chair Lee:
Said she did not support putting them on housing element site.
Chair Brophy:
Said they were at a 2/2 draw; if presenting it to the Council on Marina, what number are we divided on
here; are you interested in the 145 or the 204? It is a conditional use, not a permitted use.
Com. Gong:
They are already allowed 145.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Presently those are permitted uses; the proposal is to make mixed use/residential sites that are not
housing element sites conditional, but that is not the case at this time.
Chair Brophy:
Said since they are split, he was not opposed to the idea of residential, just concerned about it being on
the housing element, but if both want it, need to know what number to put down for the Council to
consider.
Com. Gong/Com. Sun agreed:
Would like as an alternative at 204.
Chair Brophy summarized:
Straw Vote on individual Housing Element sites :
Recommended sites:
1. Hamptons (748 units), 4 votes, Com.Takahashi absent
2. Oaks (150 units), Com. Takahashi absent
3. United Furniture (103 units), 3 votes; Com. Sun No, Com. Takahashi absent
4. Barry Swenson (11 units), 4 votes; Com. Takahashi absent
5. Glenbrook (300 units), 3 votes; Com. Sun No, Com. Takahashi absent
6. Granite Rock/Summerwinds (96 units), 4 votes; Com. Takahashi absent
(Total 1,408)
972
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 October 20, 2014
Alternative Sites:
1. Villages (92 units), 3 votes; Com. Sun No, Com. Takahashi absent
2. Marina Plaza (204 units), 2/2 vote with Coms. Gong and Sun Yes; Chair Brophy, Vice Chair
Lee No; Com. Takahashi absent
3. Carl Berg (169 units), vote 2/2, Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee Yes; Coms. Sun and Gong No;
Com. Takahashi absent.
(Total 465 units on alternative sites for total of 1,873 for City Council consideration)
Final Vote on Housing Element sites: 4 votes
o Recommended sites and units 1-6 above
o Alternate sites and units, 1-3 above
Aarti Shrivastava:
Only height change is Granite Rock and Hamptons; Hamptons will be as recommended in the Plan.
The Oaks was recommended at 45 feet, 60 with retail. Response: make it 45 . It is not a housing
element site, but will ask the question about Vallco later. Density recommended for Glenbrook is 30
dwelling units; the current height is 30 feet; it would be hard to achieve that; it would need a height of
45 ft.
Heights
Chair Brophy:
As staff defines it, question 3; does the Planning Commission have any recommended changes to the
balanced plan; do we have any recommended changes to the height recommended in the special areas
here?
North Crossroads Node
Aarti Shrivastava:
The Oaks to stay at 45; North Crossroads Node includes (shown on overhead) properties from
Stevens Creek office all the way to DeAnza Blvd. and includes about half the depth of the Whole
Foods; recommended at 45 or 60 with retail, the idea being if somebody were building office in the
area because as recalls the recommendation was to put in a certain amount of office and it is up to the
Planning Commission to decide if they wanted the current heights at/or 45 feet.
Com. Gong:
Said if going to increase heights anywhere, the north corner would be the corner from 45 to 60.
Vice Chair Lee:
Staff talked about the Oaks as well; a lot of people want to see the Oaks redeveloped; the city doesn’t
have a lot of conference space ; not talking about Oaks but most of the city is 45 feet so if discussing
about increasing heights along DeAnza it changes the look and feel of Cupertino; lot of folks don’t
want to change the look and feel of it as you drive down Stevens Creek or DeAnza.
Said she would propose to increase heights for the Hamptons; if there is a need to have a professional
meeting, there is no conference center space and they have to go to San Jose. There are some
proposals to increase height for a conference center space but don’t know of any in the Oaks but most
of the city is 45 feet. Would not support increasing an entire street; increase the height, it increases
the intensity and a lot more traffic.
Relative to traffic, if you increase heights there will be more people and more intensity, then more
traffic; said she would just increase heights because they have a reason to.
973
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 October 20, 2014
Chair Brophy:
For the north crossroads node you would go with keeping it as is; flat 45.
Com. Sun:
The permits for that area is linked; agree with Com. Gong for 45 foot height with 60 retail.
Chair Brophy:
Probably more along the lines with Vice Chair Lee, go with 45 with 60 ft retail, for 3/1; that area is
pretty well built out and it won’t have much effect.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Explained the recommendation; there are currently taller buildings in that area, but the current heights
in the General Plan are 45 feet which is 3 stories and the recommendation was to go 60 and 75 with
retail but only in the asterisked areas which is the parking lot in general. They could go to 90 with
community benefits; however, the Commission has decided not to go with community benefits, hence
they are looking for a general recommendation on height.
Chair Brophy:
Said he was pushing for converting the parking lot to a midrise office building but if that is not in the
works would keep the existing heights, because people were unhappy when City Center was built;
and unless they are helping to solve the housing element problem, he would just like to keep any new
development at the existing level.
Com. Sun:
Said he agreed.
Com. Gong:
Said she agreed with what Vice Chair Lee said previously ; if there is not a reason, they shouldn’t
change it at this point.
Chair Brophy: Unanimous on that one.
Straw Vote: North Crossroads Node – No Change – 4 votes
Piu Ghosh:
South Vallco Park, currently 45 ft or 60 ft with retail, no change.
Aarti Shrivastava:
North DeAnza Blvd. special area: current heights are 45; we are recommending 60; all office; the
current Apple buildings are 60 feet.
Chair Brophy:
Agrees with Vice Chair Lee; don’t see why they want to add more; there is nothing there to
redevelop.
Aarti Shrivastava:
The existing office sites; you could redesign a site, keep it the same: current is 45; it is being
recommended at 60 ft. Heights used to be 60 in that area; that is why they could build at 60; staff
recommendation is to bring it back to 60.
Coms. Gong, Sun, Lee and Brophy: support 60
974
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 October 20, 2014
Vallco Shopping District west of Wolfe Rd:
Chair Brophy:
Said they are saying the General Plan is 45 or 60 with retail and now since they voted against
community benefits, they are saying leave it unchanged. Staff said it depends on what the Commission
wants. Balanced Plan says 45 or 60 with retail; is that what you still want?
Aarti Shrivastava:
The current heights are 45 and 60 with retail; the recommended Balanced Plan was to stay with the
2005 General Plan but to give additional height along Wolfe for up to 75 feet with community
benefits.
Chair Brophy:
To the extent, if we vote against community benefits it would remain unchanged.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said unless they wish to give the height without community benefits; it is the Commission’s choice.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said they did not hear from neighbors who live there; Portal area won’t get sun in the morning; it is
currently at 45 or 60 feet with retail. Coms. Sun, Lee, Brophy, Gong: no change.
East of Wolfe Rd. staff is asking to go to 60 or 75 with retail; what does this back up to?
Aarti Shrivastava:
It is 60, 75 with retail; It is in a box, it’s 60 feet, 75 with retail or 90 with community benefits.
Com. Sun:
Go with 75.
Com. Gong:
Fairly well set back, would support 60 with 75 with retail.
Chair Brophy:
Stick with what Rosebowl is which is 45 or 60 with retail;
Vice Chair Lee: 60 with 75 ft.
Vote: 3 votes for 60 ft. 75 with retail
Straw Vote:
o Vallco Shopping District (West of Wolfe Rd.) – No Change – 4 votes
o Vallco Shopping District (East of Wolfe Rd.) – 60 ft. 75 with retail 3/1 Chair Brophy voting No.
North DeAnza Gateway :
Currently the limit is 45 ft; staff recommendation is 45 ft or 60 with retail or 90 ft for hotel and major
convention center with community benefits (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear site)
Chair Brophy:
Go with staff recommendation, but not the 90 ft for community benefits as thought we already decided
on that; saying 45 or 60 with retail, not willing to do 90.
975
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 October 20, 2014
Com. Sun:
The site is quite isolated from the residential area so there is not much impact to the community; said
he would go with 90 ft to provide a convention center and hotel; said he would vote for the community
benefit but respected other people voting No.
Com. Gong:
Said she was willing to support the 90 ft. with the convention center caveat; as Vice Chair Lee said
they don’t have any convention center space.
Vice Chair Lee: agreed.
Chair Brophy:
What is definition of a major convention center? Is this going to be a couple of meeting rooms like
Cyprus? (Vice Chair Lee: Minimum of 500 attendees.) Aarti Shrivastava: 250 was mentioned in the
past: the Commission can decide.
Straw Vote: No. DeAnza Gateway Area (Homestead Road Special Area) 45 ft./60 ft. with
retail/90 ft. for hotel and 500-person convention center – 3/1 Chair Brophy voting No.
Stelling Gateway:
Aarti Shrivastava:
Not recommending this height on the west side of Stelling; currently the height along Stelling is 45
feet; staff recommending 45 ft and 60 with retail only on the east side of Stelling which is the
Homestead Lanes property.
Chair Brophy:
Opposed to adding the 60 ft retail because it will put pressure to tear down the shopping center;
would rather keep it the same .
Com. Gong:
Keep it at 45 as well; Vice Chair Lee, Com. Sun: agree.
Straw Vote: Stelling Gateway(Homestead Road Special Area) No Change – 4 Votes
North Vallco Park Special Area :
North Vallco Gateway west of Wolfe Rd. (Property with Marriott Courtyard, Hilton Garden, some
apartment complexes and the Cupertino Village and Bank of the West)
Aarti Shrivastava:
When starting out, the discussion was should this whole area, the length be increased because that
was a request. Staff recommendation at this time, what’s allowed in this area, 60 feet; staff’s
recommendation is to keep it at 60 ft everywhere except for the areas where hotels are planned, and
that is the Kimpco site for the hotel that includes those two sites, the Bank of the West and the pub,
and also hotels along the freeway to increase those to 90 feet for hotel, major convention center with
community benefits and we already have the heights of the Hamptons, so everybody agrees with that.
We are looking at west of Wolfe.
Chair Brophy:
Said he understood there is some developable property there with the bank and pub, but do they really
want to encourage squeezing more development in; it is hard enough to find parking at Cupertino
976
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 October 20, 2014
Village on Saturday and Sunday. Said he was skeptical it was a good location for a hotel and major
convention center facility?.
Coms. Gong, Lee and Sun:
Said they felt it was not a good location for a convention center. No change for No. Vallco Gateway.
The language for east of Wolfe Road is the language already agreed on.
Straw Vote: 4 votes
o No. Vallco Gateway (West of Wolfe Rd.) – No Change
o No. Vallco Gateway (East of Wolfe Rd.) – Staff Recommendations
So. DeAnza Blvd .:
Chair Brophy:
Didn’t we agree on 45 feet; did we end up with Summerwinds in the alternates list; it is on the
recommended list at 45.
Com. Gong :
Supports raising the 45 ft for the Summerwinds as a residential project; Vice Chair Lee and Com.
Sun agreed.
Chair Brophy:
Where we go with the merging to one area 30 feet, 25 units to the acre with the exception of the one
side.
Straw Vote: Summerwinds/Granite Rock and Glenbrooks – Increase height from 30 ft. to
45 ft. – 4 votes
Straw Vote: Building planes along arterials – 1:1 – 4 votes
Vallco Shopping District
Chair Brophy:
Clarified they had taken Vallco off the housing element list; that’s not to say at this point they cannot
talk about what they envision in the General Plan for Vallco; now that it’s not part of the housing
element anything here would still be subject to the analysis by staff, Commission and Council.
Chair Brophy declared a short recess.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she would talk about what is current and what is in the proposed General Plan about Vallco in the
Land Use Section. The current General Plan also talks about Vallco redeveloping as a mixed use site
with a master developer and parcel assembly; there are no housing or office numbers in the land use
section, it is all in the development allocation section, but what they talk about is creating a specific
plan creating a distinct and memorable mixed use town center that is a regional destination and a focal
point for the community; that is the goal. The policies require a specific plan prior to any development
on that site and a specific plan process would be something similar to what Main Street went through
to create their project; that lays out land uses, design standards and guidelines, infrastructural
improvements.
It also talks about a master developer to remove the obstacles related to developing a cohesive district,
parcel assembly and a plan for complete redevelopment of the site; a town center plan, land use talks
977
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 October 20, 2014
about high performing retail restaurant and entertainment uses maintaining a minimum of 600,000 sq.
ft. of retail; that provides a good source of sales tax for the city and entertainment uses may be
included but no more than 30% of the retail uses; and we base that on the current square footage of the
entertainment uses that includes the AMC, Bowl More and the skating rink, encouraging a business
class hotel with a conference center and active uses; again allowing residential on upper floors with the
retail and active uses on the ground floor; and for office encouraging a high quality office space and a
pedestrian oriented street grid. It talks about connectivity and making sure that internal streets are
connected and they are also connected to the external streets such as Stevens Creek, Vallco Parkway as
well as Wolfe Road. It talks about open space in the form of a central town square and additional
plazas and greens that create community gatherings spaces and locations for public art; building form,
high quality architecture, creating a sense of place similar to language in our current General Plan; it
refers to the community benefits program and heights in that community forum diagram.
It talks about the gateway character of the site because it is a gateway into the city; it talks about a
phasing plan that lays out the timing, infrastructure, open space and land use improvements; it talks
about parking; talks about trees and providing neighborhood buffers from the adjacent single family
residential areas. That is the language currently in the General Plan and we are looking for the
Commission’s thoughts on the Vallco area.
Said they were looking for general direction that the Planning Commission wants to take with Vallco;
if they want to keep it as it exists; if they are willing to explore other uses, but require certain amount
of retail on the site; include ideas and determine which ones are already incorporated or which new
ones have to be added based on input received from the Commission.
Chair Brophy:
Said he had a number of concerns about the language as it currently is; would like to see the
community benefit language deleted.
Aarti Shrivastava:
We understand that; if the community benefits go away, that will be struck.
Chair Brophy:
600,000 feet is still a lot of square footage; many people are saying they want all retail and as big as
possible; without doing any market research but thinking about other projects, putting that 600K
number in may make life difficult for the developer and you may want to consider instead of having a
specific number, having some language that says a serious retail component or a major retail
component that includes a mixture of entertainment, food and retail without trying to box both yourself
and the developer into a set of numbers. Rather than saying it should be also residential/office, high
quality convention hotel, he said he would put those things out as possible uses, because in the end the
project will have to go through the citizen outreach, Planning Commission, City Council process es,
and try to identify more of a vision rather than could be interpreted by a would-be developer as a
checklist of requirements.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Confirmed that Chair Brophy said the mix is okay but he would like to remove the 600K square feet of
retail, and then talk about all the uses as possible uses on the site.
Chair Brophy:
Unlike the housing element at this point said he was not too concerned locking the city in, probably
more concerned about having too complex a list of hurdles for a developer to clear and would like to
open it up for the creativity of a developer, an architect, etc.
978
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 October 20, 2014
Com. Sun:
Vallco Shopping Center has been a long term concern for every citizen in Cupertino; for the Planning
Commission to make any recommendation they will probably have some different view about Vallco.
Said at this stage he would recommend three steps to City Council: (1) Continue the public study
session to get all city’s input put together and summarize the previous three study sessions with all
community; what they want; get their feedback and then give the Council more clear picture what the
community needs. (2) He recommended that city staff invite sponsor or developer, or nationwide or
regional wide city planner expert especially experts on developing this type of mixed use land
development; give seminar on how they can develop Vallco Center. (3) The fundamental concern of
Vallco Shopping Center is public transportation; is there any way to solve the Vallco transportation
because it is going to have Apple Phase 2 traffic issue too. They want a better traffic consulting firm;
try to look for another one to give better prediction; use better model. Said he predicted it would turn
worse; and suggested looking for an alternative traffic consultant for better advice. Said he did not
want to talk in more detail about what percentage of retail, what percentage of business; that all
depends on the community input, depends on the city and also on the developers how they feel they
can make money.
Aarti Shrivastava:
A specific plan will require a traffic consultant as well as urban design consultants so your
recommendations could be incorporated as part of that; as well as the public work sessions, similar to
the Main Street project. The idea would be as part of the specific plan process , a developer can come
in and make a recommendation on the kind of project and have community workshops so that you
could get information from the community.
Com. Gong:
Said she agreed on the town center concept with the mix of retail, entertainment, residential and office;
but again with Chair Brophy, it is premature to state specifics at this time.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said she wanted to keep it mostly retail, but would agree with Chair Brophy’s comments if the site
may include some housing; it may include some office but it shouldn’t be that it must include office,
housing, etc.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she did not feel that was the intent; they need to make that clear that if office , retail or hotel is
included, there are expectations for how they will work on the site and a list of possible uses and some
guidance on how they should be included.
Vice Chair Lee:
Also may include a major convention center and a five star hotel or something similar.
Chair Brophy:
Said he knew of 3 national developers who looked at Vallco and staff likely has had inquiries from
more; it is a tough piece of property to work with; multiple uses. Said he had admiration for what
Sandhill did in apparently tying up contracts on the parcels although the letter they submitted
envisioned a project. At this stage, they should be extremely careful about language , saying not only
what uses they want but how they envision them and what price points and things like that.
It is a tough enough deal to come up with a concept to try; as long as they have the whole process of
requiring a specific plan. Be cautious about throwing out too many expectations at this stage; and
saying what they are looking for is something that works as a integrated entity. Try to be modest about
what their abilities are to foresee what the solution is for Vallco at this stage.
979
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 October 20, 2014
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said it isjust generic language about high quality architecture and nice spaces; don’t think there is
language on where to locate them, much of that will depend on the final plan; building neighborhood
buffers. Those are some of the things we have heard repeatedly and are some things we have put in; as
well as our experience on projects like Main Street, having some language helps and we have used a
lot of the existing language in the General Plan. Don’t think the point was never to say these uses have
to be there on the site but to say a list of possible uses could be in addition to retail, office and
residential, and keep the guidance as guidance only. Staff wanted to make sure that the policies that
were written hit the right points and that is our intent and we will forward the recommendation to
change the uses to be possible uses and include a five star hotel and major convention center.
Com Sun:
Said the question is whether all commissioners agree that Vallco center is going to turn into the town
center, seems like a mystery or are they still keeping 100% for the retail?
Aarti Shrivastava:
What they heard from the Planning Commission was they were willing to see a mix of uses but you
would have to go through specific plan process and the community process to figure out what that mix
is; a qualifier was put in at 600K; they don’t want a number there, so will just say retail.
Straw Vote: Vallco Shopping District Language: 4 Votes
o Remove from Housing Element sites list
o Require Specific Plan with public process
o Remove language about amount of retail
o List office, hotel (would like five-star hotel and major convention center) and residential as
possible uses and not requires uses
o Agree on “Town Center” concept
PG&E and Mirapath Sites
Chair Brophy:
Said it was not clear why they would want to commercially zone it; PG&E isn’t going to leave the site
and it is a marginal location for any kind of commercial business; if the piece is going to be used by
PG&E indefinitely, it should be kept as is. If somebody comes in with an alternative idea, resolve it at
that time.
Com. Gong:
What is the probability it would ever become anything but a PG&E site; would we want PG&E to
vacate the property; where would they go in our city? We don’t want to make it easy for them to
vacate the property. I don’t have an opinion on it but it is a 25 year lookout so as the consultant says,
things can happen. I have no objection to it, unless staff can find a reason why we shouldn’t.
Chair Brophy:
Said perhaps they should re-look at that assuming that someone has an interest and after the Apple 2
campus is built because he recalled it has a substantial impact on Homestead traffic. Said he did not
have a strong opinion on it because he didn’t feel it would change. It is a strange way to do it without
any interest from the property owner. Said they would vacate it if they had another place to go, but
there are not a lot of equivalent sites around waiting to take a PG&E yard; it is not a high value piece
of land. It may still be a PG&E yard in ten years. If the property became available, if it was a blank
piece of property he said he assumed that a would-be owner’s first preference would be residential.
980
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 October 20, 2014
Com. Sun:
Said his position on the site is just a mandate from a public institution or to the commercial; the
reason is the possibility whether PG&E wants to sell or transfer it, which would leave some option for
the future business if they take this as an opportunity.
Straw Vote: 4 Votes
o PG&E site - Commercial/Quasi-Public (CG/BO)
o Mirapath - Commercial/Industrial (CG/ML)
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com.
Takahashi absent; to approve EA-2013-03 Resolution No. 6760 Alternate of the
Cupertino Planning Commission recommending certification of an Environmental
Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update and
associated rezoning project; and adoption of findings and a statement of overriding
considerations, mitigation measures, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program
consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the project.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com. Takahashi absent; to adopt GPA-2013-01 in substantially similar form to the attached
Resolution 6761 as amended.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong , and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com.
Takahashi absent; to authorize staff to in substantial and similar form to the attached
Resolution 6762, attachment 3 as amended; the first four in the draft 2014-2022,
Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development; to
use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites in case one or more of the
adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites as amended.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com.
Takahashi absent, to approve the Zoning Map Amendments Z-2013-03 in substantially
similar form, to the attached Resolution 6763 as amended.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com.
Takahashi absent; to approve Municipal Code Amendments MCA-2014-01 in
substantially similar form to the attached Resolution 6764 as amended.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com.
Takahashi absent, to approve Specific Plan Amendment SPA-2014-01 in substantially
similar form to the attached Resolution 6765 attachment 6 as amended.
The meeting was adjourned to the October 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
981
City
Hall
De Anza
College
Apple
Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85
CUPERTINO
SUNNYVALE
SARATOGA
WEST
VALLEY
SANTA CLARA
100,000 s.f.
200 rooms
200 units
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Office....................50,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............530 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Office....................90,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............825 units
North Vallco park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Office....................2,700,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................639 rooms
Residential............2,100 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Office....................400,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Office
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Office....................50,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............275 units
South De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Office
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Difference
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative C Difference
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 3,272,887 s.f.
+ 554,371 s.f.
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,484 units
+ 227,113 s.f.
+ 87,895 s.f.
0
+ 42 units
+ 3,500,000 s.f.
+ 642,266 s.f.
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,526 units
17,113 s.f. 3,290,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,416 units 3,900 units
523,118 s.f. 750,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f.
0 0
479 units 521 units
540,231 s.f. 4,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,895 units 4,421 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers
and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as defined in the 2005 General Plan.
** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
Note: Housing Element sites may have different dnsities as noted.
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
40 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 with a retail component
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet, or 90 feet with a retail component,
= 110 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benefits
South Vallco Park Gateway East
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet or 90 feet with retail,
= 160 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benefits
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre (110 units per acre for
Hamptons Site)
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component
(retail not required east of Wolfe Rd), or 85
feet with no retail for the Hamptons
= 130 feet along Wolfe Rd with retail and
project-wide/community benefits
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component,
145 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benefits
South Vallco Park Gateway West
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 with a retail component, or 85 feet
along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with
retail and project-wide/community benefits
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
08001600 2400 Feet
N
Legend
City Boundary
BRT Stop (for environmental analysis)
BRT Line (for environmental analysis)
Key Intersections
* Additional height allowances w/ retail
and project-wide benefits
Alternative C
revised 10.8.14
982
City
Hall
De Anza
College
Apple
Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85
CUPERTINO
SUNNYVALE
SARATOGA
WEST
VALLEY
SANTA CLARA
··
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Office....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................150 rooms
Residential............400 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Office....................75,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................150 rooms
Residential............350 units
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office, Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 65 (Hamptons site) units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Office....................1,500,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................439 rooms
Residential............1,700 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (Vallco, Stevens Creek Office Center,
Marina Foods, and the Oaks) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Office....................200,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Office....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............201 units
South De Anza Special Area
··
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Difference
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative B Difference
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 1,807,887 s.f.
+ 554,371 s.f. **
+ 500 rooms
+ 1,405 units
+ 192,113 s.f.
+ 87,895 s.f. **
0
+ 16 units
+ 2,000,000 s.f.
+ 642,266 s.f. **
+ 500 rooms
+ 1,421 units
17,113 s.f. 1,825,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f.
339 rooms 839 rooms
1,416 units 2,821 units
523,118 s.f. 715,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f.
0 0
479 units 495 units
540,231 s.f. 2,540,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f.
339 rooms 839 rooms
1,895 units 3,316 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers
and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as defined in the 2005 General Plan.
Note: Housing Element sites may have different densities as noted.
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, 75 feet with a retail component.
= 90 feet with retail and project-wide/ community
South Vallco Park Gateway West
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component. 75 feet
along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd
with retail and project-wide/community benefits
South Vallco Park Gateway East
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component.
= 110 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benefits
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre (65 units per acre for
Hamptons Site)
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component
along Wolfe Rd (retail not required on east side
of Wolfe Rd).
= 95 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benefits
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component. 95
feet with retail and project-wide/ community
benefits
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 with a retail component
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
08001600 2400 Feet
N
Legend
City Boundary
BRT Stop (for environmental analysis)
BRT Line (for environmental analysis)
Key Intersections
* Additional height allowances w/ retail
and project-wide/community benefits
Alternative B
revised 6.9.14
983
City
Hall
De Anza
College
Apple Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85
CUPERTINO
SUNNYVALE
SARATOGA
WEST
VALLEY
SANTA CLARA
··········
Development Allocation
Commercial..........70,000 s.f.
Office....................10,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................125 rooms
Residential............200 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue
Jay and De Anza, and north side of Homestead between
De Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of Homestead
between De Anza and Stelling) and 15 (between Stelling and
Sunnyvale) units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........50,000 s.f.
Office....................30,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............100 units
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........500,000 s.f.
Office....................315,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................375 rooms
Residential............1,000 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........10,000 s.f.
Office....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........50,000 s.f.
Office....................10,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential...........150 units
South De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Difference
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,416 units 1,620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
+372,887 s.f.
- 15,629 s.f.
+261 rooms
+204 units
+127,113 s.f.
+15,629 s.f.
0
- 204 units
+500,000 s.f.
0
+261 rooms
0
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers
and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as defined in the 2005 General Plan.
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative A Difference
8,929,774 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre (east side of Stelling), 15 units per acre (west side of Stelling)
Maximum Height
30 (west side of Stelling) or 45 (east side of Stelling) feet
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
South Vallco Park
Gateway West
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
South Vallco Park
Gateway East
Primary Uses
Commercial, Office and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Office
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
08001600 2400 Feet
N
Legend
City Boundary
Key Intersections
Alternative Arevised 6.9.14
984
Pg LU-15 Updated Strategy title from “Major
Companies to “Major Employers”
Pg LU-16
985
Pg LU-35
Pg LU-48
Pg LU-49
Pg LU-53
Pg LU-53
Pg LU-62
Pg LU-64
Pg LU-66
Pg LU-68
Pg LU-72
Pg LU-74
Pg LU-75
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
Legend
tran_Road
ST_TYPE
Arterials
Driveways
Freeways
Local Roads
Collectors
DE
A
N
Z
A
JUNIPERO SERRA
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
STEVENS CREEK
HOMESTEAD
TA
N
T
A
U
W
E
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
BL
A
N
E
Y
BU
B
B
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
WO
L
F
E
PROSPECT
MCCLELLAN
STEVENS CAN
Y
O
N
MI
L
L
E
R
XX
X
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
M
A
R
Y
BOLLINGER
ALVES
MONTEBELLO
JO
H
N
S
O
N
VOSS
ES
T
A
T
E
S
LOREE
REG
N
A
R
T
PO
R
T
A
L
TILSON
HY
D
E
JU
D
Y
BR
E
T
MA
N
N
PRUNERIDGE
LORNE
FI
N
C
H
BY
R
N
E
RODRIGUES
MERRITT
BA
N
D
L
E
Y
ST
E
R
N
VAI
WU
N
D
E
R
L
I
C
H
KIRWIN
KI
M
OR
A
N
G
E
C
R
E
S
T
O
N
COLUMBUS
PHIL
SC
E
N
I
C
PO
P
P
Y
WR
I
G
H
T
STOKE
S
VALLCO
BARK
BE
A
R
D
O
N
CO
L
B
Y
WE
Y
B
U
R
N
LA MAR
ERIN
PH
A
R
L
A
P
R
A
E
C
R
I
S
T
O
R
E
Y
S
T
E
R
L
I
N
G
LI
N
N
E
T
D
E
O
D
A
R
A
PALM
FA
R
A
L
L
O
N
E
HE
R
O
N
BALBOA
VI
S
T
A
LAZANEO
CA
L
V
E
R
T
GIA
N
N
I
N
I
CHIALA
RAINBOW
SALEM
GREENLEAF
CA
S
T
I
N
E
WHEATON
LA
N
C
E
R
AL
P
I
N
E
BO
N
N
Y
DE
N
I
S
O
N
PR
I
M
R
O
S
E
LA
R
R
Y
AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
MA
X
I
N
E
F
E
S
T
I
V
A
L
WI
N
D
S
O
R
LA
R
K
RA
N
D
Y
BLUE HILL
TERRACE
GLE
N
V
I
E
W
SCOFIELD
FARGO
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
MARIANI
280 F
W
Y
R
A
M
P
WI
L
K
I
N
S
O
N
VALLEY GREEN
SHELLY
K
E
N
T
W
O
O
D
N
O
E
L
STAFF
O
R
D
S
A
N
J
U
A
N
HYANNISPORT
DUMAS
GALLI
BL
U
E
J
A
Y
ALCALDE
GASC
O
I
G
N
E
HA
R
L
A
N
TIPTOE
PRICE
DE FOE
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
ALCAZAR
CR
A
I
G
RIC
H
W
O
O
D
ARATA
DUNBAR
KEN
T
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
O
A
K
V
A
L
L
E
Y
MELVI
N
WE
S
T
L
Y
N
N
PE
A
C
O
C
K
SUISUN
PENDLETON
SA
N
T
A
T
E
R
E
S
A
CUPERTINO
SUNRISE
L
I
N
D
Y
JO
H
N
HI
L
L
S
D
A
L
E
HU
B
B
A
R
D
UP
L
A
N
D
CA
R
V
E
R
NEWSOM
FL
O
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
ARB
O
R
E
T
U
M
LILAC
TOMPKINS
MI
N
E
R
JANICE
ANCOCK
LUCILLE
VI
S
T
A
K
N
O
L
L
DE SOTO
LO
W
E
L
L
LONDONDERRY
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
S
ST
J
O
S
E
P
H
PR
O
U
T
Y
MO
R
E
T
T
I
HANFORD
FALLEN LEAF
TU
L
A
PRESIDIO
KI
M
B
E
R
L
Y
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
MA
R
T
I
N
SA
I
C
H
ROSARIO
M
I
L
K
Y
WOOD
S
PORT
O
L
A
MA
R
I
A
BAH
L
BE
T
T
E
BARNHART
PHYLLIS
CASTANO
PACIFICA
AMAPOLA
LA
R
O
D
A
DRAKE
LO
C
K
W
O
O
D
D
E
M
P
S
T
E
R
COR
D
O
V
A
BE
T
L
I
N
ASPEN
M
A
D
E
R
A
SA
M
E
D
R
A
FOREST
SW
A
L
L
O
W
WINDIM
E
R
PA
S
A
D
E
N
A
TUGGLE
PENDERGAST
FORGE
C
A
N
Y
O
N
O
A
K
AN
T
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
LO
N
N
A
LI
L
Y
PL
U
M
T
R
E
E
CY
N
T
H
I
A
C
E
D
A
R
WATERFORD
SULLIVAN
BE
R
N
A
R
D
O
H
I
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
LOMITA
BELVEDERE
E
L
M
S
F
O
R
D
MI
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
AR
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
RED
W
O
O
D
GARDEN GATE
TO
N
I
T
A
CA
R
M
E
N
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
PA
L
O
V
I
S
T
A
OA
K
T
R
E
E
HANNA
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
ST M
A
R
Y
'
S
CO
R
V
E
T
T
E
MINE
T
T
E
CLAY
ME
A
D
O
W
OLIVE
MILFORD
EDWARD
PINEV
I
L
L
E
NO
R
W
I
C
H
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
AV
O
N
D
A
L
E
ME
N
H
A
R
T
CASTLETON
AN
N
A
R
B
O
R
S
C
O
T
L
A
N
D
CLARENDON
MEDINA
ST
E
N
D
H
A
L
FE
L
T
O
N
ME
R
R
I
M
A
N
PA
R
L
E
T
T
BREN
T
OAKVI
L
L
E
STARLING
BEE
C
H
W
O
O
D
SWISS CRE
E
K
W
A
L
L
A
C
E
JA
M
E
S
T
O
W
N
SOMERSET
BELKNAP
BARRA
N
C
A
AN
N
NORTHWOOD
AL
L
E
Y
HO
W
A
R
D
SILVERADO
AL
D
E
R
B
R
O
O
K
YO
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
RO
S
E
B
L
O
S
S
O
M
CHERYL
ST
O
N
E
H
E
A
V
E
N
SHARON
B
E
A
U
C
H
A
M
P
S
A
R
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
RIVERSI
D
E
LA CONNER
LAURETTA
HEATHERWOOD
BA
X
T
E
R
AD
R
I
A
N
A
VI
A
R
O
N
C
O
L
E
MAUREEN
MELODY
CORONADO
TE
R
R
Y
W
I
I
N
S
T
O
N
BIXBY
AMULET
MEIGGS
VINEYAR
D
CUL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
WE
S
T
A
C
R
E
S
BA
Y
W
O
O
D
SHADOWHILL
RUMFORD
PA
R
K
W
O
O
D
NO
R
A
N
D
A
SHASTA
LEEDS
E
M
P
I
R
E
GILLIC
K
LONGDOWN
BEEKMAN
ST F
R
A
N
C
I
S
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
SAN FERNANDO
BLU
E
H
I
L
L
S
AMHERST
VIC
K
S
B
U
R
G
AN
S
O
N
HU
N
T
E
R
S
T
O
N
DAVISO
N
GRENOLA
KI
N
T
Y
R
E
NORMANDY
BENTOAK
PAYETTE
ELM
F
I
R
LA
H
E
R
R
A
N
TU
L
I
P
A
N
A
S
T
E
R
TO
R
R
E
LE
B
A
N
O
N
CRA
F
T
CHRISTENSEN
STANFORD
DOLORES
MO
N
T
C
L
A
I
R
POCATELLO
AL
H
A
M
B
R
A
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
GL
E
N
HU
D
S
O
N
BE
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
E
HU
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
GRANADA
RICARDO
HAZELBROOK
OA
K
C
R
E
E
L
EDSEL
HERMOSA
HARTMAN
MO
R
E
N
G
O
FR
A
N
C
O
GARDENA
VIA VICO
CLIFDEN
ORION
CA
S
S
DA
N
B
U
R
Y
NEWCASTLE
LA
S
A
L
L
E
S
A
N
T
A
C
L
A
R
A
LA
U
R
E
N
T
I
A
N
DE
R
B
Y
S
H
I
R
E
RAMPA
R
T
ROBINDELL
H
E
N
E
Y
C
R
E
E
K
CA
N
A
R
Y
SHADYGROVE
DARTMOOR
SANTA PAULA
CA
L
G
A
R
Y
PUMPKIN
DR
Y
D
E
N
KRZICH
PEPPER TREE
HI
B
I
S
C
U
S
RU
P
P
E
L
L
PA
R
I
S
H
FE
R
N
G
R
O
V
E
PEACH BLOSSOM
DEVON
WOODRIDGE
SERRA
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
FR
I
A
R
S
METEOR
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
CH
A
C
E
PI
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
E
D
D
I
N
G
T
O
N
BUR
N
E
T
T
LAS ONDAS
CREEKLINE
BU
C
K
T
H
O
R
N
E
MERC
E
D
E
S
LA
P
A
L
O
M
A
IN
F
I
N
I
T
E
L
O
O
P
GREENWOOD
M
I
M
O
S
A
FI
R
W
O
O
D
GL
E
N
C
O
E
SELKIRK
LA
N
S
D
A
L
E
C
R
I
C
K
E
T
H
I
L
L
SOLA
ME
A
D
O
W
L
A
R
K
TU
S
C
A
N
Y
CO
L
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
AN
D
O
V
E
R
M
A
N
Z
A
N
I
T
A
OL
M
O
WH
I
T
N
E
Y
BR
O
O
K
G
R
O
V
E
PARNELL
HALL
DE LA FARGE
PE
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
R
GRAND
STA
U
F
F
E
R
ORANGE BLOSSOM
WOODV
I
E
W
RALYA
PEAR TREE
CR
E
S
T
L
I
N
E
QU
A
I
L
KE
S
T
E
R
RI
D
G
E
V
I
E
W
PR
U
N
E
T
R
E
E
DONEGAL
CLI
F
F
O
R
D
ACADIA
ALMADEN WE
S
T
E
R
N
HAM
M
O
N
D
RUCKER
ST
O
N
Y
D
A
L
E
JO
H
A
N
S
E
N
NILE
LO
N
G
F
E
L
L
O
W
LI
N
D
S
A
Y
KA
M
S
A
C
K
WOODBURY
CALI
CARLYSLE
BA
N
F
F
APPLE TREE
SHE
T
L
A
N
D
MONROVIA
CODY
HA
L
E
AUBURN
ELENDA
MY
E
R
CH
E
L
M
S
F
O
R
D
OX
F
O
R
D
JA
C
Q
U
E
L
I
N
E
WILDFLOWER
BA
R
B
A
R
A
GREENOAK
CART
A
B
L
A
N
C
A
PA
R
A
D
I
S
E
LINDE
N
B
R
O
O
K
W
O
O
D
H
I
L
L
LA GRANDE
CH
E
R
R
Y
T
R
E
E
HOLLANDERRY
SHATTUCK
TWIG
NE
W
B
R
U
N
S
W
I
C
K
KINGSBURY
MONTE
SA
R
A
T
O
G
A
S
U
N
N
Y
V
A
L
E
RUNO
PR
A
D
O
V
I
S
T
A
OLIVEWOOD
CL
A
R
K
S
T
O
N
MASO
N
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
MA
R
T
I
N
W
O
O
D
RO
S
E
G
A
R
D
E
N
EN
G
L
I
S
H
O
A
K
VIA
M
A
D
E
R
O
S
MAGELLAN
C
H
A
N
T
E
L
ANNE
ATHERWOOD
CA
M
I
N
O
V
I
S
T
A
RE
G
E
N
T
CELESTE
RANDOLPH
LOCKSUNART
MOLTZEN
DA
W
S
O
N
ST M
A
R
K
DEXTER
BALDWIN
OROGRANDE
SQUIREWOOD
LE
O
N
A
R
D
G
R
A
N
T
VI
A
L
O
M
B
A
R
D
I
ST ANDR
E
W
S
VIA HUERTA
WH
I
T
E
O
A
K
WOODLARK
AM
E
L
I
A
LIVERPOOL
DEAN
KE
N
N
E
W
I
C
K
BL
A
Z
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
PATRIOT
HOLLY OAK
MC
G
R
E
G
O
R
JULIE
FOLKESTONE
BLA
C
K
O
A
K
MARSHALL
C
O
L
O
N
Y
H
I
L
L
S
OAKVIEW
WE
Y
M
O
T
H
JO
L
L
Y
M
A
N
BROOKWELL
CALABAZAS
PARK VILLA
STEVENS
M
I
R
A
M
O
N
T
E
KODIAK
ES
Q
U
I
R
E
MILLARD
RA
M
O
N
A
D
O
R
O
T
H
Y
A
N
N
E
WI
L
L
CI
T
A
T
I
O
N
SQUIREHILL
SC
E
N
I
C
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
MACKENZIE
WESTMOOR
AUGUS
T
WALNUT
BIGOAK
NA
R
C
I
S
O
CEDAR TREE
BR
E
W
E
R
KRING
SORENSON
V
I
L
L
A
D
E
A
N
Z
A
BERLAND
SILVER OAK
OCTOBER
B
R
O
O
K
V
A
L
E
PINE
B
R
O
O
K
WE
S
T
H
I
L
L
VI
A
S
O
R
R
E
N
T
O
CA
R
O
L
L
E
E
WISTARIA
FO
R
T
B
A
K
E
R
CEDARBROOK
RI
E
D
E
L
GLENTREE
WALLIN
MELLO
EL
P
R
A
D
O
F
L
O
R
E
N
C
E
DUCKETT
TE
R
R
A
B
E
L
L
A
JUNIPE
R
TWILIGHT
T
R
E
S
S
L
E
R
CY
P
R
E
S
S
NOONAN
RIT
A
N
N
A
STARRETT
OAKDELL
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
GA
L
W
A
Y
TO
N
I
MURIEL
EDMINTON
NO
R
T
H
S
K
Y
FALL
BI
A
N
C
H
I
LAMBETH
NORTHWIND
MA
N
I
T
A
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
MA
D
R
I
D
OR
L
I
N
E
A
L
I
C
I
A
S
I
E
R
R
A
S
P
R
I
N
G
LO
C
H
L
O
M
O
N
D
MA
R
I
A
R
O
S
A
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
CLEO
CALLE DE BARCELONA
CH
A
R
S
A
N
PALO
M
A
E
L
D
E
R
W
O
O
D
AM
I
S
T
A
D
AL
B
A
T
R
O
S
S
AN
N
E
T
T
E
EVULICH
GR
O
V
E
L
A
N
D
UN
I
T
E
D
GARDENVIEW
CORTE MADERA
ON
T
A
R
I
O
VENTANA
WILLOWGROVE
MACADAM
VARIAN
VIA PALAMO
S
BALUST
R
O
L
CR
O
W
N
ROLLINGDELL
ORCHARD
LO
C
K
H
A
V
E
N
EL
S
E
R
E
N
O
COZETTE
SUTTON PARK
OAKN
O
L
L
SW
E
E
T
O
A
K
LA
M
O
N
T
PA
R
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
ME
L
I
S
S
A
TULITA
SUNDERLAND
QUEENS OAK
VI
A
P
A
V
I
S
O
RO
N
A
L
D
ECHO HILL
SER
E
N
O
PI
N
O
L
E
PR
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
CLU
B
H
O
U
S
E
MURANO
DANIEL
PLUM BLOSSOM
DO
V
E
O
A
K
NI
G
H
T
I
N
G
A
L
E
COLLINGSWORTH
CORY
PE
R
A
L
T
A
WH
I
T
E
F
I
R
GARDENSIDE
BEAV
E
N
SHADY OAK
PRING
NO
R
T
H
F
O
R
D
E
W
E
S
T
S
H
O
R
E
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
O
A
K
EA
T
O
N
VI
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
W
A
N
LU
C
K
Y
O
A
K
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
P
I
N
N
T
A
G
E
LA PLAYA
AC
A
C
I
A
CARNOU
S
T
I
E
G
R
I
N
E
L
L
OA
K
S
P
R
I
N
G
PARKVIEW
MO
S
S
Y
O
A
K
BY
E
R
L
Y
LA
J
O
L
L
A
CATALANO
OASIS
SAKURA
MC
L
A
R
E
N
CARRIAGE
RIFREDI
NO
R
T
H
S
E
A
L
SW
A
N
O
A
K
ORANGEWOOD
MAPLETREE
SEEBER
CARTWRIGHT
CH
E
T
A
M
O
N
CLO
V
E
R
L
Y
RE
D
O
N
D
O
SH
A
S
T
A
S
P
R
I
N
G
TOMKI
CLASSIC
LANGPORT
R
I
V
I
E
R
A
MINE
DR
E
A
OL
D
T
O
W
N
BRENDA
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
BENET
T
I
NORTHVIEW
CE
D
A
R
S
P
R
I
N
G
OAK MEADOW
RA
N
C
H
O
TAMARIND
CAP
I
L
L
A
KR
I
S
T
A
CH
A
D
W
I
C
K
CONRADIA
VE
R
N
I
E
REINELL
CREEKSIDERIVERCREST
KINST
L
E
O
N
G
ALD
E
R
N
E
Y
AM
A
D
O
R
O
A
K
WINDSOR
MI
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
CYNTHIA
X
X
X
AR
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
BO
N
N
Y
KIMBERLY
RA
I
N
B
O
W
FO
R
G
E
RA
N
D
Y
AV
O
N
D
A
L
E
XX
X
FI
R
ME
A
D
O
W
PE
A
C
O
C
K
NEWSOM
BARNHART
XXX
SILVER OAK
HOWARD
XXX
CA
R
M
E
N
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
XXX
X
X
X
LA
H
E
R
R
A
N
JOHN
PA
L
O
M
A
GL
E
N
C
O
E
MA
R
Y
MA
R
I
A
N
I
XX
X
DE
O
D
A
R
A
XX
X
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
XXX
BU
B
B
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
HERON
XXX
XX
X
XXX
RIVER
S
I
D
E
XX
X
AS
T
E
R
XXX
XXX
VI
S
T
A
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
PACIFICA
KI
N
T
Y
R
E
POPPY
LO
C
K
W
O
O
D
RAINBOW
CRAIG
ME
R
R
I
M
A
N
XX
X
YO
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
IMPERIAL
Crossroads
Area
1
4
3
2
5
6
7
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BU
B
B
R
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
PROSPECT RD
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
TERRACE DR
MCC L E L L A N
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
HOMESTEAD RD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
PRUNE RI D GE
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
VALLC
O PKYPE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
R
D
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
R
D
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
BARNHART AVE
JOH
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
Garden
Gate DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
E
X
P
Y
RAINBOW DR
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
MCCLELLAN RD
PROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR
Deep Cli
Golf Course
Linda
Vista
Park
Rancho San
Antonio Open
Space Preserve
Gate of Heaven
Cemetary
Varian
Park
Cupertino
Sports
Center
Jollyman
Park
Three Oaks
Park
Hoover
Park
Creekside
Park
Wilson
Park
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
Rancho
Rinconada
County Park
Portal
Park
Somerset
Park
Monta
Vista
Park
Blackberry Farm
Golf Course
McClellan
Ranch
Park
Fremont Older
Open Space
Preserve
Franco
Park
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Kennedy
Middle
School
Monta Vista
High School
Regnart
Elementary
School
Eaton
Elementary
School
Saint Joseph of
Cupertino School
Garden Gate
Elementary
School
Stevens Creek
Elementary
School
William Faria
Elementary
School
Sedgwick
Elementary
School
Montebello
Elementary
School
Lawson
Middle
School
Collins
Elementary
School
Hyde
Middle
School
Cupertino
High
School
Homestead
High School
City
Hall
De Anza
College
Apple
Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85
CUPERTINO
SUNNYVALE
SARATOGA
WEST
VALLEY
SANTA CLARA
··········
Development Allocation
Commercial..........70,000 s.f.
Oce....................10,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................125 rooms
Residential............200 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue
Jay and De Anza, and north side of Homestead between
De Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of Homestead
between De Anza and Stelling) and 15 (between Stelling and Sunnyvale)
units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........50,000 s.f.
Oce....................30,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............100 units
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........500,000 s.f.
Oce....................315,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................375 rooms
Residential............1,000 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........10,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........50,000 s.f.
Oce....................10,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential...........150 units
South De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,416 units 1,620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
+372,887 s.f.
- 15,629 s.f.
+261 rooms
+204 units
+127,113 s.f.
+15,629 s.f.
0
- 204 units
+500,000 s.f.
0
+261 rooms
0
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and
other commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative A Dierence
8,929,774 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
··
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................150 rooms
Residential............400 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Oce....................75,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................150 rooms
Residential............350 units
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce, Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 65 (Hamptons site) units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Oce....................1,500,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................439 rooms
Residential............1,700 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (Vallco, Stevens Creek Oce Center, Marina
Foods, and the Oaks) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Oce....................200,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............201 units
South De Anza Special Area
··
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative B Dierence
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 1,807,887 s.f.
+ 554,371 s.f. **
+ 500 rooms
+ 1,405 units
+ 192,113 s.f.
+ 87,895 s.f. **
0
+ 16 units
+ 2,000,000 s.f.
+ 642,266 s.f. **
+ 500 rooms
+ 1,421 units
17,113 s.f. 1,825,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f.
339 rooms 839 rooms
1,416 units 2,821 units
523,118 s.f. 715,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f.
0 0
479 units 495 units
540,231 s.f. 2,540,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f.
339 rooms 839 rooms
1,895 units 3,316 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and
other commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
Note: Housing Element sites may have dierent densities as noted.
··
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............530 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay);
20 (between Blue Jay and De Anza; and
north side of Homestead between De Anza and Franco);
35 (south side of Homestead between De Anza and Stelling); and
15 (between Stelling and Sunnyvale) units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet (see Stelling Gateway notes for Maximum Heights East of Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Oce....................75,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............825 units
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce, Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 65 (See Nodes/Gateways) units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Oce....................500,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................264 rooms
Residential............1,500 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (See Nodes/Gateways) units per acre
Maximum Height
Up to 45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Oce....................200,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial....... - 607774 s.f.
Oce....................1,000,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................375
Residential............600 units
··
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
West of Wolfe
45 feet; or 60 feet with a retail component; or 75 feet for a 200 foot depth
along the Wolfe Road property line and setback from the Stevens Creek
Boulevard property line with retail and community benets
East of Wolfe
60 feet; or 75 feet with retail; or 90 feet with community benets ** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,207,774 s.f.) will be demolished and that 600,000 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Balanced Plan Dierence
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 1,685,939 s.f.
+ 538,248 s.f. **
+ 1,275 rooms
+ 2,511 units
+ 361,882 s.f.
+ 69,526 s.f. **
0
+ 16 units
+ 2,000,000 s.f.
+ 607,774 s.f. **
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,526 units
30,708 s.f. 1,668,826 s.f.
732,697 s.f. 1,270,945 s.f
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,490 units 4,001 units
523,118 s.f. 885,000 s.f.
0 s.f. 69526 s.f.
0 0
479 units 495 unit
553,826 s.f. 2,553,826 s.f.
732,697 s.f. 1,340,471 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,882 units 4,421 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove,, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other
commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
Note: Housing Element sites may have dierent densities as noted.
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet or 45 feet for Housing Element Site at Summer Winds/Graniterock/Jack
in the Box
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............275 units
South De Anza Special Area
Development Allocation
Commercial..........20,945 s.f.
Oce....................23,826 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............101 units
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 15 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre; 35 units per acre if Housing
Element Site
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, 75 feet with a retail component.
= 90 feet with retail and community
benets
South Vallco Park Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre (65 units per acre if Housing
Element site)
Maximum Height
West of Wolfe
60 feet
= 90 feet for a 200 foot depth along Wolfe Road
property line for a hotel with major convention
center with community benets
East of Wolfe
75 feet
Buildings with 50 feet of property lines abutting
Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Ave. and Apple Campus 2
site shall not exceed 60 feet.
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component. 95 feet
for a hotel with major convention center and
community benets
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
East of Stelling
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Monta Vista Village Special Area
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
100,000 s.f.
200 rooms
200 units
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Oce....................50,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............530 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Oce....................90,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............825 units
North Vallco park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Oce....................2,700,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................639 rooms
Residential............2,100 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Oce....................400,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Oce....................50,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............275 units
South De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative C Dierence
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 3,272,887 s.f.
+ 554,371 s.f.
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,484 units
+ 227,113 s.f.
+ 87,895 s.f.
0
+ 42 units
+ 3,500,000 s.f.
+ 642,266 s.f.
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,526 units
17,113 s.f. 3,290,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,416 units 3,900 units
523,118 s.f. 750,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f.
0 0
479 units 521 units
540,231 s.f. 4,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,895 units 4,421 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and
other commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
Note: Housing Element sites may have dierent dnsities as noted.
North De Anza Gateway NodeStelling Gateway Node
Crossroads Node
South Vallco Gateway Node
City Center Node
North Vallco Gateway Node
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre (east side of Stelling), 15
units per acre (west side of Stelling)
Maximum Height
30 (west side of Stelling) or 45 (east side of
Stelling) feet
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
South Vallco Park
Gateway West
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
South Vallco Park
Gateway East
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
40 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 with a retail component
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet, or 90 feet with a retail component,
= 110 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benets
South Vallco Park Gateway East
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet or 90 feet with retail,
= 160 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benets
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre (110 units per acre for
Hamptons Site)
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component (retail
not required east of Wolfe Rd), or 85 feet with no
retail for the Hamptons
= 130 feet along Wolfe Rd with retail and
project-wide/community benets
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component,
145 feet with retail and project-wide/ community
benets
South Vallco Park Gateway West
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 with a retail component, or 85 feet
along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with retail
and project-wide/community benets
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
08001600 2400 Feet
N
Legend
City Boundary
Key Intersections
Alternative A
revised 6.9.14
Legend
City Boundary
Key Intersections
Balanced Plan
revised 10.20.14
Additional height allowances w/
retail and community benets
Legend
City Boundary
BRT Stop (for environmental analysis)
BRT Line (for environmental analysis)
Key Intersections
* Additional height allowances w/ retail
and project-wide benets
Alternative C
revised 6.9.14
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
Homestead Corridor
Development Allocation
Commercial.........
Oce.................... no additional
Hotel....................
Residential...........
De Anza South Corridor
De Anza North Corridor
Development Allocation
Commercial..........200,000 s.f.
Oce....................250,000 s.f
Hotel.....................no additional
Residential............no additional
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Wolfe Corridor
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
component
Development Allocation
Commercial......... 300,000 s.f.
Oce....................790,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................190,000 s.f.
Residential...........no additional
Stevens Creek Corridor
Development Allocation
Commercial.........
Oce...................
Hotel....................
Residential...........
100,000 s.f.
no additional
no additional
2,200,000 s.f.
Primary Uses
Commercial, Medium-High Density
Residential, and Public/Quasi-Public
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
component
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
Development Allocation
Commercial..........200,000 s.f.
Oce....................250,000s.f
Hotel.....................no additional
Residential............no additional
Sunnyvale Saratoga
Development Allocation
Commercial.........
Oce...................
Hotel....................
Residential...........
995
Legend
tran_Road
ST_TYPE
Arterials
Driveways
Freeways
Local Roads
Collectors
DE
A
N
Z
A
JUNIPERO SERRA
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
STEVENS CREEK
HOMESTEAD
TA
N
T
A
U
W
E
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
BL
A
N
E
Y
BU
B
B
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
WO
L
F
E
PROSPECT
MCCLELLAN
STEVENS CAN
Y
O
N
MI
L
L
E
R
XX
X
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
M
A
R
Y
BOLLINGER
ALVES
MONTEBELLO
JO
H
N
S
O
N
VOSS
ES
T
A
T
E
S
LOREE
REG
N
A
R
T
PO
R
T
A
L
TILSON
HY
D
E
JU
D
Y
BR
E
T
MA
N
N
PRUNERIDGE
LORNE
FI
N
C
H
BY
R
N
E
RODRIGUES
MERRITT
BA
N
D
L
E
Y
ST
E
R
N
VAI
WU
N
D
E
R
L
I
C
H
KIRWIN
KI
M
OR
A
N
G
E
C
R
E
S
T
O
N
COLUMBUS
PHIL
SC
E
N
I
C
PO
P
P
Y
WR
I
G
H
T
STOKE
S
VALLCO
BARK
BE
A
R
D
O
N
CO
L
B
Y
WE
Y
B
U
R
N
LA MAR
ERIN
PH
A
R
L
A
P
R
A
E
C
R
I
S
T
O
R
E
Y
S
T
E
R
L
I
N
G
LI
N
N
E
T
D
E
O
D
A
R
A
PALM
FA
R
A
L
L
O
N
E
HE
R
O
N
BALBOA
VI
S
T
A
LAZANEO
CA
L
V
E
R
T
GIA
N
N
I
N
I
CHIALA
RAINBOW
SALEM
GREENLEAF
CA
S
T
I
N
E
WHEATON
LA
N
C
E
R
AL
P
I
N
E
BO
N
N
Y
DE
N
I
S
O
N
PR
I
M
R
O
S
E
LA
R
R
Y
AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
MA
X
I
N
E
F
E
S
T
I
V
A
L
WI
N
D
S
O
R
LA
R
K
RA
N
D
Y
BLUE HILL
TERRACE
GLE
N
V
I
E
W
SCOFIELD
FARGO
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
MARIANI
280 F
W
Y
R
A
M
P
WI
L
K
I
N
S
O
N
VALLEY GREEN
SHELLY
K
E
N
T
W
O
O
D
N
O
E
L
STAFF
O
R
D
S
A
N
J
U
A
N
HYANNISPORT
DUMAS
GALLI
BL
U
E
J
A
Y
ALCALDE
GASC
O
I
G
N
E
HA
R
L
A
N
TIPTOE
PRICE
DE FOE
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
ALCAZAR
CR
A
I
G
RIC
H
W
O
O
D
ARATA
DUNBAR
KEN
T
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
O
A
K
V
A
L
L
E
Y
MELVI
N
WE
S
T
L
Y
N
N
PE
A
C
O
C
K
SUISUN
PENDLETON
SA
N
T
A
T
E
R
E
S
A
CUPERTINO
SUNRISE
L
I
N
D
Y
JO
H
N
HI
L
L
S
D
A
L
E
HU
B
B
A
R
D
UP
L
A
N
D
CA
R
V
E
R
NEWSOM
FL
O
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
ARB
O
R
E
T
U
M
LILAC
TOMPKINS
MI
N
E
R
JANICE
ANCOCK
LUCILLE
VI
S
T
A
K
N
O
L
L
DE SOTO
LO
W
E
L
L
LONDONDERRY
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
S
ST
J
O
S
E
P
H
PR
O
U
T
Y
MO
R
E
T
T
I
HANFORD
FALLEN LEAF
TU
L
A
PRESIDIO
KI
M
B
E
R
L
Y
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
MA
R
T
I
N
SA
I
C
H
ROSARIO
M
I
L
K
Y
WOOD
S
PORT
O
L
A
MA
R
I
A
BAH
L
BE
T
T
E
BARNHART
PHYLLIS
CASTANO
PACIFICA
AMAPOLA
LA
R
O
D
A
DRAKE
LO
C
K
W
O
O
D
D
E
M
P
S
T
E
R
COR
D
O
V
A
BE
T
L
I
N
ASPEN
M
A
D
E
R
A
SA
M
E
D
R
A
FOREST
SW
A
L
L
O
W
WINDIM
E
R
PA
S
A
D
E
N
A
TUGGLE
PENDERGAST
FORGE
C
A
N
Y
O
N
O
A
K
AN
T
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
LO
N
N
A
LI
L
Y
PL
U
M
T
R
E
E
CY
N
T
H
I
A
C
E
D
A
R
WATERFORD
SULLIVAN
BE
R
N
A
R
D
O
H
I
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
LOMITA
BELVEDERE
E
L
M
S
F
O
R
D
MI
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
AR
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
RED
W
O
O
D
GARDEN GATE
TO
N
I
T
A
CA
R
M
E
N
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
PA
L
O
V
I
S
T
A
OA
K
T
R
E
E
HANNA
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
ST M
A
R
Y
'
S
CO
R
V
E
T
T
E
MINE
T
T
E
CLAY
ME
A
D
O
W
OLIVE
MILFORD
EDWARD
PINEV
I
L
L
E
NO
R
W
I
C
H
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
AV
O
N
D
A
L
E
ME
N
H
A
R
T
CASTLETON
AN
N
A
R
B
O
R
S
C
O
T
L
A
N
D
CLARENDON
MEDINA
ST
E
N
D
H
A
L
FE
L
T
O
N
ME
R
R
I
M
A
N
PA
R
L
E
T
T
BREN
T
OAKVI
L
L
E
STARLING
BEE
C
H
W
O
O
D
SWISS CRE
E
K
W
A
L
L
A
C
E
JA
M
E
S
T
O
W
N
SOMERSET
BELKNAP
BARRA
N
C
A
AN
N
NORTHWOOD
AL
L
E
Y
HO
W
A
R
D
SILVERADO
AL
D
E
R
B
R
O
O
K
YO
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
RO
S
E
B
L
O
S
S
O
M
CHERYL
ST
O
N
E
H
E
A
V
E
N
SHARON
B
E
A
U
C
H
A
M
P
S
A
R
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
RIVERSI
D
E
LA CONNER
LAURETTA
HEATHERWOOD
BA
X
T
E
R
AD
R
I
A
N
A
VI
A
R
O
N
C
O
L
E
MAUREEN
MELODY
CORONADO
TE
R
R
Y
W
I
I
N
S
T
O
N
BIXBY
AMULET
MEIGGS
VINEYAR
D
CUL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
WE
S
T
A
C
R
E
S
BA
Y
W
O
O
D
SHADOWHILL
RUMFORD
PA
R
K
W
O
O
D
NO
R
A
N
D
A
SHASTA
LEEDS
E
M
P
I
R
E
GILLIC
K
LONGDOWN
BEEKMAN
ST F
R
A
N
C
I
S
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
SAN FERNANDO
BLU
E
H
I
L
L
S
AMHERST
VIC
K
S
B
U
R
G
AN
S
O
N
HU
N
T
E
R
S
T
O
N
DAVISO
N
GRENOLA
KI
N
T
Y
R
E
NORMANDY
BENTOAK
PAYETTE
ELM
F
I
R
LA
H
E
R
R
A
N
TU
L
I
P
A
N
A
S
T
E
R
TO
R
R
E
LE
B
A
N
O
N
CRA
F
T
CHRISTENSEN
STANFORD
DOLORES
MO
N
T
C
L
A
I
R
POCATELLO
AL
H
A
M
B
R
A
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
GL
E
N
HU
D
S
O
N
BE
L
L
E
V
I
L
L
E
HU
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
GRANADA
RICARDO
HAZELBROOK
OA
K
C
R
E
E
L
EDSEL
HERMOSA
HARTMAN
MO
R
E
N
G
O
FR
A
N
C
O
GARDENA
VIA VICO
CLIFDEN
ORION
CA
S
S
DA
N
B
U
R
Y
NEWCASTLE
LA
S
A
L
L
E
S
A
N
T
A
C
L
A
R
A
LA
U
R
E
N
T
I
A
N
DE
R
B
Y
S
H
I
R
E
RAMPA
R
T
ROBINDELL
H
E
N
E
Y
C
R
E
E
K
CA
N
A
R
Y
SHADYGROVE
DARTMOOR
SANTA PAULA
CA
L
G
A
R
Y
PUMPKIN
DR
Y
D
E
N
KRZICH
PEPPER TREE
HI
B
I
S
C
U
S
RU
P
P
E
L
L
PA
R
I
S
H
FE
R
N
G
R
O
V
E
PEACH BLOSSOM
DEVON
WOODRIDGE
SERRA
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
FR
I
A
R
S
METEOR
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
CH
A
C
E
PI
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
E
D
D
I
N
G
T
O
N
BUR
N
E
T
T
LAS ONDAS
CREEKLINE
BU
C
K
T
H
O
R
N
E
MERC
E
D
E
S
LA
P
A
L
O
M
A
IN
F
I
N
I
T
E
L
O
O
P
GREENWOOD
M
I
M
O
S
A
FI
R
W
O
O
D
GL
E
N
C
O
E
SELKIRK
LA
N
S
D
A
L
E
C
R
I
C
K
E
T
H
I
L
L
SOLA
ME
A
D
O
W
L
A
R
K
TU
S
C
A
N
Y
CO
L
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
AN
D
O
V
E
R
M
A
N
Z
A
N
I
T
A
OL
M
O
WH
I
T
N
E
Y
BR
O
O
K
G
R
O
V
E
PARNELL
HALL
DE LA FARGE
PE
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
R
GRAND
STA
U
F
F
E
R
ORANGE BLOSSOM
WOODV
I
E
W
RALYA
PEAR TREE
CR
E
S
T
L
I
N
E
QU
A
I
L
KE
S
T
E
R
RI
D
G
E
V
I
E
W
PR
U
N
E
T
R
E
E
DONEGAL
CLI
F
F
O
R
D
ACADIA
ALMADEN WE
S
T
E
R
N
HAM
M
O
N
D
RUCKER
ST
O
N
Y
D
A
L
E
JO
H
A
N
S
E
N
NILE
LO
N
G
F
E
L
L
O
W
LI
N
D
S
A
Y
KA
M
S
A
C
K
WOODBURY
CALI
CARLYSLE
BA
N
F
F
APPLE TREE
SHE
T
L
A
N
D
MONROVIA
CODY
HA
L
E
AUBURN
ELENDA
MY
E
R
CH
E
L
M
S
F
O
R
D
OX
F
O
R
D
JA
C
Q
U
E
L
I
N
E
WILDFLOWER
BA
R
B
A
R
A
GREENOAK
CART
A
B
L
A
N
C
A
PA
R
A
D
I
S
E
LINDE
N
B
R
O
O
K
W
O
O
D
H
I
L
L
LA GRANDE
CH
E
R
R
Y
T
R
E
E
HOLLANDERRY
SHATTUCK
TWIG
NE
W
B
R
U
N
S
W
I
C
K
KINGSBURY
MONTE
SA
R
A
T
O
G
A
S
U
N
N
Y
V
A
L
E
RUNO
PR
A
D
O
V
I
S
T
A
OLIVEWOOD
CL
A
R
K
S
T
O
N
MASO
N
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
MA
R
T
I
N
W
O
O
D
RO
S
E
G
A
R
D
E
N
EN
G
L
I
S
H
O
A
K
VIA
M
A
D
E
R
O
S
MAGELLAN
C
H
A
N
T
E
L
ANNE
ATHERWOOD
CA
M
I
N
O
V
I
S
T
A
RE
G
E
N
T
CELESTE
RANDOLPH
LOCKSUNART
MOLTZEN
DA
W
S
O
N
ST M
A
R
K
DEXTER
BALDWIN
OROGRANDE
SQUIREWOOD
LE
O
N
A
R
D
G
R
A
N
T
VI
A
L
O
M
B
A
R
D
I
ST ANDR
E
W
S
VIA HUERTA
WH
I
T
E
O
A
K
WOODLARK
AM
E
L
I
A
LIVERPOOL
DEAN
KE
N
N
E
W
I
C
K
BL
A
Z
I
N
G
W
O
O
D
PATRIOT
HOLLY OAK
MC
G
R
E
G
O
R
JULIE
FOLKESTONE
BLA
C
K
O
A
K
MARSHALL
C
O
L
O
N
Y
H
I
L
L
S
OAKVIEW
WE
Y
M
O
T
H
JO
L
L
Y
M
A
N
BROOKWELL
CALABAZAS
PARK VILLA
STEVENS
M
I
R
A
M
O
N
T
E
KODIAK
ES
Q
U
I
R
E
MILLARD
RA
M
O
N
A
D
O
R
O
T
H
Y
A
N
N
E
WI
L
L
CI
T
A
T
I
O
N
SQUIREHILL
SC
E
N
I
C
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
MACKENZIE
WESTMOOR
AUGUS
T
WALNUT
BIGOAK
NA
R
C
I
S
O
CEDAR TREE
BR
E
W
E
R
KRING
SORENSON
V
I
L
L
A
D
E
A
N
Z
A
BERLAND
SILVER OAK
OCTOBER
B
R
O
O
K
V
A
L
E
PINE
B
R
O
O
K
WE
S
T
H
I
L
L
VI
A
S
O
R
R
E
N
T
O
CA
R
O
L
L
E
E
WISTARIA
FO
R
T
B
A
K
E
R
CEDARBROOK
RI
E
D
E
L
GLENTREE
WALLIN
MELLO
EL
P
R
A
D
O
F
L
O
R
E
N
C
E
DUCKETT
TE
R
R
A
B
E
L
L
A
JUNIPE
R
TWILIGHT
T
R
E
S
S
L
E
R
CY
P
R
E
S
S
NOONAN
RIT
A
N
N
A
STARRETT
OAKDELL
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
GA
L
W
A
Y
TO
N
I
MURIEL
EDMINTON
NO
R
T
H
S
K
Y
FALL
BI
A
N
C
H
I
LAMBETH
NORTHWIND
MA
N
I
T
A
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
MA
D
R
I
D
OR
L
I
N
E
A
L
I
C
I
A
S
I
E
R
R
A
S
P
R
I
N
G
LO
C
H
L
O
M
O
N
D
MA
R
I
A
R
O
S
A
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
CLEO
CALLE DE BARCELONA
CH
A
R
S
A
N
PALO
M
A
E
L
D
E
R
W
O
O
D
AM
I
S
T
A
D
AL
B
A
T
R
O
S
S
AN
N
E
T
T
E
EVULICH
GR
O
V
E
L
A
N
D
UN
I
T
E
D
GARDENVIEW
CORTE MADERA
ON
T
A
R
I
O
VENTANA
WILLOWGROVE
MACADAM
VARIAN
VIA PALAMO
S
BALUST
R
O
L
CR
O
W
N
ROLLINGDELL
ORCHARD
LO
C
K
H
A
V
E
N
EL
S
E
R
E
N
O
COZETTE
SUTTON PARK
OAKN
O
L
L
SW
E
E
T
O
A
K
LA
M
O
N
T
PA
R
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
ME
L
I
S
S
A
TULITA
SUNDERLAND
QUEENS OAK
VI
A
P
A
V
I
S
O
RO
N
A
L
D
ECHO HILL
SER
E
N
O
PI
N
O
L
E
PR
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
CLU
B
H
O
U
S
E
MURANO
DANIEL
PLUM BLOSSOM
DO
V
E
O
A
K
NI
G
H
T
I
N
G
A
L
E
COLLINGSWORTH
CORY
PE
R
A
L
T
A
WH
I
T
E
F
I
R
GARDENSIDE
BEAV
E
N
SHADY OAK
PRING
NO
R
T
H
F
O
R
D
E
W
E
S
T
S
H
O
R
E
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
O
A
K
EA
T
O
N
VI
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
W
A
N
LU
C
K
Y
O
A
K
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
P
I
N
N
T
A
G
E
LA PLAYA
AC
A
C
I
A
CARNOU
S
T
I
E
G
R
I
N
E
L
L
OA
K
S
P
R
I
N
G
PARKVIEW
MO
S
S
Y
O
A
K
BY
E
R
L
Y
LA
J
O
L
L
A
CATALANO
OASIS
SAKURA
MC
L
A
R
E
N
CARRIAGE
RIFREDI
NO
R
T
H
S
E
A
L
SW
A
N
O
A
K
ORANGEWOOD
MAPLETREE
SEEBER
CARTWRIGHT
CH
E
T
A
M
O
N
CLO
V
E
R
L
Y
RE
D
O
N
D
O
SH
A
S
T
A
S
P
R
I
N
G
TOMKI
CLASSIC
LANGPORT
R
I
V
I
E
R
A
MINE
DR
E
A
OL
D
T
O
W
N
BRENDA
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
BENET
T
I
NORTHVIEW
CE
D
A
R
S
P
R
I
N
G
OAK MEADOW
RA
N
C
H
O
TAMARIND
CAP
I
L
L
A
KR
I
S
T
A
CH
A
D
W
I
C
K
CONRADIA
VE
R
N
I
E
REINELL
CREEKSIDERIVERCREST
KINST
L
E
O
N
G
ALD
E
R
N
E
Y
AM
A
D
O
R
O
A
K
WINDSOR
MI
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
CYNTHIA
X
X
X
AR
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
BO
N
N
Y
KIMBERLY
RA
I
N
B
O
W
FO
R
G
E
RA
N
D
Y
AV
O
N
D
A
L
E
XX
X
FI
R
ME
A
D
O
W
PE
A
C
O
C
K
NEWSOM
BARNHART
XXX
SILVER OAK
HOWARD
XXX
CA
R
M
E
N
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
XXX
X
X
X
LA
H
E
R
R
A
N
JOHN
PA
L
O
M
A
GL
E
N
C
O
E
MA
R
Y
MA
R
I
A
N
I
XX
X
DE
O
D
A
R
A
XX
X
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
XXX
BU
B
B
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
HERON
XXX
XX
X
XXX
RIVER
S
I
D
E
XX
X
AS
T
E
R
XXX
XXX
VI
S
T
A
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
PACIFICA
KI
N
T
Y
R
E
POPPY
LO
C
K
W
O
O
D
RAINBOW
CRAIG
ME
R
R
I
M
A
N
XX
X
YO
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
IMPERIAL
Crossroads
Area
1
4
3
2
5
6
7
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BU
B
B
R
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
PROSPECT RD
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
TERRACE DR
MCC L E L L A N
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
HOMESTEAD RD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
PRUNE RI D GE
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
VALLC
O PKYPE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
R
D
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
R
D
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
BARNHART AVE
JOH
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
Garden
Gate DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
E
X
P
Y
RAINBOW DR
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
MCCLELLAN RD
PROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR
Deep Cli
Golf Course
Linda
Vista
Park
Rancho San
Antonio Open
Space Preserve
Gate of Heaven
Cemetary
Varian
Park
Cupertino
Sports
Center
Jollyman
Park
Three Oaks
Park
Hoover
Park
Creekside
Park
Wilson
Park
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
Rancho
Rinconada
County Park
Portal
Park
Somerset
Park
Monta
Vista
Park
Blackberry Farm
Golf Course
McClellan
Ranch
Park
Fremont Older
Open Space
Preserve
Franco
Park
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Kennedy
Middle
School
Monta Vista
High School
Regnart
Elementary
School
Eaton
Elementary
School
Saint Joseph of
Cupertino School
Garden Gate
Elementary
School
Stevens Creek
Elementary
School
William Faria
Elementary
School
Sedgwick
Elementary
School
Montebello
Elementary
School
Lawson
Middle
School
Collins
Elementary
School
Hyde
Middle
School
Cupertino
High
School
Homestead
High School
City
Hall
De Anza
College
Apple
Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85
CUPERTINO
SUNNYVALE
SARATOGA
WEST
VALLEY
SANTA CLARA
··········
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Oce....................TBD
Hotel.....................125 rooms
Residential.......... REMOVE
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue
Jay and De Anza, and north side of Homestead between
De Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of Homestead
between De Anza and Stelling) and 15 (between Stelling and Sunnyvale)
units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Oce....................TBD
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential.......... REMOVE
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Oce....................TBD
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential.......... REMOVE
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
Up to 45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial.......... 25,000 s.f.
Oce....................TBD
Hotel..................... none
Residential.......... REMOVE
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Oce....................TBD
Hotel..................... none
Residential.......... REMOVE
South De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet; 45 feet for Summer Winds,
Granite Rock, and Jack in the Box sites
if adopted as Housing Element Sites
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
30,708 s.f. TBD
732,697 s.f. 732,697 s.f.
339 rooms 1339 rooms
1,490 units REMOVED
523,118 s.f. TBD
0 s.f. 0 s.f.
0 0
405 units
553,826 s.f. 1,053,826 s.f.
732,697 s.f. 732,697 s.f.
339 rooms 1339 rooms
1,895 units REMOVED
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
TBD
0 s.f.
1,000 rooms
TBD
0 s.f.
0
+500,000 s.f.
0 s.f.
+1,000 rooms
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other
commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
Remaining in Planning Commission Dierence
Existing GP Recommendation
8,929,774 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
Development Allocation
Commercial..........2,094 s.f.
Oce....................TBD
Hotel.....................none
Residential.......... REMOVE
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 15 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
Monta Vista Village Special Area Development Allocation
Commercial.......... TBD
Oce....................TBD
Hotel..................... TBD
Residential.......... REMOVE
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
West of Wolfe - 45 feet; or 60 feet with a retail component
East of Wolfe - 60 feet; or 75 feet with retail component
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
··
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................150 rooms
Residential............400 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Oce....................75,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................150 rooms
Residential............350 units
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce, Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 65 (Hamptons site) units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Oce....................1,500,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................439 rooms
Residential............1,700 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (Vallco, Stevens Creek Oce Center, Marina
Foods, and the Oaks) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Oce....................200,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............201 units
South De Anza Special Area
··
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative B Dierence
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 1,807,887 s.f.
+ 554,371 s.f. **
+ 500 rooms
+ 1,405 units
+ 192,113 s.f.
+ 87,895 s.f. **
0
+ 16 units
+ 2,000,000 s.f.
+ 642,266 s.f. **
+ 500 rooms
+ 1,421 units
17,113 s.f. 1,825,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f.
339 rooms 839 rooms
1,416 units 2,821 units
523,118 s.f. 715,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f.
0 0
479 units 495 units
540,231 s.f. 2,540,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f.
339 rooms 839 rooms
1,895 units 3,316 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and
other commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
Note: Housing Element sites may have dierent densities as noted.
··
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............530 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue Jay
amd De Anza, and north side of HOmestead between De
Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of HOmestead between De Anza
amd Stelling) and 15 (between Stelling and Sunnyvale) units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet (see Stelling Gateway notes for Max. Heights East of Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Oce....................75,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............825 units
North Vallco Park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce, Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 65 (See Nodes/Gateways) units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Oce....................500,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................264 rooms
Residential............1,500 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (See Nodes/Gateways) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Oce....................200,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........582,439 s.f.
Oce....................1,000,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................375
Residential............600 units
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
··
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
West of Wolfe, 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component.
75 feet for a 200 foot depth along the Wolfe Road property line and setback
from the Stevens Creek Boulevard property line with retial and community
benets
East of Wolf, 60 feet, or 75 feet with retail or 90 feet with community benets ** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative B Dierence
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 1,685,939 s.f.
+ 569,532 s.f. **
+ 1,275 rooms
+ 2,511 units
+ 361,882 s.f.
+ 104,018 s.f. **
0
+ 16 units
+ 2,000,000 s.f.
+ 642,266 s.f. **
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,526 units
30,708 s.f. 1,668,826 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 1,270,945 s.f
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,490 units 4,001 units
523,118 s.f. 885,000 s.f.
4,419 s.f. 104,018 s.f.
0 0
479 units 495 unit
553,826 s.f. 2,553,826 s.f.
732,692 s.f. 1,374,963 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,882 units 4,421 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove,, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other
commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
Note: Housing Element sites may have dierent densities as noted.
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet or 45 feet for Housing Element Site at Summer Winds/Graniterock/Jack
in the Box
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Oce....................25,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............275 units
South De Anza Special Area
Development Allocation
Commercial..........20,945 s.f.
Oce....................23,826 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............101 units
Monta Vista Village Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 15 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
100,000 s.f.
200 rooms
200 units
Development Allocation
Commercial..........250,000 s.f.
Oce....................50,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............530 units
Homestead Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Development Allocation
Commercial..........100,000 s.f.
Oce....................90,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................300 rooms
Residential............825 units
North Vallco park Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........750,000 s.f.
Oce....................2,700,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................639 rooms
Residential............2,100 units
Heart of the City Special Area
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........25,000 s.f.
Oce....................400,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................100 rooms
Residential............170 units
North De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet
Development Allocation
Commercial..........125,000 s.f.
Oce....................50,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................none
Residential............275 units
South De Anza Special Area
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
··········
Citywide Development Summary
Existing Alternative A Dierence
17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1416 units 1620 units
523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f.
0 0
479 units 275 units
540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f.
339 rooms 600 rooms
1,895 units 1,895 units
Citywide Development Allocation
Major Corridors Built/Approved
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total
Oce
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining in Existing GP Alternative C Dierence
8,929,775 s.f.
3,729,569 s.f.
1,090 rooms
21,399 units
+ 3,272,887 s.f.
+ 554,371 s.f.
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,484 units
+ 227,113 s.f.
+ 87,895 s.f.
0
+ 42 units
+ 3,500,000 s.f.
+ 642,266 s.f.
+ 1,000 rooms
+ 2,526 units
17,113 s.f. 3,290,000 s.f.
695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,416 units 3,900 units
523,118 s.f. 750,231 s.f.
5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f.
0 0
479 units 521 units
540,231 s.f. 4,040,231 s.f.
701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f.
339 rooms 1,339 rooms
1,895 units 4,421 units
* Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and
other commercial/mixed-use centers, as dened in the 2005 General Plan.
** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage
(1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects.
Note: Housing Element sites may have dierent dnsities as noted.
North De Anza Gateway NodeStelling Gateway Node
Crossroads Node
South Vallco Gateway Node
City Center Node
North Vallco Gateway Node
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
East of Stelling -35 units per acre
West of Stelling - 15 units per acre
Maximum Height
East of Stelling - 45 feet
West of Stelling - 30 feet
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre; 35 units per acre if Housing
Element Site
Maximum Height
45 feet or 60 feet with retail
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
South Vallco Park
Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Oce
West of Wolfe
Maximum Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet; or 90 feet when 200 foot depth along
Wolfe Road property line for a hotel with major
convention center with community benets.
East of Wolfe
Maximum Density
25 units per acre or 65 units per acre if Housing
Element Site
Maximum Height
75 feet; Buildings within 50 feet of property lines
abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and
Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet.
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet or 60 feet with retail or 90 feet with a 500
person convention center
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre; 35 units per acre if Housing
Element Site
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, 75 feet with a retail component.
= 90 feet with retail and community
benets
South Vallco Park Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre (65 units per acre if Housing
Element site)
Maximum Height
West of Wolfe, 60 feet
= 90 feet for a 200 foot depth along Wolfe Road property line for a hotel with major convention
center with community benets
East of Wolfe, 75 feet
Buildings with 50 feet of property lines abutting
Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Ave. and Apple Campus 2
site shall not exceed 60 feet.
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component. 95 feet for a hotel with major convention center and
community benets
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
East of Stelling
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
North Crossroads Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
40 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 with a retail component
City Center Node
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet, or 90 feet with a retail component,
= 110 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benets
South Vallco Park Gateway East
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet or 90 feet with retail,
= 160 feet with retail and project-wide/
community benets
North Vallco Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre (110 units per acre for
Hamptons Site)
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component (retail
not required east of Wolfe Rd), or 85 feet with no
retail for the Hamptons
= 130 feet along Wolfe Rd with retail and
project-wide/community benets
North De Anza Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component,
145 feet with retail and project-wide/ community
benets
South Vallco Park Gateway West
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 with a retail component, or 85 feet
along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with retail
and project-wide/community benets
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component
Oaks Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
08001600 2400 Feet
N
Legend
City Boundary
Key Intersections
Planning Commission Recommendation
revised 10.20.14
Legend
City Boundary
BRT Stop (for environmental analysis)
BRT Line (for environmental analysis)
Key Intersections
* Additional height allowances w/ retail
and project-wide/community benets
Balanced Plan
revised 6.9.14
Legend
City Boundary
BRT Stop (for environmental analysis)
BRT Line (for environmental analysis)
Key Intersections
* Additional height allowances w/ retail
and project-wide benets
Alternative C
revised 6.9.14
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
Homestead Corridor
Development Allocation
Commercial.........
Oce.................... no additional
Hotel....................
Residential...........
De Anza South Corridor
De Anza North Corridor
Development Allocation
Commercial..........200,000 s.f.
Oce....................250,000 s.f
Hotel.....................no additional
Residential............no additional
Primary Uses
Oce
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Wolfe Corridor
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
component
Development Allocation
Commercial......... 300,000 s.f.
Oce....................790,000 s.f.
Hotel.....................190,000 s.f.
Residential...........no additional
Stevens Creek Corridor
Development Allocation
Commercial.........
Oce...................
Hotel....................
Residential...........
100,000 s.f.
no additional
no additional
2,200,000 s.f.
Primary Uses
Commercial, Medium-High Density
Residential, and Public/Quasi-Public
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
component
Primary Uses
Commercial, Oce and Residential
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
45 feet, 60 feet if there is a retail
Development Allocation
Commercial..........200,000 s.f.
Oce....................250,000s.f
Hotel.....................no additional
Residential............no additional
Sunnyvale Saratoga
Development Allocation
Commercial.........
Oce...................
Hotel....................
Residential...........
996
T DEMAND A
Market Study
Final Draft | February 13, 2014
Prepared by:
bae urban economics
997
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................11
General Plan Amendment Major Mixed-use Corridors....................................................11
Implications for the General Plan Amendment................................................................13
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS..........................................................................................14
Population and Household Trends....................................................................................14
Household Composition.....................................................................................................15
Age Distribution..................................................................................................................16
Ethnicity................................................................................................................................17
Household Income Distribution.........................................................................................19
Educational Attainment......................................................................................................19
Schools.................................................................................................................................20
Resident Occupation and Employment............................................................................21
Commute Flow....................................................................................................................22
Implications for General Plan Amendment.......................................................................23
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS............................................................................................24
Major Employers.................................................................................................................24
Jobs by Occupation and Industry......................................................................................25
Worker Age Distribution.....................................................................................................27
Worker Income....................................................................................................................28
Worker Ethnicity..................................................................................................................29
Implications for General Plan Amendment.......................................................................29
RETAIL SALES AND LEAKAGE ANALYSIS................................................................31
Estimated Retail Sales in Cupertino and the RTA by Major Retail Category.................33
Trends in Retail Sales..........................................................................................................36
Leakage Analysis.................................................................................................................40
REAL ESTATE MARKET TRENDS...............................................................................54
Residential Market...............................................................................................................54
998
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
Office Real Estate Market Overview..................................................................................62
Retail Real Estate Market Overview...................................................................................69
Hotel Market Overview.......................................................................................................73
POTENTIAL MARKET SUPPORT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT...................................78
Population, Household and Employment Projections.....................................................78
Housing Demand................................................................................................................79
Office Demand....................................................................................................................81
Retail Demand.....................................................................................................................85
Hotel Demand.....................................................................................................................90
Summary of Demand Estimates.........................................................................................92
APPENDIX A: ZIP CODES IN THE RETAIL TRADE AREA..........................................93
APPENDIX B: RETAIL SALES TRENDS.......................................................................94
APPENDIX C: LEAKAGE ANALYSIS DETAIL...........................................................101
APPENDIX D: NOTES ON METHODOLOGY FOR RETAIL SALES AND LEAKAGE
ESTIMATES..............................................................................................................103
APPENDIX E: WORKER SPENDING CLOSE TO PLACE OF WORK........................104
APPENDIX F: NET RETAIL EXPENDITURES NEAR WORK FOR CUPERTINO
WORKERS................................................................................................................106
APPENDIX G: CURRENTLY LEASING PROPERTIES................................................107
APPENDIX H: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN CUPERTINO.......114
999
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
Table of Tables
Table 1: Population and Household Trends, 2000-2010.....................................................15
Table 2: Household Composition, 2000-2010 ......................................................................16
Table 3: Ethnicity, 2000-2010.................................................................................................18
Table 4: Household Income (a)..............................................................................................19
Table 5: Educational Attainment for Population 25+ Year of Age (a)................................20
Table 6: Employed Residents by Occupation and Industry (a)...........................................22
Table 7: Commute Flow (a)....................................................................................................23
Table 8: Principal Employers in Cupertino, 2012.................................................................25
Table 9: Occupation and Industry by Workplace Location (a)............................................26
Table 10: Employee Age Distribution (a)..............................................................................27
Table 11: Worker Earnings in the Past 12 Months (a)..........................................................28
Table 12: Worker Race and Ethnicity (a)...............................................................................29
Table 13: Total Estimated 2011 Retail Sales.........................................................................35
Table 14: Summary of Leakage Analysis...............................................................................42
Table 15: Detail on Motor Vehicle Sector Sales...................................................................49
Table 16: Detail on Furniture and Home Furnishings Store Sales......................................49
Table 17: Detail on Electronics and Appliances Store Sales...............................................49
Table 18: Detail on Building Materials Sector Sales............................................................50
Table 19: Detail on Food and Beverage Store Sales...........................................................50
Table 20: Detail on Health and Personal Care Store Sales.................................................51
Table 21: Detail on Clothing and Clothing Accessory Store Sales.....................................51
Table 22: Detail on Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Store Sales......................52
Table 23: Detail on General Merchandise Store Sales........................................................52
Table 24: Detail on Miscellaneous Retail Store Sales..........................................................52
Table 25: Detail on Food Services and Drinking Places Sales............................................53
Table 26: Housing Units by Type of Structure (a).................................................................55
1000
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
Table 27: Household Tenure, 2000-2010..............................................................................56
Table 28: Sale Price Distribution of Single-Family Residences and Condominiums by
Number of Bedrooms, March-August 2013 (a)....................................................................59
Table 30: Population, Household, and Employment Projections, 2010 & 2040................79
Table 31: Projected Housing Unit Growth, West Valley, 2010-2040...................................79
Table 32: Projected Housing Unit Demand, Cupertino, 2020-2035...................................80
Table 33: Annual Office Space Demand Based on Projected Employment, West Valley,
2010-2040................................................................................................................................82
Table 34: Corporate Campuses Recently Proposed by Silicon Valley Tech Companies..83
Table 35: Projected Office Demand, Cupertino, 2013-2035...............................................84
Table 36: Support from Existing Residents and Workers for Additional Retail Space in
Cupertino................................................................................................................................85
Table 37: Support from Growth in Population and Employment for Additional Retail Space
in Cupertino............................................................................................................................88
Table 38: Projected Lodging Demand, Cupertino..............................................................91
Table A-1: Zip Codes in the Retail Trade Area....................................................................93
Table B-1a: Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2008.........................................95
Table B-1b: Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2009-2012.........................................96
Table B-2a: Santa Clara County Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2008..........................97
Table B-2b: Santa Clara County Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2009-2011..........................98
Table B-3a: California Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2008..........................................99
Table B-3b: California Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2009-2011........................................100
Table C-1: Leakage Analysis Detail.....................................................................................102
Table E-1: Worker Spending Close to Place of Work........................................................105
Table F-1: Net Retail Expenditures Near Work for Cupertino Workers...........................106
Table G-1: Currently Leasing Office Properties, Cupertino, June 2013...........................108
Table G-2: Currently Leasing Retail Properties, Cupertino, June 2013............................111
Table H-1: Planned and Proposed Development, Cupertino, May 2013.........................115
1001
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
Table of Figures
Figure 1: General Plan Amendment Study Areas...............................................................12
Figure 2: Age Distribution, 2010...........................................................................................17
Figure 3: Cupertino and the Retail Trade Area....................................................................31
Figure 4: California Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2011...............................................37
Figure 5: Santa Clara County Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2011..............................38
Figure 6: Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2012..............................................39
Figure 7: Cupertino Retail Sales Leakages by Major Retail Store Category......................45
Figure 8: RTA Retail Sales Leakages by Major Retail Store Category................................47
Figure 9: Residential Units Permitted, 2003-2012................................................................56
Figure 10: Residential Units Permitted by Building Type, 2003-2012.................................57
Figure 11: Median Home Sale Price, 2005-2012..................................................................58
Figure 12: Rental Stock by Number of Bedrooms, Second Quarter 2013 (a)....................60
Figure 13: Rental Rate Trends, 2005-2013 ............................................................................61
Figure 14: Vacancy Rate Trends, 2005-2013.........................................................................61
Figure 15: Office Inventory, 2003-2013.................................................................................64
Figure 16: Annual Net Office Absorption, Cupertino, 2003-2012......................................65
Figure 17: Annual Net Office Absorption, West Valley, 2003-2012....................................66
Figure 18: Class A Office Lease Rates, First Quarter 2003 to First Quarter 2013..............67
Figure 19: Office Vacancy Rates, First Quarter 2003 to First Quarter 2013........................67
Figure 20: Retail Inventory, 2006-2013 (Year to Date) (a).....................................................70
Figure 21: Net Annual Retail Absorption, Cupertino, 2006-2013.......................................71
Figure 22: Net Annual Retail Absorption, Santa Clara County, 2006-2013........................71
Figure 23: Retail Lease Rate Trends, 2006-2013...................................................................72
Figure 24: Retail Vacancy Trends, 2006-2013 .......................................................................73
Figure 25: Hotel Inventory, Cupertino, 2013 ........................................................................75
Figure 26: Occupancy by Day of Week, August 2012-July 2013 .........................................76
Figure 27: Hotel Average Daily Rate and Occupancy Rate, 2007-2012..............................77
1002
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Study Areas – Location and Description
The Cupertino General Plan Amendment (GPA) focuses on five corridors along Stevens Creek
Boulevard (Heart of the City Corridor), De Anza Boulevard (South De Anza and North De Anza
Corridor), Wolfe Road (North Wolfe Corridor), and Homestead Road (Homestead Corridor).
Each corridor is located east of Highway 85 in neighborhoods with existing commercial or office
development.
Most of the parcels within the five corridors are developed with existing uses, and as
a result, new development facilitated by the GPA would consist largely of either
redevelopment of existing buildings, selective demolition of existing structures and
replacement with new construction, or new infill development adjacent to existing
uses.
Overall, these corridors will be attractive opportunities for residential and
commercial renovation and new construction.
Demographic Trends
With a 2010 population of approximately 58,3001, Cupertino is a growing community with a
significant concentration of highly educated and high-income households attracted to the city
by its outstanding public schools and location in the heart of Silicon Valley. The city’s household
composition is weighted towards family households with children, with a lower percent of
households comprised of singles. As the city has grown, its ethnic mix has changed to where its
Asian population comprises approximately 63.1 percent of the population in 2010.
Cupertino has experienced modest growth, averaging 1.4 percent annually over the
past ten years. This is a more rapid growth rate than either Santa Clara County or
the Bay Area as a whole.
The city’s average household size in 2010 was 2.87, about the same as Santa Clara
County (2.90 persons per household) and higher than the Bay Area average (2.69
persons per household).
The larger average household size is driven by the higher percentage of households
with children under the age of 18. In Cupertino, 47.3 percent of households have
1 This study uses 2010 as the base year for comparisons and consistency with forecasts prepared by the
Association of Bay Area Governments; the 2012 U.S. Census population estimate for Cupertino is
approximately 60,000.
1003
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
2
children under the age of 18, compared to 38.4 percent of households in Santa Clara
County and only 33.4 percent of households in the Bay Area. Only 17.6 percent of
Cupertino households in 2010 were comprised of single adults compared to 21.8
percent for Santa Clara County and 26.1 percent for the Bay Area.
Between 2000 and 2010, the ethnic composition of Cupertino’s population has
changed significantly. The proportion of residents who are of Asian descent grew
from 44.3 percent to 63.1 percent of the city’s population, while the percent of non-
Hispanic white residents fell from 47.8 to 29.3 percent. The percent of population in
other ethnic categories such as African-American, Hispanic, and 2+ Races generally
remained stable.
Cupertino residents have high levels of educational attainment. Over 73 percent of
city residents over the age of 18 have a bachelor, graduate, or professional degree
compared to 46 percent in Santa Clara County, and 42 percent in the Bay Area.
Cupertino residents’ high level of educational attainment is correlated with a high
degree of professional occupations: 77 percent of employed city residents work in
management, business, science, or arts occupations, compared to 45 percent of Bay
Area residents.
Reflecting high education levels and professional occupations, Cupertino
households earn a significantly higher median household income ($123,700) than
Santa Clara County ($87,200), and the Bay Area ($75,800). This means Cupertino
households can support higher rents and home prices as well as higher levels of
discretionary retail spending.
Cupertino’s public schools are among the best in California, attracting families with
children to the city. All of the elementary and middle schools in the city achieved the
minimum California Academic Performance Index standard of 800 in 2012, and 22 of
Cupertino’s elementary and middle schools achieved over 900. All but one of the
high schools that serve the city also exceeded the minimum standard of 800 in 2012.
Enrollments have risen in Cupertino’s public schools even through new housing
development has been limited in recent years.
Overall, Cupertino’s strong demographics provide strong support for renovated or
new retail shopping facilities in the city.
Economic Trends
As the home of Apple Inc., Cupertino is dominated by the technology sector. The city
experiences a net daily inflow of approximately 26,700 workers to employment centers.
Cupertino’s strong economy supports demand for both office space and retail facilities.
As the city’s largest employer with over 13,000 employees, Apple Inc. impacts the
demand for office space in Cupertino through its own internal growth and
1004
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
3
acquisitions, attraction of firms doing business with Apple, and through spin-offs and
start-ups established by Apple Inc. employees.
While there are approximately 31,800 jobs in Cupertino, there are approximately
5,100 residents in the city who also work in Cupertino, indicating a net inflow of
approximately 26,700 workers into the community on weekdays. These workers
represent a segment of market demand for convenience retail expenditures.
61 percent of jobs in Cupertino are in occupations related to management, business,
science, and the arts, while approximately 20 percent of jobs in the city are in sales
and office occupations. Together, these two occupational categories account for
over 80 percent of jobs in Cupertino.
While Cupertino employment data shows that just under 29 percent of its jobs are
classified as being in the manufacturing sector, only four percent of occupations are
actually in production, transportation and material moving occupations. This reflects
Apple Inc. as a computer and mobile device manufacturing company with
headquarters and R&D activities in Cupertino, but with manufacturing activity
located outside the community.
As a result of the higher percentage of management, business, science, and arts
occupations, the median earnings of workers in Cupertino is $81,000, approximately
42 percent higher than the median earnings for workers overall in Santa Clara County
($57,000).
Cupertino’s work force is composed of a lower proportion of younger workers when
compared to Santa Clara County. Just 28 percent of Cupertino’s jobs are held by
workers under age 35, compared to 32 percent of all jobs in the county.
The ethnic profile of workers in Cupertino is different than the profile for the resident
population. While the resident population in the city is over 63 percent of Asian
ethnicities, just fewer than 35 percent of workers are of Asian ethnicities. Compared
to the city’s residential population, a larger percent of workers are of non-Hispanic
white and Hispanic or Latino race and ethnicity. This suggests that retail in Cupertino
must cater to a more diverse base of customers than reflected by the city resident
profile alone.
Overall, Cupertino has a highly compensated workforce that provides a strong base
of potential retail sales during the workday, although this is somewhat tempered by
onsite food service and other amenities offered by major employers such as Apple
Inc.
1005
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
4
Residential Market Assessment
Cupertino has a strong residential market due largely to the high quality of the local school
districts and the presence of Apple Inc. and other high-tech employers. Strong demand for
homes in Cupertino has created a housing market characterized by high home prices and rental
rates, which were impacted relatively little during the Great Recession. While demand is strong,
new construction has been modest in the current economic recovery.
Cupertino’s residential market is primarily comprised of single-family attached and
detached homes, which together account for nearly 70 percent of the city’s housing
stock. The proportion of homeowners in Cupertino is approximately 63 percent,
reflecting the predominance of single-family homes in the community which tend to
be purchased by owner-occupants.
Cupertino’s median home price at the end of 2012 was approximately $1,045,800,
almost double the median home price of $525,000 reported for Santa Clara County.
During the Great Recession, the median home price in Cupertino fell by only eight
percent from peak to trough, compared to a 35 percent price decline countywide.
A breakdown of data for home sales by type of unit and size indicates that most of
Cupertino’s units selling for less than the reported median are condominiums.
These units sold for a median price of $775,000 at the end of 2012, compared to
single-family home sales with a median price of $1.4 million. Two-thirds of
condominiums sales were for two bedroom units, in contrast to over 50 fifty percent
of single family home sales for units with four or more bedrooms.
Thirty percent of Cupertino’s housing stock is in multifamily units. An analysis of
rental residential properties indicates that the city’s rental stock has a higher
proportion of larger rental units (59 percent of units had two or more bedrooms)
than found elsewhere in Santa Clara County (49 percent of total units with two or
more bedrooms), likely reflecting demand for rentals oriented to families attracted
by local schools.
The city’s rental apartment complexes are experiencing strong occupancy and rising
rental rates. Although occupancy rates fell during the Great Recession to 93 percent,
occupancy had recovered to almost 95 percent by the end of the second quarter of
2013. Market analysts consider 95 percent occupancy rates to indicate a balanced
market between demand and supply.
Rental rates in Cupertino now exceed rental rates achieved prior to the recession.
As of the end of the second quarter 2013, the average apartment in Cupertino was
$2,426 –17 percent higher than the average apartment rental rate for Santa Clara
County ($2,062).
While residential construction in Santa Clara County is approaching pre-recession
levels, residential construction in Cupertino has improved only slightly from its
1006
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
5
trough year 2009, despite strong demand signals such as rising home prices and
apartment rents.
As of the date of this report, there was only two planned or proposed for-sale
residential projects, Parkside Trails (18 units) on Stevens Creek Road and a six-unit
live/work project on Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. Cupertino also has three
rental residential projects in the development pipeline, which will add a total of 404
units to the housing supply.
Overall, there is strong demand for both for-sale and rental housing, and a potential
gap in the market for units targeted to young or single households or other smaller
households. This mismatch is suggested by the profile of workers commuting into
Cupertino, with lower median ages than residents.
Retail Market Assessment
While Cupertino has one regional mall and several community retail shopping centers and
clusters, the city is experiencing significant retail sales leakage overall. As noted in the separate
Retail Strategy Report, there are barriers to entry for new retail in the City due to lack of suitable
sites. While there are planned projects that may allow the city to recapture a portion of these
lost sales opportunities, the City’s biggest opportunity to improve its retail sector lies with
successfully redeveloping the existing Vallco Shopping Center.
Total retail sales for Cupertino in 2011 were estimated at approximately $615 million.
The three largest categories by sales volume are food and beverage stores (27
percent), food services and drinking places (22 percent), and general merchandise
stores (20 percent). Taxable retail sales have risen over the past three years reflecting
both a recovery from the Great Recession as well as population growth.
When measured on a per capita basis, total retail sales in Cupertino are relatively
low, at $10,483 annually per resident, compared to $15,807 annually for the Retail
Trade Area and $13,404 for Santa Clara County. This results in sales leakage outside
of Cupertino, meaning residents and workers are spending retail dollars at stores in
other jurisdictions nearby.
Much of this leakage from Cupertino is attributable to a strong surrounding Regional
Trade Area, with ample shopping centers and retail facilities serving the larger South
Bay. When analyzed overall, the Regional Trade Area is well-balanced between
potential demand from residents and workers, and sales occurring within it; analysis
indicated less than eight percent of potential sales from Trade Area customers were
occurring outside of the Trade Area.
Cupertino’s retail leakage to the Retail Trade Area does not stem from any
fundamental flaw in its location, transportation access, or demographics, but rather
1007
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
6
from other retail development being better executed and operated outside the City
(see Retail Strategy Report for further information see the Retail Strategy Study).
Cupertino has relatively strong retail sales in stores selling everyday items, such as
food stores and drug stores.
General merchandise stores that sell a mix of everyday items and comparison goods
are performing well due to the presence of three mall department stores and one
discount department store in Cupertino.
Stores specializing in other types of comparison goods, however, are lacking in the
city. With the exception of the Vallco Shopping Mall, most of Cupertino’s retail
stores serve convenience-oriented shopping.
None of the existing shopping centers in Cupertino can be categorized as a
“lifestyle” center” although Cupertino Village, The Oaks, and Vallco Shopping
Center have elements of “lifestyle” retail This newer type of retail, which combines
upscale, specialty retail, dining, and entertainment in one shopping experience, has
recently been developed elsewhere in the Bay Area, exemplified by Santana Row.
The Main Street project planned for Cupertino will add this type of experience to the
city’s retail inventory.
Despite exceptionally strong household demographics and worker incomes, as well as
significant retail leakage, the market has only recently responded with new retail projects in
Cupertino.
Terranomics, Inc., a regional commercial brokerage firm specializing in retail,
indicates that the Cupertino/Sunnyvale submarket has an inventory of 4.2 million
square feet of retail as of the end of the second quarter 2013. The submarket’s
inventory has expanded modestly by nearly five percent over the past seven years.
The Cupertino/Sunnyvale submarket has averaged approximately 27,200 square feet
of net retail absorption annually over the past ten years. The market experienced
negative net absorption service in 2010, reflecting the impact of the Great Recession
as well as in 2012 when some retail space was unoccupied due to renovation or
replacement project plans occurring both in Cupertino and Sunnyvale.
A review of retail spaces currently for lease in Cupertino indicates an asking and
actual rental range between $2.25 and $4.50 monthly per square foot triple net – a
level high enough to make new retail construction potentially financially feasible.
There are eight projects with a retail component that are under construction,
approved, or planned in Cupertino. These projects together will bring a total of
approximately 352,600 net new square feet of retail to the city.
1008
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
7
Overall, there is potentially strong market support for renovated or new retail facilities – given
that existing and new centers deliver the right retail mix in a contemporary setting that provides
a great experience to shoppers. Cupertino enjoys two advantages to support new retail
development:
Centrally located within the Retail Trade Area
Excellent access to freeways, expressways, and major arterials
A detailed analysis of Cupertino’s retail sales data indicates a number of retail categories that
could be targeted for both planned and proposed projects as well as future retail development
under the General Plan Amendment. Categories with significant potential (defined here as
categories in which per capital sales in Cupertino are less than half the per capita sales for Santa
Clara County) include:
Vehicle and parts dealers (except for tire dealers)
Radio, television, and other electronics stores,
Computer and software stores
Home centers, paint and wallpaper stores, hardware stores, and other building
material dealers
Meat markets and specialty food stores
Cosmetics, beauty supplies, and perfume stores
Men’s and woman’s clothing stores, children’s and infant’s clothing stores
Family clothing stores
Clothing accessory stores
Luggage and leather goods stores
Bookstores, news dealers and newsstands
Prerecorded tape, compact disc, and record stores
Warehouse clubs and supercenters
Miscellaneous retail stores (except pet and pet supplies stores and tobacco stores)
Food service contractors and drinking places (alcoholic beverages)
The degree to which Cupertino can increase sales in these above-mentioned categories will
depend on the specific location and site characteristics and location of new retail development
and general competitive forces (such as location of competitors). See the Retail Strategy Study
for more information on this topic.
As indicated in the Retail Strategy Report, the Vallco Shopping Center represents a mixed
picture for Cupertino. Its anchor department stores and entertainment options appear to draw
shoppers to the city, but the poor performance of the remainder of the mall contributes to the
city’s overall leakage of sales to other competing communities.
To expand retail offerings at Vallco and to improve the overall experience of
shopping at this center, property owners need incentives to invest in or redevelop
their properties.
1009
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
8
Increasing density at Vallco to permit mixed-uses would be a powerful incentive to
motivate Vallco property owners to improve and/or redevelop the shopping center.
Office Market Assessment
The office market in Cupertino has been performing strongly, led by the growth of Apple Inc.,
and other technology companies. By several metrics, demand continues to be strong, limited
primarily by supply constraints. To continue to be attractive to technology companies, the city
must encourage the renovation or replacement of existing office facilities with newer, more
functional, environmentally sustainable space with a high level of on-site amenities as well as
strong linkages to nearby retail and recreational amenities.
Cupertino’s inventory of office space consists of 4.1 million square feet located
primarily along Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza, and North Wolfe Road.
Cupertino accounts for 6.7 percent of Santa Clara County’s 61 million square foot
office market.
Measured by vacancy rates, the Cupertino office market has exhibited consistently
lower vacancy rates than for either Santa Clara County or the West Valley office
submarket. As of the end of the first quarter 2013, the city’s office vacancy rate was
only 1.5 percent compared to 11.7 percent in the West Valley and 13.0 percent
county wide.
The city’s low office vacancy rate is the result of four years of positive net absorption
and little new office construction. Over the past ten years the average annual net
absorption of office space has been approximately 60,500 square feet.
Office landlords have been able to achieve consistently higher rental rates in
Cupertino than in the West Valley submarket and County overall. At the end of the
first quarter 2013, the average full service monthly asking rental rate for Class A office
space was $3.94 per square foot on a full service basis in Cupertino, compared to
$3.56 per square foot in the West Valley and $3.49 per square foot countywide.
Commercial brokers report that large blocks of office space are generally not available and high
office rents discourage some businesses from locating in the Cupertino.
Cupertino City Center, considered the city’s premier office building, has been 100
percent occupied for over a year and only now has 8,200 square feet available.
Similarly, the Cupertino Financial Center reports only 1,000 square feet available as
of the date of this report.
There are four planned and proposed office development projects in Cupertino that
could add up to one million square feet of additional supply to the city’s inventory.
However, three-quarters of this inventory expansion is for Apple Inc., and
1010
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
9
approximately 294,000 square feet of additional office is planned in three other
projects and could be offered to other firms and businesses.
Hotel Market Assessment
Business-related travel is the driver of demand for hotel rooms in Silicon Valley. Exceptionally
strong occupancy and growth in room revenue in Cupertino’s existing hotels suggest support
for additional hotel rooms. General population and employment growth will also increase
overall total demand. Hotels are one of the riskiest real estate investments and financing can be
difficult to obtain. As a result development of new hotels tends to lag job growth. Cupertino has
an advantage over other West Valley communities by having Apple Inc., as its main employer
and generator of business travel.
Cupertino has an inventory of 785 rooms in five hotel properties: Cupertino Inn,
Courtyard by Marriott, Hilton Garden Inn, Kimpton Cypress Hotel and Aloft
Cupertino.
Hotel operators indicate that between 70 and 75 percent of hotel room demand is
business related.
After declining during the Great Recession, hotel occupancy in Cupertino is now
higher than before the recession – averaging 80 percent occupancy during 2012.
Some operators report current occupancy rates as high as 90 or 100 percent during
weekdays. Most hotel market analysts consider 70 percent occupancy as an overall
financially feasible level; thus, Cupertino’s rates are relatively high, suggesting strong
market demand and room for growth in supply.
The average daily room rate for Cupertino hotel properties, at $134.30 in 2012, is
approaching pre-recession levels.
The city’s hotel development pipeline totals 302 rooms in two projects located at the
Oaks Shopping Center and within the Main Street project, respectively.
Overall, market indicators, including the expansion of Apple Inc., signal support for
new hotel development in Cupertino.
Summary of Demand Estimates
Based on the above analysis, the following table summarizes the market demand findings of this
report. These findings will be considered during the planning process and inform the setting of
new allocations for the City of Cupertino.
Housing. Demand estimates range from indicate market support for an increased
allocation of between 473 and 1,939 units by 2020 and between 2,353 and 4,420 units
by 2035.
1011
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
10
Office. Demand estimates are 2.9 million square feet through 2020 and 3.6 million
square feet by 2035. These estimates incorporate the Apple 2 campus and would
accommodate demand from a large corporate user (either new or an existing firm
expanding in the future).
Retail. The range of supportable square footage of new retail space resulting from
capture of current sales leakages of existing resident and worker expenditures and
future demand from new residents and workers is estimated to be between 51,800
and 222,000 by 2020 and from 158,000 to 345,000 square feet by 2035. This level of
demand indicates that the current remaining commercial allocation of 701,500
square feet is generally adequate. While a portion of this demand could be met with
renovated or redeveloped retail in all four corridors, the primary opportunity to
capture this retail demand as well as increase the city’s share of retail sales within the
Retail Trade Area would lie with the Vallco Shopping Center. The Retail Strategy
Report presents a detailed analysis of the Vallco district.
Hotel. No or little new hotel demand is identified between now and 2020, but new
demand for hotel rooms may range from 40 to 985 room by 2035.
Summary of Demand Estimates
Office
LowHighLowHighLowHigh
Through 2020
Demand Through 2020 (Units/Sq.Ft.)8771,535303,061227,800 398,000 61202
Demand Adjustments (a)- - 2,750,000 - - - -
Less: Entitled Projects (404)(404)147,050176,000 176,000 (151)(151)
Net Demand 4731,9392,906,01151,800 222,000(90)51
Through 2035
Demand Through 2035 (Units/Sq.Ft.)2,7574,824952,477 334,000521,000 191636
Demand Adjustments - - 2,750,000(a)- - - 500 (b)
Less: Entitled Projects 404404147,050176,000176,000(151)(151)
Net Demand 2,3534,4203,555,428158,000345,00040985
Notes:
(a) For Office Apple Campus 2 and 1.5 million sq.ft. added; see text for description.
(b) Adjustment for flexibility in meeting long-term demand under high scenario; see text for description.
Sources: City of Cupertino; BAE 2013.
Residential HotelRetail
1012
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
11
INTRODUCTION
Located in the heart of the Silicon Valley with a 2010 population of approximately 58,3002,
Cupertino has emerged over the past two decades as one of the major economic nodes in the
increasingly interconnected global economy. The city is home to one of the world’s most
valuable companies and brands (Apple, Inc.), has a thriving small business sector, and is one of
the most highly educated communities in the nation.
In early 2013, the City of Cupertino initiated a process to review several properties in the
commercial districts in Cupertino, including the Vallco Shopping Mall, as part of a focused
General Plan Amendment (GPA). This process includes an extensive community discussion on
mobility, urban design and economic development challenges and ideas. As a starting point for
the GPA process, the City will be evaluating potential increases to citywide development
allocations for office, commercial, housing and hotel uses.
This Market Demand Analysis provides background information on demographic and
employment trends in Cupertino, Santa Clara County and the greater Bay Area, and assesses
market trends and demand for new residential, retail and office development in Cupertino. The
information and analysis provided in this analysis will inform the development of Concept
Alternatives that will form the basis for the General Plan Amendment.
General Plan Amendment Major Mixed-use Corridors
The GPA will focus on identifying land use, economic development, and urban design changes
on five corridors, shown in Figure 1 below. These major mixed-use corridors represent key
“change areas” within Cupertino where future development will be focused.
Most of these areas are developed with existing uses, and as a result, new development
facilitated by the GPA would consist largely of either redevelopment of existing buildings,
selective demolition of existing structures and replacement with new construction, or new infill
development adjacent to existing uses.
2 This study uses 2010 as the base year for comparisons and consistency with forecasts prepared by the
Association of Bay Area Governments; the 2012 U.S. Census population estimate for Cupertino is
approximately 60,000.
1013
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
12
Figure 1: General Plan Amendment Major Mixed-Use Corridors
Source: City of Cupertino and MIG, 2014
A. Homestead Corridor (red)
This corridor includes the area surrounding Homestead Road between Stelling and Blaney
Avenue, within the Cupertino city limits. This corridor runs along the city’s northern border and
includes commercial uses, a PG&E facility, and several low, medium, and high density
residential neighborhoods.
B. North Wolfe Corridor (blue)
This corridor is a major north/south connector that includes the Apple Campus 2, hotels, office,
and other commercial uses.
C. Heart of the City Corridor (green)
This corridor is the ‘‘heart’’ of Cupertino and includes many of the city’s largest commercial,
office, mixed-use, and residential areas located along Stevens Creek Boulevard. It also includes
the entire Vallco Shopping District site. This corridor has the same boundary as the current
Heart of the City Specific Plan.
D. North De Anza Corridor (purple)
This corridor is a major north/south connector that includes many office and commercial uses.
1014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
13
E. South De Anza Corridor (yellow)
This corridor a north/south connector that includes smaller-scale commercial, office and
residential uses
Implications for the General Plan Amendment
All of the major mixed-use corridors are comprised of high traffic arterials, with many sites
having visibility of quick access to I-280, making sites within the corridors highly desirable for
residential and commercial redevelopment and/or new construction.
1015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
14
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
The following sections detail demographic characteristics and trends in Cupertino, including
how the city has changed and grown in recent years, which will inform the real estate market
demand analysis presented in later sections of this report. Demographic data were compiled
from the U.S. Census Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS
publishes estimates of demographic conditions for geographies the size of Cupertino based on
statistical sampling conducted continuously over a three-year period.3 While these data cannot
represent conditions at a specific point in time, as in the previous decennial censuses, they are
updated on an annual basis and offer a valuable means to compare characteristics across
geographies. Estimated future changes in population, households, and employment were
based on projections provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). To the
extent that data are available, information is presented for Cupertino along with comparative
information for Santa Clara County and the nine-county Bay Area.4 The base year of the
demographic analysis is 2010 to facilitate comparisons and for consistency with ABAG forecasts.
Population and Household Trends
As shown in Table 1, Cupertino had a population of 58,302 residents and 20,181 households in
2010. These figures represent a 15 percent increase in population and an 11 percent increase in
households since 2000, significantly higher than the rate of growth in Santa Clara County (six
percent increase in population; seven percent increase in households) and the Bay Area (five
percent increase in population; six percent increase in households). Between 2000 and 2010, the
rate of population and household growth in Cupertino surpassed the growth rate in
surrounding areas. Table 1 summarizes population and household trends for Cupertino, Santa
Clara County, and the Bay Area.
3This data source replaces the information obtained in previous Censuses from the “long form” questionnaire. For
more information on the ACS, see www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/american_community_survey/
4 The nine-county Bay Area consists of the Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
1016
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
15
Table 1: Population and Household Trends,
2000-2010
Annual
% Change
Cupertino 2000 20102000-2010
Population 50,54658,3021.4%
Households 18,20420,1811.0%
Santa Clara County
Population 1,682,5851,781,6420.6%
Households 565,863604,2040.7%
Bay Area (a)
Population 6,783,7607,150,7390.5%
Households 2,466,0192,608,0230.6%
Notes:
(a) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Sources: U.S. Census 2000 & 2010; BAE, 2013.
Household Composition
Households in Cupertino tend to be slightly larger than average for the Bay Area and about the
same size as Santa Clara County. In 2010, the average household size was approximately 2.9
persons in Cupertino and Santa Clara County and 2.7 persons in the Bay Area overall, as shown
in Table 2. Moreover, Cupertino has a larger proportion of family households and households
with children than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Family households accounted for more
than three quarters of all Cupertino households (78 percent) in 2010, compared to 71 percent of
households in Santa Clara County and 65 percent of households in the Bay Area. Close to half
of all households in Cupertino (47 percent) included children under the age of 18, compared to
approximately one third in Santa Clara County (38 percent) and the Bay Area (33 percent). The
large and growing number of households with children in Cupertino is due largely to the school
districts that serve the city, which are among the most highly rated in the country.
Household characteristics suggest recent demographic shifts in Cupertino, leading to larger
household sizes, more families, and more households with children. The average household size
in Cupertino increased from 2.75 persons in 2000 to 2.87 persons in 2010, while the average
household size was essentially unchanged in both Santa Clara County and Bay Area. The
proportion of family households and households with children also increased between 2000 and
2010 in Cupertino while changing only slightly in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area.
1017
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
16
Table 2: Household Composition, 2000-2010
Santa Clara
CupertinoCountyBay Area (a)
200020102000201020002010
Average Household Size 2.752.872.922.902.692.69
Household Type (b)
Non-Family
Single Person 19.6%17.6%21.4%21.8%25.9%26.1%
2+ Persons 5.6%4.3%8.7%7.6%9.5%9.2%
Non-Family Households25.2%21.8%30.1%29.4%35.3%35.4%
Family Households 74.8%78.2%69.9%70.6%64.7%64.6%
Households with Children < 1843.2%47.3%38.6%38.4%34.7%33.4%
Notes:
(a) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
(b) A family is a group of two people or more related by birth, marriage, or adoption
and residing together.
Sources: U.S. Census 2000 & 2010; BAE, 2013.
Age Distribution
Census data indicate that Cupertino residents have a slightly higher median age than residents
in the region and the city has a significantly different distribution of age cohorts. In 2010, the
median age in Cupertino was 39.9, compared to 36.2 in Santa Clara County, and 37.7 in the Bay
Area. Looking at the age cohorts, as shown in Figure 2, Cupertino has a high proportion of
children under 18 (28 percent of the population in 2010, compared to 24 percent in the county
and 22 percent in the region) and adults in the 35 to 64 years-of-age cohort (46 percent of the
population in 2010, compared to 41 percent in the county and 42 percent in the region).
Conversely, the city has a lower proportion of adults in the 18 to 34 years-of-age cohort, which
accounted for only 14 percent of the population in Cupertino and 24 percent of the population
of the county and region. These data demonstrate that Cupertino is primarily populated by
families with children and that young adults do not comprise a large portion of the population.
1018
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
17
Figure 2: Age Distribution, 2010
Notes:
(a) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Sources: U.S. Census 2000 & 2010; BAE, 2013.
14%24%24%
46%
41%42%
12%11%12%
28%24%22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CupertinoSanta Clara CountyBay Area (a)
65 or older
35-64
18-34
Under 18
Ethnicity
Cupertino differs markedly from the county and region with respect to the racial and ethnic
breakdown of the population. In 2010, approximately two thirds of the population of Cupertino
was of Asian descent, while approximately one third of the population of Santa Clara County
and one quarter of the population of the Bay Area consisted of individuals of Asian descent. In
all three geographies, data from 2010 demonstrate a significant increase in the Asian
population compared to 2000; however, the difference is especially notable in Cupertino, where
the Asian population grew by 64 percent between 2000 and 2010.
Compared to the county and region, Cupertino had a smaller share of individuals from all other
racial and ethnic groups in 2010. The city’s share of individuals of Hispanic origin (four percent
of the population) is particularly small relative to Santa Clara County (27 percent of the
population) and the region (24 percent of the population).
1019
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
18
Table 3: Ethnicity, 2000-2010
% Change
EthnicityNumber% of TotalNumber% of Total2000-2010
Non-Hispanic48,53696.0%56,18996.4%15.8%
White24,18147.8%17,08529.3%-29.3%
Black/African American3190.6%3220.6%0.9%
American Indian/Alaskan Native800.2%800.1%0.0%
Asian22,41444.3%36,81563.1%64.3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander580.1%390.1%-32.8%
Some Other Race1240.2%1100.2%-11.3%
2+ Races1,3602.7%1,7383.0%27.8%
Hispanic 2,010 4.0%2,113 3.6%5.1%
Total 50,546100.0%58,302100.0%15.3%
% Change
Ethnicity Number% of TotalNumber% of Total2000-2010
Non-Hispanic 1,279,18476.0%1,302,43273.1%1.8%
White 744,28244.2%626,90935.2%-15.8%
Black/African American 44,4752.6%42,3312.4%-4.8%
American Indian/Alaskan Native5,2700.3%4,0420.2%-23.3%
Asian 426,77125.4%565,46631.7%32.5%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander5,0400.3%6,2520.4%24.0%
Some Other Race 3,5220.2%3,8770.2%10.1%
2+ Races 49,8243.0%53,5553.0%7.5%
Hispanic 403,401 24.0%479,210 26.9%18.8%
Total 1,682,585100.0%1,781,642100.0%5.9%
Bay Area (a)
2000 2010 % Change
Ethnicity Number% of TotalNumber% of Total2000-2010
Non-Hispanic 5,468,58580.6%5,468,93976.5%0.0%
White 3,392,20450.0%3,032,90342.4%-10.6%
Black/African American 497,2057.3%460,1786.4%-7.4%
American Indian/Alaskan Native24,7330.4%20,6910.3%-16.3%
Asian 1,278,51518.8%1,645,87223.0%28.7%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander33,6400.5%41,0030.6%21.9%
Some Other Race 18,4510.3%20,0240.3%8.5%
2+ Races 223,8373.3%248,2683.5%10.9%
Hispanic 1,315,175 19.4%1,681,800 23.5%27.9%
Total 6,783,760100.0%7,150,739100.0%5.4%
Notes:
(a) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Sources: U.S. Census 2000 & 2010; BAE, 2013.
Cupertino
2000 2010
Santa Clara County
2000 2010
1020
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
19
Household Income Distribution
Households in Cupertino earn significantly higher annual incomes than households in Santa
Clara County and the Bay Area. ACS data indicate that the median annual household income in
Cupertino was almost $124,000, approximately $37,000 higher than the median household
income in Santa Clara County ($87,148) and $48,000 more than the median income in the Bay
Area ($75,837). Income disparity between Cupertino and the region was most substantial in the
high income categories. Approximately one quarter of all households in Cupertino had an
annual income of $200,000 or more, while only 14 percent of households in Santa Clara County
and 11 percent of households in the Bay Area had an annual income of $200,000 or more.
Table 4: Household Income (a)
Santa Clara
Income CategoryCupertinoCountyBay Area (b)
Less than $15,0004.7%7.4%8.8%
$15,000-$24,9995.6%6.6%7.5%
$25,000-$34,9992.7%6.1%7.1%
$35,000-$49,9995.7%9.3%10.3%
$50,000-$74,99910.8%14.1%15.8%
$75,000-$99,9998.1%12.3%12.2%
$100,000-$149,99922.3%18.9%17.5%
$150,000-$199,99914.2%11.0%9.3%
$200,000 or more25.8%14.3%11.3%
Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%
Median HH Income$123,717$87,148$75,837
Per Capita Income$50,749$39,290$38,235
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) publishes
demographic estimates based on statistical sampling conducted
between 2009-2011.
(b) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma counties.
Sources: ACS, 2009-2011; BAE, 2013.
Educational Attainment
ACS data indicate that Cupertino residents tend to have a high level of educational attainment.
Among residents age 25 and older, almost all Cupertino residents (96 percent) have earned a
high school diploma, compared to 86 percent of Santa Clara County residents and 87 percent
of Bay Area residents, as shown in Table 5 below. More than three quarters of Cupertino
residents age 25 and older have a college degree, compared to approximately half of the
population age 25 and older in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Moreover, the share of
Cupertino residents age 25 and older with a graduate or professional degree (40 percent) is
twice as high as the proportion of residents age 25 and older with a graduate or professional
degree in Santa Clara County (20 percent) and the Bay Area (17 percent).
1021
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
20
Table 5: Educational Attainment for Population 25+ Year of
Age (a)
Santa ClaraBay
Educational Attainment CupertinoCountyArea (b)
Less than 9th Grade 2.1%7.3%7.1%
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 1.9%6.2%6.0%
High School Graduate (incl. Equivalency)6.7%16.3%18.0%
Some College, No Degree 10.6%17.6%19.6%
Associate Degree 5.0%7.1%7.2%
Bachelor's Degree 33.3%25.6%25.3%
Graduate/Professional Degree 40.3%20.0%16.8%
Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%
Population with College Degree 78.6%52.7%49.2%
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) publishes demographic estimates
based on statistical sampling conducted between 2009-2011.
(b) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,
San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Sources: ACS, 2009-2011; BAE, 2013.
Schools
The public school districts that serve Cupertino are known for providing high quality education
to students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. The city is served by the Cupertino Union
School District for kindergarten through eighth grade and the Fremont Union High School
District for ninth grade through twelfth grade. Like all public schools in California that serve
students in kindergarten through twelfth grade, the schools that serve Cupertino are rated
based on Academic Performance Index (API) scores, which is a composite score based on
statewide standardized test results. API scores range from 200 to 1,000, with a higher score
indicating higher test results. In 2012, all of the 25 schools in the Cupertino Union School District
had an API score over the statewide performance target of 800, including 22 schools with an API
score over 900 The 2012 API score for the five schools in the high school district that serves
Cupertino (the Fremont Union High School District) ranged from 766 to 957, and all but one
school in the district had an API score of 874 or above.
Strong educational performance has been accompanied by rising enrollments in Cupertino
schools. Enrollment in the Cupertino Union School District has increased by nearly twenty
percent over the past ten years to 19,230 in the 2013-14 school year. The Fremont Union High
School District has grown by 14.5 percent over the same time period to its current enrollment of
10,665 students. This growth in enrollment has occurred even though housing production
within the City has been limited over the past several years.
Due in part to high API scores, the school districts that serve Cupertino have earned a
prestigious reputation that enhances the desirability of the city as a residential location for
families with school-aged children. This is reflected in the demographic data discussed above,
which shows that a large share of Cupertino households include children under 18
1022
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
21
Resident Occupation and Employment
ACS provides data on resident employment by occupation and by industry, which is shown in
Table 6. Occupation data relate to the type of tasks workers perform, whereas industry data
relate to the economic sector in which a worker is employed. ACS also provides data on workers
employed in Cupertino, which will be discussed in a subsequent section.
According to ACS data, Cupertino residents are significantly more concentrated in
management, business, science, and arts occupations than are residents of Santa Clara County
or the Bay Area. While these occupations employ more than three quarters of employed
Cupertino residents, less than half of all residents in Santa Clara County or the Bay Area are
employed in these occupations. Relative to the county and region, Cupertino had a small share
of residents in all other occupational categories, particularly service occupations. Four percent
of employed Cupertino residents held service occupations, compared to 14 percent of
employed Santa Clara County residents and 16 percent of all employed residents in the Bay
Area. Individuals employed in management, business, and science occupations tend to earn
more than people employed in service or other occupations, which is consistent with the high
household incomes in Cupertino.
Cupertino residents also differed from residents of Santa Clara County and the Bay Area in
terms of industries of employment. Manufacturing employed the largest proportion of residents
in Cupertino, employing more than one quarter (28 percent) of employed residents, while only
20 percent of Santa Clara residents and 11 percent of Bay Area residents worked in the
manufacturing industry. Given the nature of the Silicon Valley economy, it is likely that many
Cupertino residents working in the manufacturing industry work in high-tech fields such as
computer or software design. Aside from manufacturing, the largest source of employment for
Cupertino residents was the professional, scientific, management, and administrative industry,
which accounted for 25 percent of resident employment. This was followed by the education,
health care, and social assistance industry, which accounted for 17 percent of resident
employment. The education, health care, and social assistance industry accounted for a larger
share of resident employment in Santa Clara County (18 percent) and the Bay Area (20 percent).
1023
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
22
Table 6: Employed Residents by Occupation and Industry (a)
CupertinoSanta Clara CountyBay Area (b)
Occupation Number% TotalNumber% TotalNumber% Total
Management, Business, Science, Arts 19,15677.5%410,32449.6%1,515,45844.9%
Service 1,0544.3%117,61814.2%547,81016.2%
Sales & Office 3,49914.2%174,18321.0%781,90923.2%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance 4882.0%56,7666.9%247,8497.3%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving 5242.1%68,9678.3%274,8538.1%
Military Specific Occupations 0 0.0%224 0.0%7,010 0.2%
Total 24,721100.0%828,082100.0%3,374,889100.0%
CupertinoSanta Clara CountyBay Area (b)
Industry Number% TotalNumber% TotalNumber% Total
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, Mining 360.1%4,1280.5%26,7410.8%
Construction 4121.7%45,2945.5%200,3465.9%
Manufacturing 6,99228.3%163,62219.8%381,88211.3%
Wholesale Trade 5022.0%19,6992.4%89,9612.7%
Retail Trade 1,5106.1%80,1759.7%345,93810.3%
Transportation, Warehousing, Utilities 4131.7%22,9452.8%144,0084.3%
Information 1,3575.5%32,0833.9%114,9543.4%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 1,3355.4%42,6255.1%249,6257.4%
Professional, Scientific, Mgmt., Admin 6,24925.3%149,20918.0%543,61416.1%
Educational Svcs., Health Care, Social Assistance4,10716.6%151,22318.3%683,18420.2%
Arts, Entertainment, Rec, Accomod., Food Svcs.7343.0%59,1547.1%289,0928.6%
Other Svcs., Except Public Administration 7152.9%35,4684.3%166,0564.9%
Public Administration 3511.4%21,8392.6%125,9963.7%
Armed Forces 8 0.0%618 0.1%13,492 0.4%
Total 24,721100.0%828,082100.0%3,374,889100.0%
Note:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) data used in this table is based on statistical sampling conducted between
2007-2011. Data are reported for workers age 16 & older.
Sources: ACS, 2007-2011; BAE, 2013.
Commute Flow
Cupertino has more jobs than employed residents, leading to a net inflow of workers to the city,
and most Cupertino residents work in Cupertino or neighboring cities. Table 7 shows work
locations for Cupertino residents, as well as where people employed in Cupertino live, based on
ACS data collected between 2006 and 2008 (the most recent time period for which these data
are available). According to these data, Approximately 24,000 Cupertino residents were
employed in various locations, while the total number of jobs in the city was estimated at
approximately 32,000. Approximately one fifth of all employed Cupertino residents (21 percent)
both lived and worked in Cupertino –suggesting the importance of creating nice places to shop
and dine both during the work day as well as evenings and weekends. Most of the employed
Cupertino residents that did not work in the city worked in cities adjacent to Cupertino,
including San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. Only 13 percent of employed Cupertino
residents worked outside of Santa Clara County.
Similarly, most of the people that are employed in Cupertino live either in Cupertino or
adjacent cities. Approximately one third (31 percent) of people employed in Cupertino live in
1024
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
23
San Jose, 16 percent live in Cupertino, and 34 percent live elsewhere in Santa Clara County.
These data indicate that there is a significant amount of cross-commuting between Cupertino
and other locations within Santa Clara County, but cross commuting between Cupertino and
locations outside of Santa Clara County is relatively limited.
Table 7: Commute Flow (a)
Cupertino Residents by Place of Work Cupertino Workers by Place of Residence
Employed Persons Employed Persons
Place of WorkNumberPercentagePlace of ResidenceNumberPercentage
Santa Clara County21,33087.2%Santa Clara County25,59580.5%
San Jose 5,26521.5%San Jose 9,81030.9%
Cupertino 5,06020.7%Cupertino 5,06015.9%
Sunnyvale 2,80511.5%Sunnyvale 2,8058.8%
Santa Clara 2,66010.9%Santa Clara 2,2607.1%
Mountain View 1,6456.7%Mountain View 9603.0%
Palo Alto 1,3905.7%Saratoga 9403.0%
Milpitas 5552.3%Campbell 8252.6%
Campbell 3651.5%Los Altos 5251.7%
Los Altos 3601.5%Palo Alto 5051.6%
Other Cities 4902.0%Other Cities 1,3554.3%
Unincorporated 7353.0%Unincorporated 5501.7%
All Other Locations3,120 12.8%San Mateo County1,6905.3%
Total24,450100.0%Alameda County1,3554.3%
San Francisco1,3354.2%
All Other Locations1,810 5.7%
Total 31,785100.0%
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) data used for the most recent Census Transportation
Planning Package (CTPP) uses demographic estimates based on statistical sampling conducted
between 2006-2008. Data is reported for workers age 16 and over.
Sources: 2006-2008 Census Transportaion Planning Package; ACS, 2006-2008; BAE, 2013.
Implications for General Plan Amendment
Cupertino’s strong demographics –families with high incomes—constitutes a strong
base of potential support for renovated or new retail facilities.
The city has relatively few younger households and singles, indicating potential
support for smaller residential units (both for-sale and rental).
Cupertino’s excellent public schools will continue to be a major driver of demand for
new residential development and helps moderate adverse impacts of recessionary
economic conditions.
While there are approximately 31,800 jobs in Cupertino, there are approximately
5,100 residents in the city who also work in Cupertino, indicating a net inflow of
approximately 26,700 workers into the community who will make convenience retail
expenditures.
1025
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
24
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Cupertino is a strong employment location with a net inflow of workers from other cities. To the
extent that Cupertino residents work outside of the city and residents from other areas work in
Cupertino, the city’s daytime population differs from its resident population. The following
section provides information on major employers in Cupertino as well as on occupation,
employment industry, age, income, race, and ethnicity of people employed in Cupertino, based
on data from the U.S. Census ACS. Data on age, income, race, and ethnicity are drawn from the
US Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). The most current data provided by CTPP
is based on ACS data collected between 2006 and 2008.
Major Employers
According to the 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Cupertino, Apple Inc. was
the largest employer in the city, with approximately 13,000 employees. The number of people
employed at Apple Inc. was more than four times the number of people employed at the city’s
second largest employer, Hewlett-Packard, and far surpassed the number of people employed
at the remaining eight largest employers in the city.
As shown in Table 8, the ten top employers in Cupertino in 2012 consisted primarily of tech
companies, educational institutions, and healthcare services, followed by Target. In addition to
Apple Inc., tech companies among the city’s ten largest employers included Hewlett-Packard,
Chordiant Software (a company providing customer relationship management software and
services), and Trend Micro Inc. (an Internet content security and threat management provider).
Although these are the largest tech companies in Cupertino, large tech companies such as
these tend to create clusters of other high-tech firms, spin-off companies, and support services
for the industry, as documented extensively in several academic studies. This suggests that the
presence of these large high-tech companies in Cupertino leads other companies to seek out
locations in Cupertino, creating demand for office development, which will be discussed in
further detail in later sections of this analysis.
Major employers among education providers consisted of Cupertino Union School District,
Fremont Union School District, and the De Anza School District. Both of the healthcare services
included among the city’s top ten employers in 2012 were located at senior living communities
in Cupertino.
1026
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
25
Table 8: Principal Employers in Cupertino, 2012
Number of
EmployerEmployees
Apple Inc.13,000
Hewlett-Packard3,000
Cupertino Union School District1,474
Foothill/DeAnza Community College District1,291
Fremont Union High School District846
Chordiant Software285
Trend Micro Inc.250
Health Care Center at The Forum250
Target Stores220
Cupertino Healthcare and Wellness180
Source: City of Cupertino, Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report, 2012; BAE, 2013.
Jobs by Occupation and Industry
Table 9 provides data on occupation and industry for jobs located in Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, and Bay Area based on data from the ACS. These data represent jobs for which the
workplace is located in Cupertino, rather than jobs held by Cupertino residents. As shown,
employment in Cupertino is concentrated in management, business, science, and arts
occupations, which represented 61 percent of all jobs in the city. Compared to the county and
region, Cupertino had a small share of jobs in all other occupational categories, particularly
natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations and production, transportation,
and material moving occupations.
ACS data indicate that manufacturing was the largest employment industry in Cupertino,
representing 29 percent of employment, followed by the professional, scientific, management,
and administrative services industry, which represented 20 percent of employment. Cupertino
also has significant employment in the educational services, health care, and social assistance
industry, which represented 17 percent of employment in the city. These three industries were
also the three largest employment industries in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area; however,
employment in Cupertino was more heavily concentrated in manufacturing and less
concentrated in educational services, healthcare, and social assistance than employment in the
county and region overall. The significant share of manufacturing employment in Cupertino is
due to employers in high-tech fields, including Apple Inc. and Hewlett-Packard, which are
typically classified as companies in the computer and electronics manufacturing industry. A
large share of high-tech employment in Cupertino, including management, science, and service
occupations, is classified within the manufacturing industry, despite that the production-related
occupations associated with these companies are usually located elsewhere.
1027
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
26
Table 9: Occupation and Industry by Workplace Location (a)
CupertinoSanta Clara CountyBay Area (b)
Occupation Number% TotalNumber% TotalNumber% Total
Management, Business, Science, Arts 20,59561.1%477,90351.4%1,555,52744.5%
Service 4,10512.2%125,37413.5%562,08216.1%
Sales & Office 6,77820.1%189,90520.4%803,38223.0%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance 9322.8%66,1077.1%270,8267.8%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving 1,3083.9%70,3497.6%294,1688.4%
Military Specific Occupations 0 0.0%314 0.0%7,205 0.2%
Total 33,718100.0%929,952100.0%3,493,190100.0%
CupertinoSanta Clara CountyBay Area (b)
Industry Number% TotalNumber% TotalNumber% Total
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, Mining 150.0%5,0430.5%28,2680.8%
Construction 6822.0%52,6945.7%220,4196.3%
Manufacturing 9,61528.5%188,17420.2%401,66811.5%
Wholesale Trade 6401.9%21,4012.3%94,8592.7%
Retail Trade 4,06612.1%86,7839.3%355,80610.2%
Transportation, Warehousing, Utilities 4321.3%24,8112.7%153,9524.4%
Information 8202.4%39,2014.2%118,4843.4%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 1,6354.8%44,7974.8%254,4127.3%
Professional, Scientific, Mgmt., Admin 6,63319.7%166,73417.9%559,57216.0%
Educational Svcs., Health Care, Social Assistance5,81017.2%175,87518.9%697,02920.0%
Arts, Entertainment, Rec, Accomod., Food Svcs.2,1986.5%62,4366.7%293,2758.4%
Other Svcs., Except Public Administration 7242.1%36,1843.9%168,9714.8%
Public Administration 4481.3%25,0642.7%132,7263.8%
Armed Forces 0 0.0%755 0.1%13,749 0.4%
Total 33,718100.0%929,952100.0%3,493,190100.0%
Note:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) data used in this table is based on statistical sampling conducted between
2007-2011. Data are reported for workers age 16 & older.
Sources: ACS, 2007-2011; BAE, 2013.
1028
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
27
Worker Age Distribution
Similar to Cupertino residents, people employed in Cupertino consist of a smaller share of
people between age 21 and 34 than people employed in Santa Clara County overall. As shown
in Table 10, CTPP data indicate that 24 percent of people employed in Cupertino were between
age 21 and 34, compared to 28 percent in the county, and a higher proportion of workers
between age 35 and 59 (65 percent in the city and 60 percent in the county). The comparative
shortage of employees in younger age groups suggests a potential need for housing in
Cupertino that is targeted to workers between the ages of 21 and 34, including small, affordable
multifamily units in an amenity-enriched environment, to attract a younger workforce to the city.
Table 10: Employee Age Distribution (a)
CupertinoSanta Clara County
Age CohortNumberPercentNumberPercent
16 to 17 years4701.5%6,8900.7%
18 to 20 years9553.0%30,7503.3%
21 to 24 years11803.7%60,9506.6%
25 to 34 years6,34019.9%200,18021.5%
35 to 44 years10,13031.9%257,35527.7%
45 to 59 years10,49533.0%300,32532.3%
60 to 64 years1,1653.7%43,6554.7%
65 to 74 years8302.6%25,3952.7%
75 years and older220 0.7%4,250 0.5%
Total (b)31,785100.0%929,745100.0%
Median Age 41.9 41.5
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) data used for the most
recent Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) uses
demographic estimates based on statistical sampling conducted
between 2006-2008. Data is reported for workers age 16 and
over.
(b) Totals may not sum due to independent rounding of categories.
Sources: 2006-2008 Census Transportaion Planning Package;
ACS, 2006-2008; BAE, 2013.
1029
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
28
Worker Income
Workers employed in Cupertino tend to have higher earnings than workers employed in Santa
Clara County overall. Table 11 shows worker earnings during the past 12 months for people
employed in Cupertino and Santa Clara County, based on CTPP data. As shown, median
earning for workers employed in Cupertino was $81,000 per year (in 2013 dollars), while median
earnings in Santa Clara County ($57,000 in 2013 dollars) was only 70 percent of the Cupertino
median. The disparity in incomes between the city and county is reflected throughout the
earnings distribution for workers (expressed in 2008 dollars), which shows that Cupertino has a
smaller proportion of workers in all income brackets under $65,000 per year and a higher
proportion of workers in all higher income brackets. Inflated to 2013 dollars, $65,000 in 2008
dollars is equal to approximately $71,600. More than one third of all workers in Cupertino (37
percent) had an income over $100,000 ($110,200 in 2013 dollars), compared to less than one
quarter (24 percent) of workers in Santa Clara County.
Table 11: Worker Earnings in the Past 12 Months (a)
CupertinoSanta Clara County
Annual Earnings (b)NumberPercentNumberPercent
No earnings in the past 12 months 00.0%2150.0%
$1 to $9,999 or less 2,8258.9%87,0609.4%
$10,000 to $14,999 1,3354.2%50,4705.4%
$15,000 to $24,999 2,5408.0%102,48011.0%
$25,000 to $34,999 2,3507.4%95,88510.3%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,6908.5%117,63512.7%
$50,000 to $64,999 2,6358.3%101,81011.0%
$65,000 to $74,999 1,7655.6%47,2305.1%
$75,000 to $99,999 3,91012.3%105,41511.3%
$100,000 or more 11,735 36.9%221,545 23.8%
Total (c)31,785100.0%929,745100.0%
Median Annual Earnings (d)$81,087 $56,912
Cupertino as Percent of County142.5%
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) data used for the most recent Census
Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) uses demographic estimates based on
statistical sampling conducted between 2006-2008. Data is reported for workers
age 16 and over.
(b) Figures in distribution are shown in 2008 dollars.
(c) Totals may not sum due to independent rounding of categories.
(d) Median annual earnings are inflated to 2013 dollars.
Sources: 2006-2008 Census Transportaion Planning Package; ACS, 2006-2008;
BAE, 2013.
1030
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
29
Worker Ethnicity
CTPP data indicate that people that work in Cupertino differ from workers in Santa Clara County
overall and from Cupertino residents with respect to racial and ethnic background. Compared
to workers in Santa Clara County overall, a large proportion of workers in Cupertino is White (49
percent) or Asian (34 percent) and small proportion is Hispanic or Latino (12 percent) or Black or
African American (two percent), as shown in Table 12. Despite the relatively large portion of
Asian individuals employed in Cupertino, these data demonstrate a small proportion of Asian
employees given that almost two thirds of Cupertino residents are of Asian descent (as shown in
Table 3 and discussed above). The difference in racial and ethnic background between
Cupertino residents and people employed in Cupertino suggests a need to maintain diverse
retail options in the city to capture demand from local workers as well as residents.
Table 12: Worker Race and Ethnicity (a)
CupertinoSanta Clara County
Race & EthnicityNumberPercentNumberPercent
Hispanic or Latino3,94512.4%218,99023.6%
Not Hispanic or Latino27,83587.6%710,75576.4%
White15,51548.8%395,04042.5%
Black or African Amercian5351.7%26,0902.8%
Asian10,95034.5%265,73528.6%
All Other Races & Two or More Races840 2.6%23,895 2.6%
Total (b)31,785100.0%929,745100.0%
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) data used for the most recent Census
Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) uses demographic estimates based on statistical
sampling conducted between 2006-2008. Data is reported for workers age 16 and over.
(b) Totals may not sum due to independent rounding of categories.
Sources: 2006-2008 Census Transportaion Planning Package; ACS, 2006-2008; BAE,
2013.
Implications for General Plan Amendment
As the city’s largest employer with over 13,000 employees, Apple Inc. impacts the
demand for office space in Cupertino through its own internal growth and
acquisitions, attraction of firms doing business with Apple, as well as through spin-
offs and start-ups established by Apple Inc. employees.
The ethnic profile of workers in Cupertino is different than the profile for the resident
population. While the resident population in the city is over 63 percent of Asian
ethnicities, just under 35 percent of workers are of Asian ethnicities. Compared to
the city’s residential population, a larger percent of workers are of non-Hispanic
white and Hispanic or Latino race and ethnicity. This suggests that retail in Cupertino
must cater to a more diverse base of customers than reflected by the city resident
profile alone.
Overall, Cupertino has a highly compensated workforce that provides a strong base
of potential demand for housing closer to work and for retail sales during the
1031
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
30
workday, although potential retail support is somewhat tempered by onsite food
service and other amenities offered by major employers such as Apple Inc.
However, the General Plan Amendment should make the city attractive to younger
workers by providing more affordable housing in smaller units.
1032
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
31
RETAIL SALES AND LEAKAGE ANALYSIS
This section of the market study for the Cupertino General Plan Amendment examines retail
sales conditions in Cupertino, its Retail Trade Area, and the surrounding region. The purpose
of the analysis is to identify potential market support for new or repurposed retail development
in the seven study areas that can be later used to evaluate the commercial development
allocations under the city’s General Plan. The data presented here and in the Retail Market
Overview are also used as foundational information for the separate Retail Strategy Report
prepared by Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate LLC.
Data for the city and the Retail Trade Area are presented, along with comparative data from
Santa Clara County and California. For the purposes of this analysis, the Retail Trade Area (RTA)
is defined as the area which is easily accessible for Cupertino residents. The RTA was generally
defined by taking a ten-minute drive time from Cupertino (specifically, from the Vallco
Shopping Mall), and grouping together the Zip Codes within that ten-minute drive time.
Additionally, areas roughly to the east of Interstate 880 in San Jose have been excluded. Figure
3 shows the boundaries of the RTA.
Figure 3: Cupertino and the Retail Trade Area
See Appendix for listing of Zip Codes making up the Retail Trade Area.
Source: BAE, 2013.
1033
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
32
The goal of the leakage analysis for the city is to identify the relative strength of the city’s retail
sectors. Using the city boundary in doing a leakage analysis is somewhat arbitrary, since the city
is surrounded by other cities with considerable retail development and is not set apart from
other locales by physical boundaries such as hills or water. As a result, the city boundary does
not represent a constraint on Cupertino residents shopping elsewhere or non-residents
shopping in Cupertino. However, a leakage analysis for the city can show sectors where the city
might have an opportunity to capture more sales locally from its residents and employees (while
perhaps also attracting shoppers from nearby areas).
To provide context, a leakage analysis for the larger RTA should indicate the level of shopping
opportunities available to Cupertino residents even if certain types of stores and goods are not
present in the city. Furthermore, the presence of these stores nearby and their ability to attract
city residents and workers may act as a constraint on Cupertino’s ability to attract additional
retail development even if the analysis indicates that city residents and workers are not
purchasing goods within Cupertino itself.
The primary source of information on general retail expenditures in California is the taxable
retail sales data published by the State Board of Equalization (SBOE). SBOE publishes Taxable
Sales in California, a quarterly and annual publication that reports taxable sales by major store
categories by city and county. With adjustments made to take into account nontaxable sales
such as food and prescriptions, this source usually offers the best baseline data for jurisdictions
for which it is available. Beginning in 2009, SBOE used a new categorization of businesses that
makes comparisons over time problematic, but some general statements about the overall level
of retail sales can still be made.
In Cupertino, data analysis is faced with the additional issue that taxable sales generated by
Apple make up a disproportionate share of the total. According to Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Generated by Apple in Cupertino – Current Facilities and Apple Campus 2,5 Apple Inc. accounts
for $1.3 billion in taxable sales in Cupertino in 2012, which provides 45 percent of the city’s sales
tax revenues. These sales consist of online merchandise sales where Cupertino is the point of
sale, sales at the Apple Company Store, taxable sales of cafeteria food and other items to
employees, and use taxes paid by Apple for equipment imported from out of state for its own
internal use in Cupertino. Additionally, SBOE’s home furnishings and appliances category
(which includes computer and electronics retailers) is not disclosed and garners a
disproportionate share of sales relative to Cupertino’s, thus making use of the taxable sales
data in any leakage analysis problematic.
5 Keyser Marston Associates, May 2013, prepared for Apple Inc.
1034
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
33
Furthermore, SBOE does not provide data for portions of cities, and the RTA does not follow
city boundaries, particularly for San Jose, which extends far beyond the defined RTA.
Because of these limitations with SBOE data for Cupertino and the RTA, the leakage analysis
itself utilizes retail sales estimates based on 2011 Zip Code and County Business Patterns
employment data benchmarked to data on sales per employee from the 2007 Economic
Census, with adjustments by category made based on crosschecks with SBOE data and to
reflect more current conditions as needed. Use of this source also allows for a more fine-grained
level of analysis by store type.
Estimated Retail Sales in Cupertino and the RTA by
Major Retail Category
As noted above, because of disclosure issues, the level of detail available for Cupertino in SBOE
data is insufficient for the analysis here and the analysis would not be possible for the RTA
utilizing SBOE data, so to compare actual expenditures in Cupertino and RTA retail outlets with
potential expenditures by store category, an alternative estimate methodology for estimating
sales for the two geographies has been developed. This point-in-time estimate can then cover
all store categories in a way not possible based on SBOE data. For comparative purposes and
as a benchmark, similar estimates have been derived for Santa Clara County and California. As
noted above, these estimates have been derived using the most recent available data from the
Census of Retail Trade and County and Zip Code Business Patterns. These estimates provide
point-in-time data for Cupertino and the RTA by detailed retail category. Further explanation of
the methodology can be found in Appendix D and in the footnotes for Table 13.
For the purposes of the analysis here, the estimated retail sales have been grouped into eleven
categories, corresponding to major 3-digit NAICS retail categories:
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores
Bldg. Materials and Garden Equipment and Supplies
Food and Beverage Stores
Health and Personal Care Stores
Gasoline Stations
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores
General Merchandise Stores6
6 Includes stores that sell a broad range of merchandise. Examples include traditional department stores such as
Macy’s, discount department stores such as Walmart, and warehouse stores such as Costco.
1035
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
34
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Food Services and Drinking Places7
Sales at non-store retailers (e.g., electronic online sales, mail order, and auction houses) are
excluded from the analysis, as are sales occurring at non-retail outlets. This effectively factors
Apple’s sales out of the analysis.
As shown in Table 13, retail sales for the city for 2011 are estimated at approximately $615
million (all sales presented in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars unless otherwise noted).8 The three
largest categories are food and beverage stores at 27 percent of sales, food services and
drinking places at 22 percent, and general merchandise stores at 20 percent. These three
sectors are disproportionately large in Cupertino relative to the county, or the state. Cupertino
has very limited sales in the automotive sector. Retail sales in the RTA for 2011 are estimated at
approximately $9.1 billion; the three largest store categories are motor vehicles and parts (22
percent), food and beverage (17 percent) and food services and drinking places (14 percent).
The retail mix is generally much more in balance relative to the county and the state, with the
exception of the motor vehicle and parts sector at 22 percent versus 17 percent for the county
and 18 percent for the state.
The leakage analysis below will provide a clearer picture of the city’s retail strengths and
weaknesses, but per capita sales comparisons by category are a first indicator of strengths and
weaknesses in Cupertino’s retail sector. On a per capita basis, Cupertino’s 2011 retail sales at
$10,483 annually are low compared to $13,404 for the county and $12,493 for California. Several
sectors have per capita sales at less than half of the level of the county overall; the automotive
sector is at only six percent of county, and three other sectors (electronics and appliance stores,
building materials and garden equipment and supplies, and miscellaneous store retailers) are at
less than half of countywide per capita sales levels. Four sectors (food and beverage stores,
gasoline stations, general merchandise stores, and food services and drinking places) have per
capita sales that exceed Santa Clara County levels.
In contrast to Cupertino, the RTA overall had much higher 2011 per capita sales ($15,807) than
either the county or the state. Only two major retail sectors, clothing and clothing accessory
stores and general merchandise stores, had per capita sales below countywide levels. This
indicates that overall, the RTA as a whole has a strong retail sector with a broad range of
shopping opportunities accessible to Cupertino residents.
7 This category includes all types of restaurants, as well as catering services.
8 It is important to note this includes non-taxable sales.
1036
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
35
Table 13: Total Estimated 2011 Retail Sales
Sales in 2013 $000 (a)RetailSanta Clara
CupertinoTrade AreaCountyCalifornia
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers$8,000$1,968,000$4,199,000$85,256,000
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores$14,000$180,000$516,000$10,476,000
Electronics and Appliance Stores$14,000$474,000$1,200,000$15,105,000
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$13,000$572,000$1,604,000$29,169,000
Food and Beverage Stores$163,000$1,506,000$4,102,000$81,925,000
Health and Personal Care Stores$34,000$412,000$1,135,000$25,280,000
Gasoline Stations$52,000$671,000$1,534,000$41,495,000
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores$40,000$576,000$2,105,000$33,993,000
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores$16,000$314,000$586,000$8,968,000
General Merchandise Stores$126,000$870,000$2,818,000$60,903,000
Miscellaneous Store Retailers$2,000$237,000$555,000$11,385,000
Food Services and Drinking Places$133,000$1,305,000$3,697,000$63,640,000
Retail Outlets Total $615,000$9,085,000$24,051,000$467,595,000
Sales per Capita in 2013 $ RetailSanta Clara
CupertinoTrade AreaCountyCalifornia
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers$136$3,424$2,340$2,278
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores$239$313$288$280
Electronics and Appliance Stores$239$825$669$404
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$222$995$894$779
Food and Beverage Stores$2,778$2,620$2,286$2,189
Health and Personal Care Stores$580$717$633$675
Gasoline Stations$886$1,167$855$1,109
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores$682$1,002$1,173$908
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores$273$546$327$240
General Merchandise Stores$2,148$1,514$1,570$1,627
Miscellaneous Store Retailers$34$412$309$304
Food Services and Drinking Places$2,267$2,271$2,060$1,700
Retail Outlets Total $10,483$15,807$13,404$12,493
2011 Population (b)58,665574,7411,794,33737,427,946
Notes:
Sales estimates were initially generated using 2011 Zip Code and County Business Patterns employment data along with per-
employee sales data by detailed NAICS code from the 2007 Economic Census. These numbers by major category above were then
cross-checked against SBOE data and 2007 Economic Census data where available to confirm, with adjustments made as indicated
by inconsistencies between the sources. Because of differences in categorization schemes, data by category may not be directly
comparable to SBOE numbers presented elsewhere. 2011 represents most recent data available at time of analysis. Cupertino data
based on Zip Codes, and includes some areas outside the city; however, these areas are largely unpopulated. RTA data also based
on Zip Codes per discussion in text.
(a) Retail sales have been adjusted to 2013 dollars based on the Bay Area and California Consumer Price Index calculated by the
California Department of Industrial Relations (based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) for California, and the Bay Area
Consumer Price Index from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the city and county. Total sales estimates are rounded to nearest
million $.
(b) Population from CA State Dept. of Finance, except for Retail Trade Area. RTA population is based on Nielsen estimates for 2010
and 2013, assuming constant percentage growth over the period.
Sources: 2010 U.S. Census; U.S. Census of Retail Trade, 2007; Zip Code and County Business Patterns, 2010; CA Dept. of Industrial
Relations; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Nielsen MarketPlace; BAE, 2013.
1037
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
36
Trends in Retail Sales
The following section presents historic data on retail sales by major store/outlet category, to
supplement the single-year estimate provided in the previous section and provide an overview
of longer-term trends. This summary relies on taxable sales data published by SBOE for
Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and California.9 All data are presented in constant 2013 dollars,
based on the Bay Area and California Consumer Price Indexes. The following trends discussion
covers only taxable sales, not total sales. For example, food purchases, prescription drugs, and
services (e.g., auto repair) are not taxable; as a result, the estimates shown here are lower than
provided by the Zip Code data discussed above and used below in the leakage analysis, which
estimates all sales in the retail sector. Nevertheless, the taxable sales data are the best available
indicator of retail sales trends by major store category over a period of years, even though they
do not provide complete coverage of all sales in the retail sector.
Because of the reclassification of businesses by SBOE beginning with 2009, it is difficult to
consistently track retail sales by major store category across a longer period with the published
data. Even a time series for overall retail sales is not necessarily accurate, as some businesses
were moved out of retail and into the “all other outlets” category. As a result, retail sales by
major category are discussed for the 2000 to 2008 period, and then separately for 2009 and
later. The most recently SBOE-published data for the county and state were from 2011; an
additional year (2012) was available for Cupertino based on data provided by City staff. This
section first presents data from the county and California to provide context for the subsequent
discussion of Cupertino itself.
California
As shown in Figure 4, taxable retail sales levels for California were relatively flat from 2000
through 2002. Statewide sales then increased gradually through 2005, with declines since that
year. Inflation-adjusted estimated sales of $386 billion for 2008 were below 2000 levels (also
inflation-adjusted), even as the population of the state increased by eight percent in the same
period. In 2009, total inflation-adjusted taxable retail sales for the state were reported at $337
billion, indicating a further decline. 10 Sales have increased modestly since that time, to $370
billion in 2011.
9 Because the RTA includes portions of cities (especially San Jose), there are no published SBOE data available.
10 The reclassification of businesses in 2009 makes it possible that some of the change between 2008 and 2009 is due
to businesses formerly classified as retail now being excluded from that group.
1038
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
37
Figure 4: California Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2011
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
$400,000,000
$450,000,000
$500,000,000
200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ta
x
a
b
l
e
S
a
l
e
s
i
n
$
0
0
0
Total Taxable Retail Sales, 2000-2008 Total Taxable Retail Sales, 2009-2011 Population
Note: All sales shown are in 2013 dollars. For details, see Appendix B.
Source: BAE 2013, based on sources as noted in Appendix B.
1039
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
38
Santa Clara County
Unlike statewide trends, Santa Clara County showed a pattern of considerable taxable retail
sales declines early in the last decade during the “dot-com” bust which impacted the local
economy considerably. This was followed by a mid-decade increase that was sustained longer
than for the state, followed by another decline between 2007 and 2009 as the recession took
hold. Sales have rebounded since 2009, but on an inflation-adjusted basis, sales are still below
the 2000 levels of almost $27 billion in annual taxable retail sales. In 2011 taxable retail sales
were approximately $20 billion countywide (see Figure 5).11
Figure 5: Santa Clara County Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2011
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ta
x
a
b
l
e
S
a
l
e
s
i
n
$
0
0
0
Total Taxable Retail Sales, 2000-2008 Total Taxable Retail Sales, 2009-2011 Population
Note: All sales shown are in 2013 dollars. For details, see Appendix B.
Source: BAE 2013, based on sources as noted in Appendix B.
Cupertino
From 2000 through 2003, taxable retail sales trends in Cupertino followed countywide trends,
with a sharp decline following the dot-com bust (see Figure 6). However, while county sales
overall began to recover in 2004, Cupertino’s taxable retail sales continued their slide through
2006. In 2007, Cupertino experienced an unusual jump in sales, with a decline again in 2008 to
$646 million, well below the $819 million in 2000 (all in 2013 dollars). The large increase in 2007
was concentrated in the other retail stores category, which at that time included computer and
software stores.12 Since 2008, taxable retail sales have been increasing in Cupertino at a faster
11 Because of the reclassification of businesses in 2009, it is possible that some of the change between 2008 and 2009
is due to businesses formerly classified as retail now being excluded from that group.
12 The SBOE reclassification in 2009 moved this retail store type into the home furnishings and appliances category.
Further discussion of the retail mix by major store category in Cupertino can be found below.
1040
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
39
rate than statewide or countywide, with overall taxable retail sales reaching $752 million in 2012,
which is still below 2000 levels on an inflation-adjusted basis.
Figure 6: Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2012
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ta
x
a
b
l
e
S
a
l
e
s
i
n
$
0
0
0
Total Taxable Retail Sales, 2000-2008 Total Taxable Retail Sales, 2009-2012
Population
Note: All sales shown are in 2013 dollars. For details, see Appendix B.
Source: BAE 2013, based on sources as noted in Appendix B.
Much of the long-term decline in taxable retail sales was in the general merchandise store
sector (see Appendix B for detailed data by major sector). Between 2000 and 2008, this sector’s
sales declined by over 40 percent. While figures from 2009 and later are not directly comparable
to prior years (e.g., drug stores were moved from this category into other retail), the decline has
continued even as overall retail sales levels have recovered. The major stores in this sector
include Target and the three Vallco Shopping Mall anchor stores. Apparel stores, another
tenant typically found in fashion malls, have also seen a sales decline over time.
Sales in the automotive sector, while relatively small even in 2000, dropped 94 percent by 2012.
Food store sales have remained relatively stable over time, as grocery purchases as an everyday
need are less vulnerable to overall changes in the economy. The restaurant sector (food services
and drinking places) has fluctuated along with the overall economy over time, but has recovered
to higher-than-2000 sales levels.
1041
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
40
Leakage Analysis
Overview of Methodology
Retail leakage and injection analysis compares actual retail sales in an area with some
benchmark that provides a measure of the potential sales generated by that area's residents
and workers. If sales levels are below the predicted level, the area may be able to support
increased sales, either through the opening of new outlets targeting those leakages or a
repositioning of existing outlets through changes in strategy and marketing, merchandise mix,
or store configuration such that they could capture a portion of that leakage.
A lower-than-predicted sales volume is a strong indicator that local consumers are buying
goods outside the area; thus, the sales are “leaking” out of the area. Conversely, if the area
shows more sales than would be expected from the area's characteristics, there are sales
“injections” into the area. Often, an injection of sales indicates that the area is serving as the
regional shopping destination for a broader area. On the other hand, if an area shows
substantial leakage, it may be due to the presence of a region-serving retail node outside but
near the area capturing those “leaked” sales.
There are a number of factors that can be used to predict sales levels, with the two most
important factors being the number of persons in the area and the disposable income available
to that population. Additional factors influencing retail spending in an area include household
type, age of population, number of workers in the area (i.e., daytime population), tourism
expenditures, tenure patterns (owner vs. renter), and cultural factors.
As noted above, Cupertino has overall per capita sales below county and statewide levels, while
the RTA has overall per capita sales above those levels. This alone, however, does not indicate
that the city is necessarily leaking sales to other locales, or that the RTA is capturing sales. For
example, resident and worker shopping patterns may vary due to consumer preferences as well
as the retail options available locally.
Retail Sales in Cupertino and the RTA
The estimated annual retail sales have been derived from Table 13 above, updated to 2013
estimates based on population growth, and are shown in Table 14 and Appendix C.
Retail Demand from Residents
To better determine the levels of leakages and injections for Cupertino and the RTA, this study
used Nielsen Retail Market Potential Opportunity Gap (RMP) information for the two
geographies and for Santa Clara County (to use for benchmarking purposes). This report
estimates retail demand based on the Consumer Expenditure Survey, a national survey
conducted for the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics by the U.S. Census Bureau
which measures consumer expenditures and provides data on differing spending patterns by
age, income, ethnicity, and other variables. This source information is converted to expected
1042
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
41
expenditures by store type, to obtain an estimate of demand by retail store category. BAE
refined the RMP expenditure estimates based on actual expenditure patterns in Santa Clara
County as reflected in total retail sales by major store category. The resulting per capita
expenditure estimates are shown in Appendix C.
Retail Demand from Workers
In addition to the demand for retail goods generated by residents, persons working in a place
also generate demand due to purchases near their place of work, especially meals eaten during
the work day. When other shopping opportunities are also available nearby, workers often make
other purchases during the day, or on the way to or from their job.
Cupertino has a large employment base, with a net inflow of workers into the city, since there
are more persons working in the city than working residents. Aside from this net inflow, worker
expenditures are basically a wash; demand generated by workers living in the city is already
accounted for in the resident demand estimate, and the expenditures of workers commuting
into the city are balanced by the expenditures of those commuting out.
However, the RTA shows a net outflow of workers, with less persons working in the area than
working residents. This would indicate also a net outflow of retail expenditures, as RTA
residents would be buying retail goods outside the area at a greater rate than the expenditures
of the workers coming in.
Appendix F presents an estimate of the potential worker expenditures near the place of work
for the net inflow of workers into Cupertino and the RTA. This estimate is derived based on
Office-Worker Retail Spending in the Digital Age, based on a national survey of office workers
conducted in 2011 by the International Council of Shopping Centers, as shown in Appendix E.
This survey gathered information on weekly expenditures, which have been converted to annual
expenditures and inflated to 2013 dollars.13
Overall, the net potential worker expenditures for Cupertino are estimated at approximately
$66 million annually. While this is a substantial number, the leakage analysis estimates potential
resident expenditures of nearly $900 million annually. For the RTA, the net outflow of workers is
estimated to result in an outflow of retail spending totaling approximately $78 million annually.
Once again, this is a substantial number, but overall potential resident expenditures for the RTA
are approximately $8.4 billion annually.
13 While not all workers in Cupertino are office-based, many are, and the use of this survey as a proxy for all workers is
reasonable. While some workers may have lower incomes and thus lower expenditures (e.g., retail/service workers),
Cupertino office workers likely have relatively high incomes so overall the expenditures may balance out.
1043
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
42
Once estimates of both resident and worker expenditures are combined, overall demand can
then be compared to the estimated 2013 sales by major store category for Cupertino and the
RTA. The results of this leakage analysis are summarized in Table 14, with detail on this analysis
provided in Appendix C.
Table 14: Summary of Leakage Analysis
Cupertino 2013 Total Annual 2013Injection/
Retail Sales and Sales Potential in $000 Total Leakage
EstimatedEstimatedEstimatedEstimatedInjection/as % of
SalesResidentWorkerTotal Potential (Leakage)Potential
Store Category in AreaExpendituresExpendituresExpenditures$000Sales
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers$8,130$138,535$0$138,535 ($130,405)-94%
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores$14,228$21,031$0$21,031 ($6,803)-32%
Electronics and Appliance Stores$14,228$48,657$4,700$53,357 ($39,130)-73%
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$13,212$63,648$0$63,648 ($50,436)-79%
Food and Beverage Stores$165,653$147,859$11,300$159,159$6,4944%
Health and Personal Care Stores$34,553$40,941$4,000$44,941 ($10,388)-23%
Gasoline Stations$52,847$54,756$0$54,756 ($1,909)-3%
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores$40,651$81,772$6,000$87,772 ($47,121)-54%
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores$16,260$23,440$1,800$25,240 ($8,980)-36%
General Merchandise Stores$128,051$105,661$17,100$122,761$5,2904%
Miscellaneous Store Retailers$2,033$20,672$5,800$26,472 ($24,439)-92%
Food Services and Drinking Places$135,165$143,690$15,100$158,790 ($23,625)-15%
Total$625,012$890,661$65,800$956,461 ($331,450)-35%
Retail Trade Area 2013 Total Annual 2013Injection/
Retail Sales and Sales Potential in $000 Total Leakage
EstimatedEstimatedEstimatedEstimatedInjection/as % of
SalesResidentWorkerTotal Potential (Leakage)Potential
Store Category in AreaExpendituresExpendituresExpenditures$000Sales
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers$2,009,792$1,442,285$0$1,442,285$567,50739%
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores$183,822$194,905$0$194,905 ($11,083)-6%
Electronics and Appliance Stores$484,066$448,170 ($5,600)$442,570$41,4959%
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$584,147$592,208$0$592,208 ($8,061)-1%
Food and Beverage Stores$1,537,981$1,450,188 ($13,400)$1,436,788$101,1937%
Health and Personal Care Stores$420,749$405,514 ($4,700)$400,814$19,9355%
Gasoline Stations$685,249$552,556$0$552,556$132,69324%
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores$588,232$756,103 ($7,200)$748,903 ($160,671)-21%
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores$320,668$215,083 ($2,200)$212,883$107,78551%
General Merchandise Stores$888,475$1,006,780 ($20,300)$986,480 ($98,005)-10%
Miscellaneous Store Retailers$242,033$201,196 ($6,900)$194,296$47,73725%
Food Services and Drinking Places$1,332,713$1,375,340 ($18,000)$1,357,340 ($24,628)-2%
Total $9,277,926$8,640,329 ($78,300)$8,562,029$715,8978%
All sales and leakages are in 2013 dollars. For detail on methodology and sources, see Appendices D and I.
Sources: BAE, based on sources as noted in Appendix D.
1044
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
43
Cupertino Leakage Analysis
As indicated by low overall per capita sales levels, Cupertino shows leakages of sales in most
major store categories, as shown in Figure 7. Leakages are especially high for motor vehicle and
parts dealers. Only two major categories, food and beverage stores and general merchandise
stores, have injections of sales; general merchandise stores and food and beverage stores both
show sales at four percent above the levels predicted by the combined estimated expenditures
of city residents and the net inflow of workers.
The high leakages for the motor vehicle sector are directly related to the lack of new and used
car dealers in Cupertino; the large cluster of auto dealers on Stevens Creek Boulevard in San
Jose attracts shoppers from Cupertino and elsewhere, limiting the ability of Cupertino to
capture more sales in this sector even if land were available to develop an auto retail
mall/district.
The injections of sales for general merchandise, where the sales are primarily derived from
Target and the three Vallco Shopping Mall anchors, is an indicator that even though the center
is somewhat dated and underperforming relative to more upscale traditional malls such as
Valley Fair or Stanford Mall, the anchor stores still function as a regional draw pulling shoppers
in from outside the city, even though much of the inline store space in the mall is vacant.
The food and beverage store injections may result from the easy access and proximity to
residents of other nearby cities for several of Cupertino’s major supermarkets, including both
Ranch 99 stores and the Safeway currently being reconstructed; these stores are either on or
very close to Cupertino’s borders and easily accessible to non-Cupertino residents. The other
Asian-oriented food markets such as Marukai and Marina Foods may also act as regional draws.
While the leakages of sales for motor vehicle-related retail stand out for their size, there are also
very high leakages of estimated Cupertino resident sales in several other categories. Including
the motor vehicle sector these categories cover stores selling what are commonly referred to as
“comparison goods” which are goods that consumers do not purchase on a frequent (e.g., daily
or weekly) basis, and for which consumers are more likely to compare price, quality, and
features than they might for everyday items. The types of stores selling these goods often fit the
definition of “destination” retail, where the decision to go to the store is based on a desire or
need to spend more time shopping, and where the shopping “experience” is key and may
involve an entertainment or dining component. Shoppers are often willing to travel a greater
distance for this kind of shopping, at centers such as a mall, an outlet center, an upscale
downtown area with a unique array of shops, or a large store such as a Bass Pro Outlet sporting
goods store.
The specific categories other than motor-vehicle-related retail showing leakages of 50 percent
or greater are electronics and appliance stores; building materials and garden equipment and
supplies stores, clothing and clothing accessories stores, and miscellaneous store retailers, a
1045
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
44
catch-all category that includes a variety of retail outlet types including florists, office supply
stores, pet stores, and gift shops.
The limited local sales in the building materials group are linked to the lack of a major home
improvement store or hardware store such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, or Orchard Supply
Hardware in the city (and the presence of a Home Depot just south of the city on South De Anza
Boulevard in San Jose).
There are also no major electronics or appliance stores such as Best Buy or Fry’s in Cupertino,
although Sears (in the general merchandise store category) carries a large variety of appliances
and may capture a larger share of resident expenditures that would otherwise occur in stores
dedicated to electronics and appliances.
The limited clothing and apparel-related store sales is due in part to the lack of destination
retail centers in Cupertino, with the exception of the Vallco Shopping Mall. That center has
suffered from competition with Valley Fair and other centers such that an entire level of the
standalone smaller shops has been closed off, in turn limiting the ability of the center to reach a
critical mass of shoppers necessary to support apparel retailers necessary to attract more
shoppers. The lack of apparel-related retail may also lead to shoppers substituting purchases of
clothing at the three large general merchandise stores in the city, which could lead to some of
the calculated “injections” in that major retail store category.
In summary, Cupertino has relatively strong sales in stores selling everyday items, such as food
stores and drug stores. General merchandise stores, which sell a mix of everyday and
comparison goods, are performing well due to the presence of three mall department stores
and one discount department store. Stores specializing in other types of comparison goods,
however, are lacking in the city; with the exception of the Vallco Shopping Mall, most of the
retail in the city is for every day, convenience-oriented shopping. None of the shopping centers
in Cupertino are “lifestyle” centers, representing the recent trend in retailing toward combining
upscale retail, dining, and entertainment in one center, such as Santana Row nearby in San
Jose, to create a more interesting shopping destination and experience. The Vallco Shopping
Mall represents a mixed picture for Cupertino. Its anchor department stores and entertainment
options appear to draw shoppers to the city, but the poor performance of the remainder of the
mall contributes to Cupertino’s weakness in comparison goods shopping and destination retail.
The degree to which Cupertino can increase sales in the categories evaluated in this section of
the report will depend on the specific location and site characteristics and location of new retail
development and general competitive forces (such as location of competitors). These issues
are more fully developed and analyzed in the Retail Strategy Study.
1046
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
45
Figure 7: Cupertino Retail Sales Leakages by Major Retail Store Category
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Electronics and Appliance Stores
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Food Services and Drinking Places
Health and Personal Care Stores
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores
Gasoline Stations
General Merchandise Stores
Food and Beverage Stores
Annual Leakages/Injections
Cupertino Retail Sales Leakages
←Leakages Injections →
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies
Electronics and Appliance Stores
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores
Health and Personal Care Stores
Food Services and Drinking Places
Gasoline Stations
Food and Beverage Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Annual Leakages/Injections as % of Potential Sales
Cupertino Leakages as % of Total Potential Sales
←Leakages Injections →
Source: BAE Urban Economics, based on Table 14; sources as noted in Appendix C and Appendix D.
1047
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
46
Retail Trade Area Leakage Analysis
Unlike Cupertino, the larger RTA has limited leakages of retail sales (see Figure 8). The largest
leakage by percent of total sales is for clothing and clothing accessory stores, with leakages of
only 21 percent, in contrast to Cupertino where several major retail categories showed leakage
of 30 percent or more of potential sales. Only one other category, general merchandise stores,
shows substantial leakages (at 10 percent).
The RTA shows injections of sales of 20 percent or greater for four categories: sporting goods,
hobby, book and music stores; motor vehicle and parts dealers; gasoline stations; and
miscellaneous store retailers. The RTA is not bounded by bodies of water or mountains except
to the west, so these sectors are likely drawing additional shoppers from beyond the RTA
boundaries. In particular, the concentration of motor vehicle dealers along Stevens Creek
Boulevard in San Jose and Santa Clara is a major regional draw, leading to the high per capita
sales injections for the RTA as well as the strong leakages from Cupertino itself, which has
almost no motor-vehicle related retail.
Overall, the strong sales in the RTA, where even sectors showing leakage have hundreds of
millions of dollars in estimated sales, indicate a broad array of retail shopping options are
available in nearby communities easily accessible to Cupertino residents. In turn, while the
analysis shows that Cupertino residents are shopping outside the city itself, the strong regional
retail environment constrains opportunities for additional capture of resident spending through
new retail development in Cupertino. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the degree to which
Cupertino can capture additional sales in the Retail Trade area will depend greatly on whether
the Vallco Shopping Center can be repositioned or redeveloped to improve its performance in
the Retail Trade Area. Strategies to reposition Vallco are identified and evaluated in the
accompanying Retail Strategy Study.
1048
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
47
Figure 8: RTA Retail Sales Leakages by Major Retail Store Category
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Food Services and Drinking Places
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies
Health and Personal Care Stores
Electronics and Appliance Stores
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Food and Beverage Stores
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores
Gasoline Stations
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
Annual Leakages/Injections
Retail Trade Area Retail Sales Leakages
←Leakages Injections →
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores
Food Services and Drinking Places
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies
Health and Personal Care Stores
Food and Beverage Stores
Electronics and Appliance Stores
Gasoline Stations
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores
Annual Leakages/Injections as % of Potential Sales
RTA Leakages as % of Total Potential Sales
←Leakages Injections →
Source: BAE Urban Economics, based on Table 14; sources as noted in Appendix C and Appendix D.
1049
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
48
Comparative Retail Sales by Detailed Store Category
While the leakage analysis above provides key findings regarding the retail market in Cupertino
and the RTA, the more detailed approach drills down to provide additional information on
particular subcategories that may have weak or strong sales relative to the population base. The
following analysis drills down to more detailed store types by NAICS14 code, by comparing
annual per capita sales for Cupertino and the RTA with Santa Clara County overall.
This analysis is not a more detailed version of the leakage analysis itself, but a slightly different
type of analysis. This analysis includes no adjustments for local demographics (e.g., high
incomes and home ownership) as provided by benchmarking based on the RMP report from
Nielsen. The ability of consumers to substitute between store types and the quality of the RMP
data do not reasonably allow per capita sales adjustment factors for these more detailed store
types.
The following analysis highlights (in bold typeface and boxes) a number of specific
underperforming retail sectors in Cupertino, which may represent specific opportunities to
expand retail in Cupertino and the RTA. As noted in the tables, some key specific store types
with very low sales include motor vehicle dealers, electronics stores, computer and software
stores, home improvement centers and hardware stores, apparel stores, and warehouse club
stores.
For the purposes of this discussion, per capita sales at less than 50 percent of countywide levels
are defined as “very low.” Since the county has lower overall income levels and lower expected
resident expenditures than either of the two study geographies, this is a strong indicator of
subcategories where there is a substantial gap between sales and expenditures in the city
and/or the RTA. The following discussion is organized by major retail category as shown in the
leakage analysis above.
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers. Cupertino has almost no motor-vehicle-related retail, and
thus most resident expenditures are leaking out of the city. 15 However, the City does not have
suitable sites for the major sales subcategory, new car dealers, so with the exception perhaps of
an auto parts store, additional capture in this overall category in Cupertino is unlikely. The RTA
shows generally strong sales for this grouping, especially for vehicle dealers, with the exception
of RV dealers. This indicates that the larger RTA is well-served.
14 North American Industrial Classification System, a coding system providing a consistent framework for analyzing
the economy and the different industries that are part of it.
15 The sources for these tables can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D.
1050
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
49
Table 15: Detail on Motor Vehicle Sector Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
New car dealers $00%$3,081167%$1,845
Used car dealers $00%$85222%$39
Recreational vehicle dealers $00%$00%$17
Motorcycle, ATV, and personal watercraft dealers $00%$4189%$47
Boat dealers $00%$11437%$3
All other motor vehicle dealers $00%$14288%$5
Automotive parts and accessories stores $00%$9881%$122
Tire dealers $123 137%$94 104%$90
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $123 $3,425 $2,165
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores. Despite leakage in this overall category, Cupertino
shows strong sales in furniture stores, but has very low sales in the other subcategories, leading
to the overall leakage in this major category. The only RTA subcategory with extremely low sales
is window treatment stores, which make up a very small percentage of overall sales countywide.
Table 16: Detail on Furniture and Home Furnishings Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Furniture stores $164153%$117110%$107
Floor covering stores $00%$3085%$35
Window treatment stores $00%$19%$6
All other home furnishings stores $68 53%$165 129%$128
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $232 $313 $276
Electronics and Appliances Stores. Cupertino has very low sales in three of the four
subcategories for electronics and appliance stores, including radio, television, and electronics
stores, computer and software stores, and camera and photographic supplies stores.
Table 17: Detail on Electronics and Appliances Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Household appliance stores $94198%$49102%$47
Radio, television, and other electronics stores $8936%$254102%$249
Computer and software stores $278%$510144%$355
Camera and photographic supplies stores $0 0%$12 81%$15
Electronics and Appliance Stores $210 $825 $666
Building Materials, and Garden Equipment and Supplies. With the exception of the nursery,
garden center, and farm supply subcategory, Cupertino has very limited sales in this category,
with no estimated sales shown for home centers (e.g., Home Depot), paint and wallpaper
stores, hardware stores (e.g., Orchard Supply Hardware), or outdoor power equipment stores. In
contrast, per capita sales in the RTA for all subcategories is above countywide levels.
1051
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
50
Table 18: Detail on Building Materials Sector Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Home centers $00%$365103%$355
Paint and wallpaper stores $00%$36165%$22
Hardware stores $00%$116110%$105
Other building material dealers $144%$385127%$303
Outdoor power equipment stores $00%$21194%$11
Nursery, garden center, and farm supply stores $208 441%$73 155%$47
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies $222 $995 $844
Food and Beverage Stores. While Cupertino shows injection in this overall category, this is
largely due to strong sales in supermarkets and other grocery (except convenience) stores, the
subcategory that accounts for most of the sales in the overall food and beverage store sector.
Cupertino, however, has very low or no sales in the meat markets, fish and seafood markets, and
all other specialty food store subcategories. Per capita sales in meat markets and fish and
seafood markets for the entire RTA are also very low. This indicates that despite overall
injections of sales for the food and beverage store major sector, there may be opportunities for
this category in some of these smaller market niches in Cupertino, which could perhaps also
attract shoppers from elsewhere in the RTA.
Table 19: Detail on Food and Beverage Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Supermarkets and other grocery (except convenience) st $2,911145%$2,304114%$2,013
Convenience stores $87100%$102117%$87
Meat markets $00%$631%$18
Fish and seafood markets $00%$00%$3
Fruit and vegetable markets $46271%$40236%$17
Baked goods stores $44534%$10119%$8
Confectionery and nut stores $1084%$28228%$12
All other specialty food stores $219%$664%$9
Beer, wine, and liquor stores $95 92%$126 121%$104
Food and Beverage Stores $3,196 $2,620 $2,271
Health and Personal Care Stores. This category is dominated by pharmacies and drug stores,
and shows modest leakages for Cupertino, which has few major chain pharmacies. The City has
very low per capita sales relative to Santa Clara County for cosmetics, beauty supplies, and
perfume stores, and food (health) supplement stores. For the RTA, where sales in the area are
approximately in balance with demand, there are no subcategories with very low per capita
sales relative to the county.
1052
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
51
Table 20: Detail on Health and Personal Care Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Pharmacies and drug stores $41975%$54898%$559
Cosmetics, beauty supplies, and perfume stores $1219%$5688%$64
Optical goods stores $48160%$45153%$30
Food (health) supplement stores $1249%$2083%$25
All other health and personal care stores $22 74%$46 154%$30
Health and Personal Care Stores $513 $716 $707
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores. Overall, Cupertino has very weak per capita sales
in this major retail category, and in most of its subcategories (see Table 21). The RTA, while
showing some leakage overall for this category (see discussion above), has very low per capita
sales only for clothing accessories stores, one of the smaller subcategories. The very low sales
for Cupertino are an indicator that despite the fact that these kinds of stores are often found in
shopping malls, the Vallco Shopping Mall is very weak in apparel-related sales.
Table 21: Detail on Clothing and Clothing Accessory Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Men's clothing stores $00%$1746%$36
Women's clothing stores $53%$165101%$163
Children's and infants' clothing stores $1431%$62141%$44
Family clothing stores $6514%$37178%$474
Clothing accessories stores $919%$2045%$45
Other clothing stores $94172%$69126%$55
Shoe stores $12177%$12178%$156
Jewelry stores $278256%$153141%$109
Luggage and leather goods stores $0 0%$25 169%$14
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $585 $1,003 $1,097
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores. Among this group of store types,
Cupertino only shows very low per capita sales for book stores, news dealers and newsstands,
and prerecorded tape, compact disc, and record stores. These store type subcategories have all
been impacted by online sales as well as e-readers, (e.g., Amazon, and iTunes) and thus do not
represent long-term opportunities for recapture of sales in Cupertino. The RTA has no
subcategories here with very low per capita sales, and in fact shows substantial sales injections
for the overall category.
1053
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
52
Table 22: Detail on Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Sporting goods stores $8261%$276207%$134
Hobby, toy, and game stores $101163%$96156%$62
Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores $56430%$44337%$13
Musical instrument and supplies stores $2697%$37139%$26
Book stores $1215%$7798%$78
News dealers and newsstands $00%$252%$4
Prerecorded tape, compact disc, and record stores $0 0%$15 223%$7
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores $276 $547 $323
General Merchandise Stores. Cupertino shows injections of sales in this major category, due
to the three Vallco Shopping Mall anchor stores and the Target. Per capita sales by subcategory
show the key role of the Vallco anchors, with extremely high per capita sales for the department
stores (excluding discount department stores) subcategory. Cupertino shows no per capita
sales in the warehouse clubs and supercenters subcategory, due to the lack of a Costco or
similar store, and in the all other general merchandise stores subcategory, which includes
miscellaneous types of variety stores and typically accounts for only a small portion of general
merchandise stores overall. The RTA shows no subcategories with very low per capita sales.
Table 23: Detail on General Merchandise Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Department stores (except discount department stores)$1,488491%$443146%$303
Discount department stores $660113%$52790%$584
Warehouse clubs and supercenters $00%$47587%$546
All other general merchandise stores $0 0%$68 103%$66
General Merchandise Stores $2,148 $1,513 $1,499
Miscellaneous Store Retailers. Cupertino has very low per capita sales across most of the store
type subcategories comprising this catch-all major category, which is reflected in the high
leakage for the overall category. The exceptions are for pet and pet supply stores and tobacco
stores. Many of these store types occupy narrow market niches with very limited sales.
Table 24: Detail on Miscellaneous Retail Store Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Florists $331%$18167%$11
Office supplies and stationery stores $00%$108153%$71
Gift, novelty, and souvenir stores $2040%$81160%$51
Used merchandise stores $38%$3576%$45
Pet and pet supplies stores $68117%$107184%$58
Art dealers $00%$129%$4
Manufactured (mobile) home dealers $00%$1993%$21
Tobacco stores $1061%$1481%$17
All other miscellaneous store retailers (except tobacc $5 13%$29 71%$40
Miscellaneous Store Retailers $111 $412 $317
1054
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
53
Food Services and Drinking Places. Cupertino’s sales in this major category are nearly in
balance with estimated resident expenditures, and only one subcategory, food service
contractors shows very low per capita sales. Full-service restaurants, which are responsible for
the highest proportion of per capita sales countywide in the overall major category, have strong
per capita sales in Cupertino. The RTA has no subcategories with very low per capita sales.
Table 25: Detail on Food Services and Drinking Places Sales
Cupertino Retail Trade Area
2010 Estimated Annual Per Capita Sales in 2013 $Per CapitaAs %Per CapitaAs %Santa Clara
Salesof CountySalesof CountyCounty
Full-service restaurants $1,456171%$942111%$849
Limited-service restaurants $47674%$692108%$641
Cafeterias, grill buffets, and buffets $29101%$31109%$29
Snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars $356201%$208117%$177
Food service contractors $3921%$314168%$187
Caterers $43138%$48157%$31
Mobile food services $3291%$2149%$1
Drinking places (alcoholic beverages)$3 8%$33 74%$44
Food Services and Drinking Places $2,405 $2,271 $1,959
The data presented above provide a basis for an estimate of potential market support for new
retail development, which is presented in a subsequent section of this report.
1055
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
54
REAL ESTATE MARKET TRENDS
This section provides an overview and analysis of current real estate market conditions in
Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area. The overview presents data on the existing
inventory, lease rates, and occupancy levels among residential, office, research and
development (R&D), industrial, and retail properties. The information provided in the following
sections was obtained from private data vendors, brokerage firm reports, and online property
listings. These data sources are supplemented by quantitative and qualitative information on
local real estate conditions obtained through interviews with local property managers and
brokers. Each section on current real estate market conditions is followed by an overview of
planned and proposed residential, office, R&D, retail, and mixed-use developments in
Cupertino. The following section concludes with an evaluation of the total new square feet or
units that would be supportable in Cupertino by 2020 and 2035.
Residential Market
Cupertino has a strong residential market, due largely to the high quality of the local school
districts and the presence of Apple Inc. and other high-tech employers. High demand for
homes and apartments in Cupertino has created a housing market characterized by high home
sale and rental prices, which were impacted relatively mildly during the recent recession.
Market Area. As discussed in a previous section, the school districts that serve Cupertino (the
Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District) are considered
among the best in California, which leads to high demand for housing in these districts among
families with school-aged children. Interviews with residential real estate brokers in Cupertino
confirm the positive role local public schools have in supporting the housing market. Since the
schools are a significant factor in attracting residential demand, Cupertino is in a market area
that is largely defined by the boundaries of these school districts, which include portions of
Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Saratoga, Santa Clara, and west San Jose. In addition to the high-quality
school districts, Cupertino’s proximity to high-tech employment contributes to the high
demand for housing in the city. Apple Inc. is a primary factor in attracting residents that are
seeking homes near high-tech employment centers to Cupertino, and other large and small
tech companies in neighboring communities lead to additional residential demand in and
around Cupertino.
Existing Inventory and Recent Construction
Existing Inventory. Compared to Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, Cupertino has a larger
share of single-family homes and a smaller share of multi-family housing. According to ACS
data, 70 percent of housing units in Cupertino were single family homes (both detached and
attached) and 30 percent were multifamily units, while the proportion of multifamily units was 33
percent in Santa Clara County and 35 percent throughout the Bay Area. Multifamily housing in
1056
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
55
Cupertino is most commonly provided in small buildings containing three to 19 units, which
accounted for 17 percent of the Cupertino housing stock.
Table 26: Housing Units by Type of Structure (a)
Santa Clara
Type of Residence CupertinoCountyBay Area (b)
Single Family Detached 56.1%53.6%53.4%
Single Family Attached 13.6%10.1%9.1%
Multifamily 2 Units 1.7%1.9%3.8%
Multifamily 3-19 Units 16.7%16.8%18.0%
Multifamily 20-49 Units 2.1%5.2%5.6%
Multifamily 50+9.4%9.3%8.1%
Mobile Home/Other (c)0.3%3.1%2.1%
Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%
Single Family Housing Units69.7%63.8%62.5%
Multifamily Housing Units 30.0%33.2%35.4%
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) publishes demographic
estimates based on statistical sampling conducted between 2009-2011.
(b) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma
counties.
(c) Includes standard mobile homes as well as boats, RVs, vans, and other
vehicles that serve as a primary residence.
Sources: ACS, 2009-2011; BAE, 2013.
Tenure. Cupertino has a slightly higher proportion of owner-occupied households than Santa
Clara County and the Bay Area. In 2010, 63 percent of all Cupertino households were owner-
occupied, compared to 58 percent of Santa Clara County households and 56 percent of Bay
Area households. In all three geographies, the proportion of renter-occupied units increased
slightly (one to two percentage points) between 2000 and 2010.
1057
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
56
Table 27: Household Tenure, 2000-2010
2000 2010
Cupertino NumberPercentNumberPercent
Owners 11,58363.6%12,62762.6%
Renters 6,621 36.4%7,554 37.4%
Total 18,204100.0%20,181100.0%
Santa Clara County
Owners 338,66159.8%348,29857.6%
Renters 227,202 40.2%255,906 42.4%
Total 565,863100.0%604,204100.0%
Bay Area (a)
Owners 1,423,95857.7%1,465,36256.2%
Renters 1,042,061 42.3%1,142,661 43.8%
Total 2,466,019100.0%2,608,023100.0%
Notes:
(a) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma
counties.
Sources: U.S. Census 2000 & 2010; BAE, 2013.
Recent Construction Trends. Residential building permit data provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau demonstrate that both Cupertino and Santa Clara County experienced a decline in
building permit activity in 2009 –the bottom of the Great Recession—followed by a moderate
recovery in the subsequent three years. (See Figure 9). In Cupertino, 2006 was the most active
year in the past decade with respect to residential building permits, with a total of 126 permits
issued. Building permit activity remained strong through 2008, then decreased to 21 units in
2009 as building activity decreased during the recession. Building permit activity increased
during 2011 and 2012, but nonetheless lagged pre-recession levels.
Figure 9: Residential Units Permitted, 2003-2012
Source: US Census Building Permit Data, 2013; BAE, 2013.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2003200420052006200720082009201020112012
Un
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
Un
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Cupertino Santa Clara County
1058
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
57
Residential building permits issued in Cupertino over the past decade have overwhelmingly
consisted of permits for single family homes, as indicated in Figure 10. Between 2003 and 2012,
87 percent of all residential units permitted in Cupertino were single family units, and seven
percent were in buildings with five or more units. Compared to the composition of the existing
housing stock shown in Table 26, this represents a higher concentration of single-family units in
Cupertino over time. During the same period, 36 percent of residential units permitted
throughout Santa Clara County were for single family homes while 62 percent of units permitted
were in buildings with five or more units, which represents a smaller concentration of single-
family units in the county over time.
Figure 10: Residential Units Permitted by Building Type, 2003-2012
Source: US Census Building Permit Data, 2013; BAE, 2013.
87%
36%
6%
1%0%2%
7%
62%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
CupertinoSanta Clara County
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Single Family Two Family Three and Four Family Five or More Family
For Sale Residential
Home Price Trends. According to home sale data provided by DataQuick, which collects data
from the County Assessor (shown in Figure 11 below), home sale prices in Cupertino are
typically higher than prices in Santa Clara County overall, and were impacted mildly during the
recent economic downturn. Median home prices dropped only 8 percent in Cupertino between
2008 and 2010 compared to 35 percent for Santa Clara County between 2007 and 2009. The
median price for Cupertino changed very little between 2009 and 2011, but increased
significantly in 2012 to $1,045,750, higher than pre-recession levels and twice as high as the
median for the county.
1059
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
58
Figure 11: Median Home Sale Price, 2005-2012
Location Median Sale Price
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Cupertino $908,000$935,000$939,500$1,012,500$930,000$931,000$933,000$1,045,750
Santa Clara County$660,000$680,000$700,000$580,000$455,000$500,000$472,500$525,000
Source: Dataquick; BAE, 2013.
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
20052006200720082009201020112012
Cupertino Santa Clara County
Data on recent home sales in Cupertino further demonstrate that the housing market is
characterized by high home sale prices, with virtually no low- or moderately-priced options.
Table 28 shows the sale price distribution for single-family homes and condominiums sold in
Cupertino between March 1, 2013 and August 31, 2013. Among single-family homes sold during
this period, 88 percent sold for $1,000,000 or more, with a median price of $1,431,500. The
median price of condominiums sold during this period was $775,000, and more than half of all
condominiums had a sale price between $700,000 and $1,000,000. As discussed above, these
median housing costs exceed the affordability threshold for people earning the median income
for a person employed in Cupertino, particularly for single-person households or household
with only one income earner.
The data presented in Table 28 also indicate that the for-sale residential market in Cupertino
consists of relatively large units. Among homes recently sold, more than half of all single family
homes had four or more bedrooms. Although condominiums tended to be smaller than single
family homes, 90 percent had two or more bedrooms. The large size and high price of
residential units in Cupertino indicate that the for-sale market primarily serves larger high-
income households, and that there is a potential unmet need for smaller, more affordable units
to provide housing options for individuals and small households in the local workforce.
1060
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
59
Table 28: Sale Price Distribution of Single-Family Residences and Condominiums
by Number of Bedrooms, March-August 2013 (a)
Number of Units Sold
Sale Price Range1 BRs2 BRs3 BRs4+ BRsTotal% Total
Single-Family Residences
Less than $500,0000 01231.7%
$500,000-$999,999151201810.1%
$1,000,000-$1,499,9991445267642.7%
$1,500,000-$1,999,9990113466033.7%
$200,000 or more0 0 4 17 21 11.8%
Total 2 10 75 91178100.0%
% Total 1.1%5.6%42.1%51.1%100.0%
Median Sale Price$970,000$987,500$1,291,000$1,599,000$1,431,500
Average Sale Price$970,000$1,068,977$1,319,015$1,644,659$1,467,527
Average Size (sf)8221043159724561996
Average Price/sf $1,180$1,025$826$670$735
Condominiums
Less than $400,000 0 11022.4%
$400,000-$699,999 8 8 0 0 1619.3%
$700,000- $999,999 0 39 6 0 4554.2%
$1,000,000-$1,299,999 0 5 11 3 1922.9%
$1,300,000 or more 0 1 0 0 1 1.2%
Total 8 54 18 3 83100.0%
% Total 9.6%30.3%10.1%1.7%46.6%
Median Sale Price$539,500$747,500$1,037,500$1,150,000$775,000
Average Sale Price$535,625$781,778$977,833$1,108,333$812,373
Average Size (sf)8921291183519081393
Average Price/sf $600$606$533$581$583
Notes:
(a) Consists of all full and verified sales of single-family residences and condominiums in the 94014 ZIP
code between 3/1/2013 and 08/31/2013.
Sources: DataQuick, BAE; 2013.
Planned and Proposed For-Sale Projects. There are two for-sale residential projects in the
development pipeline in Cupertino: Parkside Trails, which would consist of 18 single family
homes on Stevens Canyon Road south of Ricardo Road and a six-unit live/work project on
Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way16. Under the proposed Parkside Trails plan, the new
residential development would take place on nine acres of the site and an additional 33.5 acres
adjacent to the residential development would be dedicated as open space. The plan is
currently under review by the City. The project on Foothill Boulevard is on a small infill parcel
formerly occupied by an automotive service station.
16 As of the date of this report, this project has not been approved.
1061
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
60
Rental Residential
Existing Rental Inventory. Similar to the for-sale market, the rental residential market in
Cupertino consists of relatively large units. Figure 12 shows data provided by RealFacts, which
collects data on rental properties with 50 units or more. As shown, 59 percent of units in
Cupertino had two or more bedrooms, compared to 49 percent in Santa Clara County overall.
Figure 12: Rental Stock by Number of Bedrooms, Second Quarter 2013 (a)
Note:
(a) Data captures rental housing complexes with at least 50 units in Cupertino and Santa
Clara County. Unit types comprising less than 0.1 percent of the units in the sample were
omitted from the figure.
Sources: RealFacts; BAE, 2013.
6.3%
45.0%44.3%
4.4%3.0%
38.1%
52.6%
6.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
StudiosOne-Bedroom UnitsTwo-Bedroom UnitsThree-Bedroom
Units
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
i
n
S
a
m
p
l
e
Cupertino Santa Clara County
Occupancy and Rental Rate Trends. Occupancy and rental rate trends between 2005 and 2013
demonstrate that Santa Clara County has a strong rental market, particularly in Cupertino. As
shown in Figure 13, rental rates in the City and county decreased in 2009 following steady
increases between 2005 and 2008. However, rents increased significantly in 2011, surpassing
pre-recession levels, and further increased through the second quarter of 2013. Throughout this
nine-year time period, the average monthly rent in Cupertino remained approximately $250 to
$425 higher than the average for Santa Clara County. As of the second quarter of 2013, the
average monthly rent was $2,426 in Cupertino and $2,062 in Santa Clara County.
The shortage of young adult residents and workers in Cupertino could be largely the result of
the lack of moderately priced housing options for many young or single-earner households,
which suggests a need for smaller, more affordable units that can serve as workforce housing.
1062
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
61
Figure 13: Rental Rate Trends, 2005-2013
Note:
(a) Data captures rental housing complexes with at least 50 units in Cupertino and Santa Clara County.
Sources: RealFacts; BAE, 2013.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
200520062007200820092010201120122013
Av
e
r
a
g
e
M
o
n
t
l
y
R
e
n
t
Cupertino Santa Clara County
Occupancy rates in Santa Clara County and Cupertino further demonstrate solid demand for
housing in Cupertino. Housing markets are typically considered to have a healthy amount of
vacancy when units are 95 percent occupied, which allows for some mobility between rental
units. As shown in Figure 14, the rental occupancy rate in Cupertino was on average 95.3
percent occupied over the past eight years. During the Great Recession Cupertino’s occupancy
rate decreased to 93 percent. In Santa Clara County, the vacancy rate did not fall below 95
percent in any year between 2005 and 2013, and was higher in many years during this period.
Figure 14: Vacancy Rate Trends, 2005-2013
90.0%
91.0%
92.0%
93.0%
94.0%
95.0%
96.0%
97.0%
98.0%
99.0%
100.0%
200520062007200820092010201120122013
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
Cupertino Santa Clara County1063
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
62
Planned and Proposed Rental Projects. There are three rental residential projects in the
development pipeline in Cupertino, totaling 404 new residential units, all in mixed-use
developments. The largest of the three projects is the Rose Bowl mixed-use development,
which is currently under construction and will consist of approximately 60,000 square feet of
retail and 204 rental residential units east of the Vallco shopping center. Also under construction
is the Biltmore Adjacency, a mixed-use project which will consist of 80 rental residential units
and 7,000 square feet of retail on Steven Creek Boulevard at North Blaney Avenue. The project
included demolition of 21,000 square feet of retail space, resulting in a net loss of retail space
on the site. The third project with rental residential units in the pipeline is Main Street
Cupertino, which will consist of 120 rental residential units, 130,500 square feet of retail space,
260,000 square feet of office space, and 180 hotel rooms on Steven Creek Boulevard between
Finch Avenue and Tantau Avenue. Main Street Cupertino has been approved but is not yet
under construction.
Office Real Estate Market Overview
Market Context. As discussed above, Cupertino is a significant employment node, due largely
to the strong presence of Apple Inc. in the city. Apple Inc. currently occupies a significant
portion of the office space in Cupertino in addition to the company’s existing campus. The
company has received City approvals to construct a second campus in Cupertino (Apple
Campus 2). It is not known whether the company will retain all of the space that it currently
occupies once the new campus is complete. However, Apple has indicated that the new
campus is intended to accommodate additional employees rather than to replace the space
that the company is currently using. Office brokers familiar with the local market report that
Apple’s presence in Cupertino also leads other companies to seek out office space in the City
because Apple often requires the companies that it works with to have a local satellite office. In
addition to Apple and the companies associated with it, there is high demand for office space
in Cupertino among high-tech companies and companies that offer professional services to the
high-tech industry.
The office market in Santa Clara County consists of a number of submarkets with varying
demand for office space, which is generally reflected in vacancy, lease, and absorption rates.
Palo Alto is typically considered to be the top tier in the Santa Clara County office market
supporting the highest rents and lowest vacancies. The West Valley submarket, which includes
the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and parts of west San Jose has
traditionally been highly desirable due to the location of executive-level residential areas in Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills, Lost Gatos, Monte Sereno and Cupertino.
Convergence of Office and R&D Space Requirements. Traditionally, there has been a
distinction in the real estate market between office and R&D space, with R&D space typically in
single-story rectangular or square-shaped structures with modest exterior features and
detailing. However, over time there has been an increasing convergence of these real estate
product types across the Bay Area as production facilities have moved elsewhere, often to other
1064
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
63
countries, and research and product development activities that once required large or
specialized lab space are more often completed using computer simulations. Future real estate
demand in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area is expected to reflect a diminished
distinction between office and R&D space requirements, with office space used to conduct
tasks that have formerly required larger R&D spaces.
Demand for State-of-the-Art, Green Office Space. There has been a notable increase in the
number of office property owners and developers renovating or developing their office space
into LEED certified structures, usually at the silver, gold, or platinum levels. Two factors drive
this increase in interest in sustainable office space: (i) implementing design and building system
features that qualify a structure for LEED certification can result in significant operational savings
of the life of the building; and (ii) building users and tenants can market their “green” office
space as a positive feature to attract employees. Younger workers, particularly in the technology
sectors, seek to work for companies whose values generally align with their own and
environmental sustainability is one element of these values.
Demand for Building, Site and Neighborhood Amenities. Office workers, particularly
workers in the high-tech industries that dominate the market in Cupertino and elsewhere in
Silicon Valley, are increasingly demonstrating a preference for workplace locations that offer the
amenities typically found in more urban environments, including proximity to public
transportation, bicycle and pedestrian access, attractive retail offerings, and entertainment
options. In response to this shift in preferences among workers, companies are more often
seeking office locations that offer more urban-style amenities instead of opting for traditional
suburban office parks. The preference for more urban amenities, particularly access to public
transportation, is reflected in the preferences of companies looking for space in Silicon Valley.
Commercial brokers familiar with Cupertino have reported that the city’s lack of access to
Caltrain has deterred some companies from locating in Cupertino, and that some employers
have chosen to locate in Sunnyvale rather than Cupertino in order to have access to Caltrain.
Higher Employment Densities in Office Space. Since the recovery from the Great Recession,
office end users and technology tenants have begun to seek office space with open floor plans
to both encourage interaction among employees as well as accommodate more employees in
their office space to reduce real estate costs. As a result, owners of existing properties have
had to open up their building interiors as part of building renovation programming. This trend
has also led to increased employment densities with the gross square feet of office per
employees falling from 275 or 250 square feet per employee to 225 to 250 per employee. In
some cases, this ratio has reached 200 square feet per employee. For this study, BAE uses a
250 square foot per employee factor for office demand calculations.
Response by Silicon Valley Communities. Cities in Silicon Valley and elsewhere have started
to consider and implement strategies to reposition existing office parks and other suburban
office locations to better respond to these trends and shifts in demand. In general, these
strategies aim to better integrate suburban office development into the surrounding area
1065
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
64
through mixed-use development and the addition of public spaces, bicycle paths, and
pedestrian networks. Elements of a repositioning strategy can also include the construction of
additional housing, particularly housing affordable to local workers, and expanding the mix of
retail and entertainment options. Implementation of some or all of these strategies may be
necessary for Cupertino to continue to capture a significant portion of future employment
growth.
Inventory and Absorption Trends. Silicon Valley is a strong employment node with a large
inventory of office space. According to data from commercial brokerage Cassidy/Turley, there
were approximately 61 million square feet of office space in Santa Clara County as of the first
quarter of 2013. The office inventory in Cupertino totaled approximately 4.1 million square feet,
one fifth of the West Valley office inventory (20.3 million square feet). Existing office
development in Cupertino is distributed primarily along Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza
Boulevard, and North Wolfe Road. A large office site north of Interstate 280 at North Wolfe
Road is located on the site of the proposed new Apple campus and would be demolished to
construct the new campus.
The amount of office space in Cupertino has been essentially unchanged over the past decade,
according to data from Cassidy Turley. As shown in Figure 15, Cupertino had approximately 4
million square feet of office space in 2003, and there have been only minor fluctuations through
the first quarter of 2013. Meanwhile, there were modest increases in the office inventory in the
West Valley submarket (from 15.7 million square feet in the first quarter of 2003 to 20.3 million
square feet in the first quarter of 2013) and in Santa Clara County overall (from 53.6 million
square feet in the first quarter of 2003 to 61.0 million square feet in the first quarter of 2013).
Figure 15: Office Inventory, 2003-2013
Note:
The West Valley submarket defined for this figure consists of Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
Sources: Cassidy/Turley, 2013; BAE, 2013.
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
Q1 2003Q1 2004Q1 2005Q1 2006Q1 2007Q1 2008Q1 2009Q1 2010Q1 2011Q1 2012Q1 2013
Of
f
i
c
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Cupertino West Valley (a)Santa Clara County
1066
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
65
In the real estate market, gross absorption measures the total square feet space leased over a
defined time period, while net absorption measures the total square feet of space leased over a
defined time period after subtracting the amount of existing space vacated or new space added
to the inventory during the same period.
Net office absorption in Cupertino and the West Valley submarket has varied substantially over
the past two business cycles. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show net annual absorption in Cupertino
and the West Valley submarket between 2003 and 2012. As shown, net annual absorption in
Cupertino ranged from -169,110 square feet in 2008 to 213,336 square feet in 2004. Net annual
absorption in the West Valley submarket ranged from -482,011 square feet in 2009 to almost 2.2
million square feet in 2012.
Despite some years with considerable amounts negative net absorption, both Cupertino and
the West Valley submarket showed positive average net annual absorption over time. Annual
net absorption between 2003 and 2012 averaged approximately 60,500 square feet per year in
Cupertino and approximately 565,400 square feet per year in the West Valley submarket overall,
demonstrating long-term growth.
Figure 16: Annual Net Office Absorption, Cupertino, 2003-2012
Sources: Cassidy/Turley, 2013; BAE, 2013.
(75,138)
213,336
(17,079)
192,093
56,144
(169,110)
9,272
163,014 148,985
83,242
60,476
-200,000
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2003200420052006200720082009201020112012Annual
Average
2003-2012
Ne
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
1067
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
66
Figure 17: Annual Net Office Absorption, West Valley, 2003-2012
Note:
The West Valley submarket defined for this figure consists of Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
Sources: Cassidy/Turley, 2013; BAE, 2013.
54,144
586,451 683,979 558,066
(31,393)
(301,192)
(482,011)
732,985
1,662,962
2,189,985
565,398
-1,000,000
-500,000
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2003200420052006200720082009201020112012Annual
Average
2003-2012
Ne
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Vacancy and Rental Rate Trends. Similar to net absorption, lease and vacancy rates in
Cupertino, the West Valley submarket, and Santa Clara County have demonstrated a significant
amount of variation over two business cycles between 2003 and 2013. However, the Cupertino
office market has performed strongly over this time period relative to the West Valley
submarket and Santa Clara County overall. Figure 18 shows first quarter average Class A full
service office lease rates for Cupertino, the West Valley submarket, and Santa Clara County, and
Figure 19 shows average office vacancy rates for Cupertino, the West Valley submarket, and
Santa Clara County, according to data provided by Cassidy/Turley.
As shown, lease rates for Class A office space in Cupertino are typically higher than Class A
lease rates in the West Valley submarket or Santa Clara County overall. The average Class A
lease rate in all three geographies peaked in 2008, with first quarter lease rates averaging $3.94
per square foot per month in Cupertino, $3.56 per square foot per month in the West Valley
submarket, and $3.49 per square foot per month in Santa Clara County. Class A lease rates
have decreased slightly in subsequent years, though averages have remained higher than $3.00
per square foot per month in the city, submarket, and county. As of the first quarter of 2013, the
average full service Class A office lease rates in Cupertino was slightly lower than rates in the
submarket and county at $3.15 per square foot per month. However, trends over time suggest
that Class A properties in Cupertino typically rent for higher rates than average for the
submarket and county.
1068
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
67
Figure 18: Class A Office Lease Rates, First Quarter 2003 to First Quarter 2013
Note:
(a) The West Valley submarket defined for this figure consists of Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
Sources: Cassidy/Turley, 2013; BAE, 2013.
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
Q1 2003Q1 2004Q1 2005Q1 2006Q1 2007Q1 2008Q1 2009Q1 2010Q1 2011Q1 2012Q1 2013
Av
e
r
a
g
e
C
l
a
s
s
A
F
u
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Le
a
s
e
R
a
t
e
(
p
e
r
s
q
.
f
t
.
/
m
o
)
Cupertino West Valley (a)Santa Clara County
Although first quarter office vacancy rates fluctuated substantially in Cupertino between 2003
and 2013, with a high of 17.0 percent in 2010 and a low of 1.5 percent in 2013, the vacancy rate
in Cupertino has consistently been lower than vacancy rates in the West Valley submarket and
Santa Clara County overall. The low vacancy rate in the first quarter of 2013, coupled with trends
demonstrating the low vacancy rate in Cupertino relative to other markets, indicates high
demand for Cupertino office space in the short term and over time.
Figure 19: Office Vacancy Rates, First Quarter 2003 to First Quarter 2013
Note:
(a) The West Valley submarket defined for this figure consists of Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
Sources: Cassidy/Turley, 2013; BAE, 2013.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Q1 2003Q1 2004Q1 2005Q1 2006Q1 2007Q1 2008Q1 2009Q1 2010Q1 2011Q1 2012Q1 2013
Of
f
i
c
e
V
a
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
Cupertino West Valley (a)Santa Clara County
According to office brokers familiar with Cupertino, the city’s low office vacancy rate, shortage
of large office spaces available for rent, and high office lease rates prevent many businesses
from locating in Cupertino and often cause small companies to leave the City in order to
1069
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
68
expand. Cupertino City Center, which is considered by local brokers to be the city’s premier
office building, has been 100 percent occupied for over a year. It now has one 8,200-square foot
space available and will have two additional small spaces becoming available over the next six
months, but these spaces are expected to fill quickly. Rents at Cupertino City Center are $4.00
per square foot per month, triple net, or approximately $5.00 per square foot on a full service
basis. The Cupertino Financial Center, which local brokers consider to be the most prestigious
building in the City apart from Cupertino City Center, has less than 1,000 square feet available
for rent at $4.50 per square foot per month, full service. Asking rents for other spaces on the
market range from approximately $2.00 to $3.50 per square foot per month on a full service
basis. There are no available office spaces in Cupertino larger than 8,200 square feet and it is
reported that there have been no vacancies larger than 10,000 square feet in the City for at least
a year. An inventory of currently leasing office properties in Cupertino is shown in Appendix G-
1.
Planned and Proposed Office Development. As shown in Appendix H-1, there are four office
developments in the project pipeline in Cupertino, which would add one million net new square
feet (3.8 million gross new square feet) of office space to the city. The largest development in
the project pipeline is the 3.4 million square foot Apple Campus 2 project, which was approved
in October 2013 and is currently under building permit review. The project is planned in two
phases, the first consisting of 2.8 million square feet of office space in a four-story building, a
1,000-seat auditorium, a fitness center, and parking structures. The second phase would include
600,000 additional square feet of office and research facilities. According to the Economic and
Fiscal Impact study for the campus, prepared by Keyser Marston Associates in May 2013, the
campus would have a total capacity of 14,200 employees. The plans call for demolition of 2.65
million square feet of office space, resulting in a net increase of 750,000 square feet of office
space resulting from the project.
The remaining three office developments in the project pipeline consist of an estimated 294,000
square feet of net new office space which would expand the city’s existing inventory by
approximately 7.4 percent. The majority of this space would be in Main Street Cupertino, a
mixed-use development that includes 260,000 square feet of office space, 130,500 square feet
of retail space, 180 hotel rooms, and 120 residential units. Additional office space has been
planned in the Oaks Shopping Center project, a mixed-use development with a four-story, 122-
room hotel and a three-story, 56,000-square foot retail, office, and convention center building.
The plans for the Oaks Shopping Center call for demolition of 2,430 square feet of retail space
and 15,263 square feet of movie theater space. This study estimates that the 56,000 square feet
of commercial space in the Oaks Shopping Center project would be divided evenly between
retail, office, and convention center, with almost 19,000 square feet for each use. The remaining
office square footage consists of demolition of five office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet
at One Results Way and construction of 155,000 square feet of office space in three two-story
buildings along with a two-story parking garage. All three projects have received the necessary
entitlements but are not yet under construction. It should be noted that the Oaks Shopping
1070
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
69
Center project was approved in September 2008, and its entitlement will expire in September
2014 unless building permits are approved.
Retail Real Estate Market Overview
The data presented here and in the Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis are also used as
foundational information for the separate Retail Strategy Report prepared by Greensfelder
Commercial Real Estate.
Retail Market Context. Santa Clara County provides a relatively robust retail sector, with
several regional malls, lifestyle centers, and other types of destination retail along with
community-serving retail options. Terranomics, which collects data on shopping centers of
50,000 square feet or more, reports that the retail inventory in Santa Clara County totaled
approximately 38 million square feet in the fourth quarter of 2012. This represents 31 percent of
the Bay Area retail inventory, while only 25 percent of the region’s population and 23 percent of
its households lived in Santa Clara County as of the 2010 US Census.
Retail development in Cupertino is somewhat dispersed along Stevens Creek Boulevard, De
Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road, which constitute the primary commercial corridors in
Cupertino. The Vallco Shopping Center, on North Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, is
the largest retail node in the city, and is one of the study areas for the GPA. Although Vallco is a
regional mall, it has experienced high vacancy in its in-line shop space in recent years and is not
able to compete with newer destination retail centers in neighboring cities, particularly Valley
Fair shopping center in Santa Clara and lifestyle centers such as Santana Row in San Jose17.
The remaining retail space in Cupertino consists primarily of neighborhood and community-
serving retail centers. Along Stevens Creek Boulevard, retail options include the Oaks
Shopping Center, Cupertino Crossroads Shopping Center, a stand-alone Whole Foods store,
and a retail cluster that includes a Target store. As discussed in the section above, there is an
approved development plan for the site of the Oaks Shopping Center that would demolish the
existing movie theater and a portion of the existing retail space on site to construct a new retail,
office, and convention center space and a 122-room hotel. There are several additional
community-serving shopping centers on De Anza Boulevard and North Wolfe Road, including
two Ranch 99 supermarkets. The Cupertino Village shopping center, which is north of Interstate
280 on North Wolfe Road, is also one of the study areas for the GPA.
Inventory and Absorption Trends. Similar to the inventory of office space, the amount of retail
space in Cupertino has not changed substantially in recent years, according to data from
17 A full description of the Vallco Shopping Center and strategies to redevelop and revitalize this
shopping facility is presented in the Retail Strategy Study.
1071
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
70
commercial brokerage Terranomics, which tracks shopping centers measuring 50,000 square
feet or more. Terranomics combines Cupertino and Sunnyvale in to a single submarket for data
reporting purposes. As shown in Figure 20, Cupertino and Sunnyvale had approximately 4.2
million square feet of retail space in 2006, which increased modestly to 4.4 million square feet
by the second quarter of 2013, an increase generally consistent with the increase in retail
inventory experienced by Santa Clara County (growing from 35.6 million square feet in 2006 to
38.0 million square feet in the second quarter of 2013).
Figure 20: Retail Inventory, 2006-2013 (Year to Date) (a)
Notes:
(a) Data are for shopping centers with 50,000 square feet or more.
(b) Year-to-date data are through the second quarter of 2013.
Sources: Terranomics, 2013; BAE, 2013.
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
2006200720082009201020112012YTD 2013 (b)
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Cupertino/Sunnyvale Santa Clara County
With the exception of a couple years directly following the 2008 real estate market crash and
Great Recession, net annual retail absorption in Cupertino/Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County
was generally positive between 2006 and 2013. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show net annual
absorption in Cupertino/Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County between 2006 and the second
quarter of 2013. As shown, net annual absorption in the Cupertino/Sunnyvale submarket ranged
from -64,065 square feet in 2012 to 148,420 square feet in 2011. Net annual absorption in Santa
Clara County overall ranged from -627,842 square feet in 2009 to 934,119 square feet in 2007.
Overall both the Cupertino/Sunnyvale submarket and Santa Clara County experienced net
positive absorption over this time period.
1072
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
71
Figure 21: Net Annual Retail Absorption, Cupertino, 2006-2013
Notes:
(a) Data are for shopping centers with 50,000 square feet or more.
(b) Year-to-date data are through the second quarter of 2013.
Sources: Terranomics, 2013; BAE, 2013.
95,392
59,059
14,213 13,388
(43,253)
148,420
(64,065)
(5,669)
27,186
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2006200720082009201020112012YTD 2013
(b)
Annual
Average
2003-2012
Ne
t
R
e
t
a
i
l
A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Figure 22: Net Annual Retail Absorption, Santa Clara County, 2006-2013
Notes:
(a) Data are for shopping centers with 50,000 square feet or more.
(b) Year-to-date data are through the second quarter of 2013.
Sources: Terranomics, 2013; BAE, 2013.
410,940
934,119
718,182
(627,842)
(54,034)
400,595
92,622
196,884 258,933
-800,000
-600,000
-400,000
-200,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2006200720082009201020112012YTD 2013
(b)
Annual
Average
2003-2012
Ne
t
R
e
t
a
i
l
A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
(
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Vacancy and Rental Rates. Data from Terranomics on retail vacancy and asking rents suggest
that the retail real estate market in Santa Clara County and the Cupertino/Sunnyvale submarket
has not fully recovered from the recent recession; however, the Cupertino/Sunnyvale submarket
has demonstrated a slightly stronger recovery. (See Table 23). Although retail asking rents in
1073
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
72
Cupertino/Sunnyvale trended downward between 2006 and 2010, average triple net asking
rents increased from $2.21 per square foot per month in 2010 to $2.87 per square foot per
month in 2012. As of the second quarter of 2013, the average retail asking rent had fallen to
$2.48 per square foot per month on a triple net basis, demonstrating continuing fluctuations in
the market. Retail asking rents also decreased in Santa Clara County between 2006 and 2009,
but have remained at approximately 2009 levels in subsequent years.
As of the second quarter of 2013, retail asking rents in Santa Clara County averaged $2.15 per
square foot per month on a triple net basis. Online property listings suggest that retail leasing
activity in Cupertino is relatively healthy. (See Appendix G-2 for retail listings). Retail properties
currently available for lease in Cupertino generally range in price from $2.25 to $4.50 per square
foot per month on a triple net basis.
Figure 23: Retail Lease Rate Trends, 2006-2013
Notes:
(a) Data are for shopping centers with 50,000 square feet or more.
(b) Year-to-date data are through the second quarter of 2013.
Sources: Terranomics, 2013; BAE, 2013.
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
2006200720082009201020112012YTD 2013
(a)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
N
N
A
s
k
i
n
g
R
a
t
e
(p
e
r
s
q
.
f
t
.
/
m
o
)
Cupertino/Sunnyvale Santa Clara County
Occupancy rates in Cupertino/Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County also demonstrate that the
market is continuing to recover from the recession. (See Figure 24). Cupertino/Sunnyvale and
Santa Clara County had retail vacancy rates averaging four percent or lower between 2006 and
2008, followed by large increases in vacancy in 2009 and 2010. At the peak in 2010, the average
vacancy rate was eight percent in Cupertino/Sunnyvale and seven percent in Santa Clara
County. Vacancy rates have decreased slightly in following years, ending the second quarter of
2013 at seven percent in Cupertino/Sunnyvale and six percent in Santa Clara County overall.
While higher than pre-recession vacancy rates, these current rates are not outside of a range
typically seen in relatively heavy markets.
1074
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
73
Figure 24: Retail Vacancy Trends, 2006-2013
Notes:
(a) Data are for shopping centers with 50,000 square feet or more.
(b) Year-to-date data are through the second quarter of 2013.
Sources: Terranomics, 2013; BAE, 2013.
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
2006200720082009201020112012YTD 2013
(b)
Va
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
Cupertino/Sunnyvale Santa Clara County
Planned and Proposed Retail Development. As shown in Appendix H-1, retail projects in the
development pipeline in Cupertino include 321,700 net square feet currently under construction
and 30,900 net square feet approved but not yet under construction. Projects currently under
construction include the addition of 101,000 net new square feet of retail space at the
Homestead Square shopping center, the Main Street Cupertino project (130,500 square feet of
new retail), the Rose Bowl (59,800 square feet of new retail), Cupertino Village (24,500 square
feet of new retail), the Biltmore project with 7,000 square feet of retail, and a 20,000-square foot
cafeteria for Apple employees.
In addition to the projects currently under construction, there are three approved projects with
planned retail space that are not yet under construction: the Oaks Shopping Center (estimated
at approximately 19,000 net new square feet of retail), Saich Way Station, a redevelopment of
existing retail space resulting in a net increase of 4,000 square feet of retail, and Tantau Retail, a
planned 11,000-square foot retail building and parking garage.
Hotel Market Overview
Hotel Product Types
Hotels and other lodging facilities offer a variety of product types with considerable variation in
price and amenities. In addition to traditional hotels offering a range of amenity levels (often
categorized as either full service, select service, or limited service lodging facilities), many hotel
markets include extended stay hotels, resort hotels, boutique hotels, eco-resorts, or other types
of lodging facilities.
1075
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
74
Full service lodging typically offers a full range of amenities, including dining, room service,
concierge, assistance with luggage, and meeting or party rooms. Lodging facilities offering
these amenities are most commonly located in large cities and cater to leisure and business
travelers. Limited service lodging facilities do not offer the labor-intensive amenities offered at
full-service hotels, and are often smaller properties located at freeway interchanges or near
airports. Select service lodging offers a wider range of amenities than limited service hotels, but
fewer amenities than are typical of full service hotels. For example, select service hotels might
offer coffee and limited breakfast options in the lobby but are not likely to offer room service.
With all else equal, the pricing of lodging facilities generally increases with the level of service
and amenities offered.
Extended-stay hotels and resort hotels provide variations on traditional hotels that respond to
particular segments of lodging demand. Extended-stay hotels are typically designed to suitable
for long trips by including features such as in-suite kitchen facilities, larger rooms, exercise
facilities, and grocery service, and are often marketed to business travelers. Similar to more
traditional hotels, extended-stay hotels show variation in price, services, and amenities. Resort
hotels are typically developed as destinations, so that the resort itself is the reason for selecting
a location as a travel destination, and are targeted to leisure travelers. Resorts typically offer full
service dining facilities, swimming pools, spas, customized recreation services (or assistance in
arranging these nearby), and general concierge services. The location, recreation, and service
amenities offered at a resort are reflected in the pricing of the rooms.
Over the past decade, the range of hotel product types has expanded with the increasing
popularity of boutique hotels, agri-tourism, and ecotourism. Boutique hotels typically offer a
strong design theme, which is reinforced with touches throughout the hotel. Examples of large
operators who have specialized in boutique hotels in California include Kimpton, which
operates one hotel in Cupertino, and Joie de Vivre. Boutique hotels are usually select service
facilities and thus do not cater to visitors seeking multi-night stays with full amenities on-site,
which reduces operating costs and room rates compared to luxury hotels.
Agri-tourism includes a number of activities that bring people to a farm or ranch for recreational
purposes, and is not limited to overnight trips. Examples of agri-tourism activities include fruit
picking, horse riding, purchasing food from farm stands, and overnight visits at farms or
ranches.
Ecotourism allows some human access to sensitive environmental lands while limiting the
environmental impact of travel to these areas. In place of a traditional hotel or luxury resort,
lodging provided at eco resorts often consists of luxury tents or yurts.
1076
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
75
Santa Clara County and Cupertino Hotel Market
Hotel Market Context. In Santa Clara County and throughout Silicon Valley, business-related
travel is a key driver of demand for lodging uses, generated primarily by high-tech companies in
the area and the businesses providing goods or services to them. As a result, lodging options in
the area consist primarily of traditional hotels (including full, select, and limited service options),
extended stay hotels, and boutique hotels. Smith Travel Research (STR), a private data vendor
that provides information on performance trends in the lodging industry, tracks 271 properties
in Santa Clara County with a combined total of 26,044 rooms. Previous research conducted by
BAE suggests that the STR database includes at least 95 percent of all hotel rooms in Silicon
Valley.
Due in part to the large amount of business-related travel to Silicon Valley, extended stay hotels
in the area tend to have fairly high occupancy rates. A recent study by BAE found that the
occupancy rate in a selection of upscale chain extended stay hotels in San Mateo and Santa
Clara Counties was 82 percent in 2012, according to STR, compared to approximately 61
percent for all hotels tracked by STR nationwide. In general, hotel occupancy rates over 70
percent are considered high.
Inventory. There are five hotels in Cupertino with a total of 785 rooms: Cupertino Inn,
Courtyard San Jose/Cupertino, Hilton Garden Inn Cupertino, Kimpton Cypress Hotel, and aloft
Cupertino. Although each of these hotels offers many amenities and services, none offer the in-
suite kitchen facilities that are typical of extended-stay hotels in Silicon Valley. (See Figure 25).
Two additional proposed hotels would add 302 new hotel rooms to the city, and are discussed
below. The newest of the five existing hotels is the aloft Hotel, which opened in 2013, while the
oldest is the Cupertino Inn, which opened in 1987. The owner of the Cupertino Inn has
expressed interest in constructing a 200- to 250-room hotel on an adjacent site as an expansion
of the existing hotel.
Figure 25: Hotel Inventory, Cupertino, 2013
Room Rates (per night) (a)
HotelLodging TypeWeekdayWeekend
Cupertino InnFull Service$209$99XXXX
Courtyard San Jose/CupertinoFull Service$289-$309$119-$159XXX
Hilton Garden Inn CupertinoFull Service$228-$333$92-$117 XXXX
Kimpton Cypress HotelFull Service$298-$389$116-$239XXX
aloft HotelFull Service$124-$349$109-$179XXX
Note:
(a) Nightly room rates for Cupertino Inn are based on interviews with hotel staff. Nightly room
rates for the remaining four hotels are based on a survey of advertised room rates for Saturday,
August 3rd and Monday, August 5th.
Sources: cupertinoinn.com, 2013; marriot.com, 2013; hiltongardeninn3.hilton.com/en/index.html,
2013; thecypresshotel.com, 2013; starwoodhotels.com, 2013; BAE, 2013.
Po
o
l
Gy
m
In
t
e
r
n
e
t
Ro
o
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
1077
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
76
Occupancy and RevPAR. Demand for hotel rooms in Cupertino tends to be significantly
higher during the week than on weekends, indicating that business travel is the primary source
of hotel demand in the area, while leisure travel constitutes a relatively small portion of demand.
Figure 26 shows occupancy rates for Santa Clara County and for midscale, upscale, and upper-
upscale hotels within two miles of Cupertino, according to STR. As shown, occupancy rates
among these hotels are highest on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, reaching 89 percent in mid-
to upscale Cupertino area hotels and 86 percent in the County overall. Additionally, hotel
operators in Cupertino estimate that 70 to 75 percent of hotel room demand in Cupertino is
due to business travel, with occupancy rates frequently reaching 90 to 100 percent during the
week and falling to lower levels during the weekend. Hotel room rates reflect this trend, with
higher rates during the week than on weekend nights.
Figure 26: Occupancy by Day of Week, August 2012-July 2013
Note:
(a) Hotels sampled for the Cupertino Area include all upper midscale class, upscale class, and upper upscale
class hotels within two miles of Cupertino.
Sources: STR, 2013; BAE, 2013.
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
Cupertino Area (a)63.5%83.0%88.8%88.8%81.7%70.4%70.2%
Santa Clara County 59.7%78.3%85.5%85.5%76.8%67.7%69.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Hotel price and occupancy rates have shown steady increases as the economy has recovered
over the past few years, indicating a strong hotel market in Cupertino and Santa Clara County.
According to STR data presented in Figure 27, the average daily rate per room (ADR) for hotels
in the Cupertino area and in Santa Clara County overall has increased in recent years, following
a decrease in 2009 and 2010. In 2012, the average hotel occupancy rate in the Cupertino area
reached 79 percent in the Cupertino area and 73 percent in Santa Clara County, surpassing
occupancy rates seen during the previous five years. As a result of high occupancy rates, hotel
revenues in 2012 exceeded 2008 revenues, despite have a lower ADR.
1078
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
77
Figure 27: Hotel Average Daily Rate and Occupancy Rate, 2007-2012
Note:
(a) Hotels sampled for the Cupertino Area include all upper midscale class, upscale class, and upper upscale class hotels
within two miles of Cupertino.
Sources: STR, 2013; BAE, 2013.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
200720082009201020112012
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
R
a
t
e
(
A
D
R
)
Cupertino Area ADR (a)Santa Clara County ADR
Cupertino Area Occupancy (a)Santa Clara County Occupancy
Planned and Proposed Lodging Development. The city’s development pipeline includes 302
new hotel rooms in two-mixed use developments, as discussed in the previous sections. Plans
for the Oaks Shopping Center include 122 new hotel rooms along with office, retail, and
convention center uses and plans for Main Street Cupertino include 180 new hotel rooms along
with office, retail, and residential uses. Both projects have received development entitlements
but are not yet under construction. See Appendix H-1 for a listing of planned and proposed
hotel projects.
1079
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
78
POTENTIAL MARKET SUPPORT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
As discussed in the previous sections, demand for housing, office, retail, and lodging appears
to be healthy at the present time and long-term trends indicate market potential for additional
development in key areas throughout the city. Based on past and current trends, projected
future development, and planned and proposed projects, the following sections provide
estimates of the market potential for future development in Cupertino.
Demand estimates are made to 2020, to reflect near term demand, and then to 2035 to indicate
the total cumulative demand over the entire planning timeframe.
Population, Household and Employment Projections
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in collaboration with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional agency responsible for preparing
demographic and economic projections for the nine-county Bay Area region. ABAG and MTC
released the most recent demographic projections in July 2013. These projections, known as
the Final Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing are part of the One Bay Area Plan and
represent broad policy-based jobs and housing demand and production targets. The One Bay
Area Plan implements the California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008 (California Senate Bill 375, Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18 metropolitan
areas, including the Bay Area, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.
As an integral element of the One Bay Area Plan, the final projections indicate future growth
throughout the Bay Area through 2040 based on a regional model that estimates overall
population and employment growth.18 That growth is then allocated to various jurisdictions and
subareas based on an inventory of available land for development as well as policy objectives.19
According to ABAG figures, the Bay Area is projected to experience household, housing unit,
and employment growth between 2010 and 2040. The rate of household and housing unit
growth in Santa Clara County is expected to be slightly higher than the regional rate of growth,
while employment growth in the county is expected to be similar to the regional growth rate.
Growth projections for Cupertino indicate steady growth in households, housing units, and
employment between 2010 and 2040, (See Table 29). Overall, figures from ABAG indicate that
18 From the One Bay Area Plan released July, 2013 and available for download at:
http://onebayarea.org/pdf/final_supplemental_reports/FINAL_PBA_Forecast_of_Jobs_Population_and_Housing.pdf.
19 The last set of projections prior to the One Bay Area Plan was ABAG’s “Projections 2009” which breaks population
and employment projections down into five-year increments; ABAG anticipates release of its Projections 2013 this fall
or winter.
1080
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
79
Cupertino will gain almost 5,000 households and over 7,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040, based
upon the City’s land inventory and ABAG policy objectives.
Table 29: Population, Household, and Employment
Projections, 2010 and 2040
AnnualTotal
% Change% Change
Households 2010 2040 (a)2010-20402010-2040
Cupertino 20,18024,0400.6%19.1%
Santa Clara County604,200818,3901.0%35.5%
Bay Area (b)2,608,0203,308,1100.8%26.8%
Housing Units
Cupertino 21,03024,0400.4%14.3%
Santa Clara County631,920842,3501.0%33.3%
Bay Area (b)2,785,9503,446,6400.7%23.7%
Employment
Cupertino 26,09033,1100.8%26.9%
Santa Clara County926,2701,229,5200.9%32.7%
Bay Area (b)3,385,3104,504,9401.0%33.1%
Notes:
(a) Projections from ABAG Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, May 16, 2012.
(b) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,
San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Sources: ABAG, 2012; BAE, 2013.
Housing Demand
Projected demand for new residential development in Cupertino is based on ABAG’s projected
residential growth in the West Valley submarket. For the purposes of the residential analysis,
the West Valley submarket includes Cupertino, Campbell, Los Altos, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and
Sunnyvale. As shown in Table 30, the One Bay Area Plan estimates that the West Valley
submarket will gain approximately 42,400 housing units between 2010 and 2040, at an average
rate of approximately 1,400 units per year. The One Bay Area Plan estimates that Cupertino will
gain approximately 3,800 residential units between 2010 and 2040, constituting just under nine
percent of West Valley’s housing growth.
Table 30: Projected Housing Unit Growth, West Valley, 2010-2040
HousingAverage Annual
Housing UnitsUnit GrowthHousing Unit
201020402010-2040Growth 2010-2040
West Valley160,030202,47042,4401,415
Cupertino21,03024,7903,760125
Campbell16,95019,9903,040101
Los Altos11,20012,3101,11037
Santa Clara45,15058,93013,780459
Saratoga9,91011,6401,73058
Sunnyvale55,79074,81019,020634
Cupertino Share of West Valley13.1%12.2%8.9%8.9%
Sources: ABAG & MTC, 2012; BAE, 2013.
1081
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
80
Table 31 shows a low estimate of demand for housing in Cupertino by 2020 and 2035 along with
a more aggressive high estimate. The conservative low estimate assumes that Cupertino will
capture approximately 9 percent of residential growth in the West Valley submarket, at an
average rate of 125 units per year, as shown in the One Bay Area Plan. The high estimate
assumes that Cupertino will capture a larger share of projected growth in the West Valley
between 2013 and 2035, 15.5 percent, at an average annual rate of 219 units per year. This
higher capture rate was set at 175 percent of the low capture rate and assumes that that the city
updates its Housing Element to strengthen its jobs-housing balance by expanding housing
opportunities in light of strong demand.
After subtracting housing units that have been entitled or are under construction, the low
estimate results in estimated demand for 473 housing units by 2020 and 2,353 housing units by
2035 under the low estimate with the City’s 8.9 percent of the West Valley housing market.
Under the high estimate, BAE estimates demand for 1,131 units by 2020 and 4,420 housing units
by 2035. Note that the projected numbers for 2035 are cumulative and include projection for
2020.
Table 31: Projected Housing Demand, Cupertino, 2020-2035
As discussed in the residential real estate portion of this analysis, demand for housing in
Cupertino over the past decade has been strong, with high prices and little impact from the
recent recession. As a result, market demand is unlikely to be a limiting factor preventing
housing growth in Cupertino between now and 2035, and may exceed the estimates presented
in Table 31 above. Instead, factors such as the availability of land, local polices regarding
residential development, and community support or opposition to housing growth are
expected to set the upper bound of potential housing growth in Cupertino over the next 20
years or more.
Projected Housing Demand 20202035
Low Estimate
Gross New Housing Unit Demand 8772,757
Less: Entitled Housing Units 404404
Net New Housing Unit Demand 4732,353
High Estimate
Gross New Housing Unit Demand 1,5354,824
Less: Entitled Housing Units 404404
Net New Housing Unit Demand 1,1314,420
Assumptions
Cupertino Capture of West Vally Growth
Low Estimate Scenario 8.9%
High Estimate Scenario @ 175% of Low15.5%
Average # of Units Built/Year
Low Estimate Scenario 125
High Estimate Scenario 219
Source: BAE, 2013.
1082
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
81
Although market support can be anticipated for most housing types, the demographic and real
estate analysis suggests that there is a particularly large amount of unmet demand for
residential development to serve the housing needs of young members of the workforce. As
discussed in previous sections, Cupertino has a small share of young adult residents and
workers, which is likely due largely to the high cost of housing in the city. Future residential
development in Cupertino can better meet this segment of demand by providing smaller, more
affordable units adjacent to services, retail, and entertainment options.
Office Demand
The demand for office space in a particular location often shifts over time in response to
economic and demographic changes. As discussed above, Cupertino currently has a strong
office market, characterized by high rents and low vacancy rates, which suggests potential
market support for additional office development in the city. The presence of Apple in
Cupertino is a significant factor driving this high demand, both because Apple occupies a large
amount of office space in the City and because other companies want to locate near the Apple
campus. Some businesses choose to locate in Cupertino in order to do business with Apple,
while others are spin-offs established by former employees of Apple Inc. The potential range of
future demand for office space in Cupertino was estimated based on past office construction
and absorption trends and employment projections for the City and the West Valley submarket
Employment Projections
Future demand for office space can be estimated based on projected growth in employment
and the amount of office space needed to accommodate anticipated growth. The One Bay
Area Plan estimates that employment in the West Valley submarket will increase by 68,990 jobs
between 2010 and 2040, as shown in Table 32. According to these estimates, the professional
services industry, health and education industry, and leisure, hospitality, and other services
industry are expected to account for much of the projected job growth in the West Valley
submarket between 2010 and 2040.
Using 2011 ACS data showing occupation by industry for Santa Clara County, Table 32
estimates that office-based jobs will account for 70 percent of all new jobs in the West Valley
submarket between 2010 and 2040. The estimated proportion of office jobs varies by industry,
ranging from 24 percent for jobs in the construction industry to 91 percent for jobs in the
information and financial activities industries. Based on these proportions, the anticipated job
growth in the West Valley between 2010 and 2040 is expected to include approximately 49,000
office jobs, generating demand for approximately 12 million square feet of additional office
space over the 30-year period, at an average rate of approximately 405,000 additional square
feet of office space per year.
1083
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
82
Table 32: Annual Office Space Demand Based on Projected Employment, West Valley, 2010-2040
New JobsPercentNumber of NewTotal Sq. Ft.Annual Sq. Ft.
Industry Sector2010-2040 (b)Office (c)Office JobsNew Demand (d)2010-2040
Agriculture & Natural Resources (162)27%(44)(10,955)(365)
Construction 3,29324%796 199,045 6,635
Manufacturing & Wholesale 1,02676%779 194,642 6,488
Retail 3,40082%2,805 701,205 23,373
Transportation, Warehousing, & Utilities 93044%406 101,607 3,387
Information 4,39191%4,008 1,002,027 33,401
Financial Activities 1,68191%1,537 384,302 12,810
Professional Services 28,32982%23,182 5,795,548193,185
Health & Education 14,78175%11,060 2,765,056 92,169
Leisure, Hospitality, & Other Services 10,38133%3,382 845,438 28,181
Government 939 70%660 165,054 5,502
Total 68,99070%48,57212,142,969404,766
Notes:
(a) The West Valley submarket defined for this figure includes Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
(b) New jobs by industry are from the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy Employment Distribution released by ABAG and MTC in
May 2012.
(c) The proportion of office jobs by industry is estimated based on 2011 ACS occupation by industry data for Santa Clara County.
(d) Total new office space demand is based on an average of:
250square feet per office employee.
Sources: ABAG & MTC, 2012; ACS, 2011; BAE, 2013.
Recently Proposed Corporate Campuses
As documented above, Cupertino is an important employment location with a strong office real
estate market, which suggests high existing and future demand for office development in the
city. Due to the Cupertino’s desirability as an office location, there is significant potential for the
City to attract an additional corporate campus to accommodate an existing major employer or
to attract a new major employer. From an economic development perspective, the City should
have sufficient office allocations available to allow for a large corporate campus should the
opportunity arise.
Over the past few years, a number of high-tech companies have proposed substantial corporate
campuses in Silicon Valley cities that have recently been constructed, are currently under
construction, or are seeking entitlements. The campuses shown in Table 33 are among these
projects and range from approximately 500,000 to 2.5 million square feet, with the exception of
Apple Campus 2, which has a much larger total square footage. To ensure that Cupertino has
the flexibility to respond to future, unforeseen demand, or demand at a peak in the business
cycle, an allocation for office space should be at least 2.0 million square feet.
1084
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
83
Table 33: Corporate Campuses Recently Proposed by
Silicon Valley Tech Companies
Building
CompanySize (sq. ft.)Location
Apple3,400,000 Cupertino
Google1,100,000 Mountain View (Bayfront NASA)
Gilead Sciences2,500,000 Foster City
Samsung680,000 North San Jose
NVIDIA1,000,000 Santa Clara
Vmware Inc.1,500,000 Palo Alto Stanford Research Park
New Construction450,000
Renovation1,050,000
Facebook Inc.1,475,690 Menlo Park
East Campus1,035,840
West Campus439,850
SRI International1,300,000 Menlo Park
Sources: Silicon Valley Business Journal, 2013; Bloomberg Business
Week, 2013; The Registry, 2013; City of Cupertino, 2013; Facebook,
2012; BAE, 2013.
Projected Office Demand
The minimum projected demand for office space in Cupertino is estimated based on ABAG’s
projected employment growth in the West Valley and Cupertino’s recent capture of West Valley
office absorption. As shown previously in Figure 16, annual office absorption between 2003 and
2012 averaged 60,476 square feet in Cupertino and 565,398 square feet in the West Valley
submarket, resulting in a 10.7 percent capture rate of West Valley office absorption in
Cupertino. Applying this capture rate to the annual average office demand projection for the
West Valley (shown in Table 32 above ) results in estimated demand for office space in
Cupertino averaging approximately 43,300 square feet per year. After accounting for projects
currently entitled or under construction20, this suggests that minimum net office demand will
total approximately 156,000 square feet by 2020 and 805,400 square feet by 2035, as shown in
Table 34.
However, the ABAG projections are general in nature and do not always capture the
employment dynamic that introduced when a community is home to a major technology firm
such as Apple Inc. Large technology companies tend to plan and grow in “spurts” that may or
may not match regional projections. Furthermore, the agglomeration effect of being host to
large technology companies (in terms of attracting or spinning-off firms) may not be fully
captured in the projections. Hence, for the purpose of this analysis, BAE treats the Apple
20 The analysis assumes that fifty percent of planned and proposed office space is ultimately constructed.
1085
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
84
Campus 2 as an additional source of demand and presents data on large technology campus
projects on the Peninsula and in Silicon Valley to indicate what potential demand may be and
inform the City’s planning process.
Table 34 factor in the capacity to accommodate the proposed Apple Campus 2 along with
another new corporate campus equivalent in scale to the recent projects shown in Table 33, in
addition to the minimum demand estimates that were developed based on projected
employment. As shown, this results in a net new demand of approximately 2.9 million square
feet by 2020 and 3.6 million square feet by 2035. Given the recent shortage of office spaces in
Cupertino containing more than 10,000 contiguous square feet, a new recommended office
allocation could also allow for multi-tenant office developments, which could create the space
needed for mid-size companies to grow in Cupertino as well as accommodate a new major
technology company or future expansion of an existing firm.
Table 34: Projected Office Demand, Cupertino, 2013-2035
20202035
Minimum Demand Estimate
Gross Demand (sq. ft.) (a)303,061952,477
Less: Entitled Office Development (sq. ft.)147,050147,050
Net New Office Demand ABAG Projections (sq. ft.)156,011805,428
Sq. Ft. Required for New Corporate Campus (sf. ft.) (b)2,000,0002,000,000
Net New Square Footage of Apple Campus 2 (c)750,000750,000
Total New Demand for Office Space2,906,0113,555,428
Assumptions
Projected Average Annual Demand for Office Space, West Valley (sq. ft.)404,766
Cupertino Share of West Valley Office Employment (e)10.7%
Projected Average Annual Demand for Office Space, Cupertino (sq. ft)43,294
Note:
Source: BAE, 2013.
(e) Cupertino share of West Valley office employment is based on Cupertino's share of
West Valley office absorption between 2003 and 2012.
(a) Minimum gross demand is estimated based on annual average demand for office
space in Cupertino
(b) Sq. ft. requirement estimated for a new corporate campus is based on corporate
campuses recently proposed or approved by high-tech companies in Silicon Valley.
(c) Apple Campus 2 net new sq. ft. are treated as new demand since outside scope of
ABAG projections.
(d) Recommended net new allocations assume that the Apple Inc. retains all of the
space that it currently occupies after Apple Campus 2 is built and that the City should
have enough office square footage Inc. or another large company.in the allocations
balance to accommodate a new corporate campus for Apple
1086
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
85
Retail Demand
Building on the leakage analysis for Cupertino, the following provides an estimate of sales that
could be recaptured in the City if additional stores, matching demand by store type, were
developed. Due to the balanced overall Regional Trade Area, some of the new sales needed to
support new retail development would need to be retained locally, instead of occurring
elsewhere in the Trade Area. Since this process depends on shifting spending patterns and
providing store types targeted to local demographics, the estimate here is provided in a range
of “low” and “high.” The “low” estimate assumes modest additional recapture of leaking sales,
while the “high” assumes a shift in spending patterns with well-located and well-merchandised
new store types.
Capture from Existing Residents and Workers
As shown Table 35, the range of supportable square footage of new retail space resulting from
capture of current sales leakages of existing resident and worker expenditures is estimated at
approximately 157,000 to 316,000 square feet.21
Table 35: Support from Existing Residents and Workers for Additional Retail Space
Low Estimate
AxB=C ÷ D=E
Annual% AdditionalPotentialSales perSupportable
Leakage ofCapture in Sales CaptureSquareNew Sq. Ft.
Major Retail Category Expenditures (a)Cupertino (b)in CupertinoFoot (c)Cupertino (d)
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $130,400,000 0%$0$0 -
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $6,800,000 10%$680,000$350 2,000
Electronics and Appliance Stores $39,100,000 20%$7,820,000$350 22,000
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$50,400,000 30%$15,120,000$250 60,000
Food and Beverage Stores $0 0%$0$0 0
Health and Personal Care Stores $10,400,000 20%$2,080,000$500 4,000
Gasoline Stations $1,900,000 0%$0$500 -
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores$47,100,000 30%$14,130,000$350 40,000
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stor $9,000,000 20%$1,800,000$350 5,000
General Merchandise Stores $0 0%$0$0 0
Miscellaneous Store Retailers $24,400,000 25%$6,100,000$350 17,000
Food Services and Drinking Places $23,600,000 10%$2,360,000 $350 7,000
Total Retail$343,100,000$50,090,000157,000
21 Zero capture is assumed in the motor vehicle sector, since it is unlikely that Cupertino will have sites available to
create the critical mass necessary to support automotive retail that could compete with the nearby auto row on
Stevens Creek and other regional auto dealers. No capture rate is assumed for sectors where there is currently no
estimated leakage of retail sales.
1087
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
86
High Estimate
AxB=C ÷ D=E
Annual% AdditionalPotentialSales perSupportable
Leakage ofCapture in Sales CaptureSquareNew Sq. Ft.
Potential New Store Types Expenditures (a)Cupertino (b)in CupertinoFoot (c)Cupertino (d)
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $130,400,000 0%$0$0 -
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $6,800,000 20%$1,360,000$350 4,000
Electronics and Appliance Stores $39,100,000 50%$19,550,000$350 56,000
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$50,400,000 50%$25,200,000$250 101,000
Food and Beverage Stores $0 0%$0$0 0
Health and Personal Care Stores $10,400,000 50%$5,200,000$500 10,000
Gasoline Stations $1,900,000 0%$0$500 -
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores$47,100,000 60%$28,260,000$350 81,000
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stor $9,000,000 60%$5,400,000$350 15,000
General Merchandise Stores $0 0%$0$0 0
Miscellaneous Store Retailers $24,400,000 60%$14,640,000$350 42,000
Food Services and Drinking Places $23,600,000 10%$2,360,000 $350 7,000
Total Retail$343,100,000$101,970,000316,000
(a) From Table 14.
(b) Capture of resident potential expenditures assumes appropriates sites for each retail type will be made available in Cupertino.
Rounded to nearest hundred thousand.
(c) Sales per square foot based on consultant experience derived from a variety of sources, including corporate 10-K reports.
(d) Rounded to nearest thousand.
Sources: BAE 2013, based on data from corporate SEC filings, Urban Land Institute/International Council of Shopping Centers, Hinterliter
de Lamas, and other sources as noted in supporting tables and appendices.
Capture from New Residents and Workers
In addition to the potential to recapture of current resident expenditures at retail outlets in the
city, population and employment growth in Cupertino should also support additional retail
development. The supportable square footage of new retail space resulting from capture of
expenditures from new residents and workers through 2035 is estimated at approximately
177,000 to 205,000 square feet (see Table 36). This estimate uses the same capture rates as for
existing residents and workers as shown above in Table 35, and assuming a constant rate of
growth in population and employment, is equivalent to slightly more than 8,000 square feet per
year from 2014 through 2035.
Capture from Outside City of Cupertino
While retail expenditures from City residents are greater than actual expenditures within the
city, this is “net” leakage (in most major retail categories); in reality, Cupertino is capturing sales
from non-residents at the same time Cupertino residents are shopping elsewhere. For instance,
the residential neighborhoods closest to Cupertino Village and its Ranch 99 market are in
Sunnyvale. As indicated by Cupertino’s injections of sales for general merchandise stores,
Vallco’s anchor stores attract customers from outside Cupertino (and Cupertino residents
undoubtedly frequent Valley Fair and Santana Row).
Cupertino’s ability to increase retail attraction to non-residents will depend largely on the future
development of new region-serving retail as well as upgrades to Vallco and its environs,
constrained by the continued competitiveness of other region serving centers in the Retail
Trade Area and beyond. Currently, Valley Fair, Santana Row, the cluster of retail around the
Westgate Shopping Center, and other centers provide a strong attraction to residents of
1088
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
87
Cupertino and surrounding communities. For the purposes of the analysis here, no additional
net capture of non-resident retail expenditures is assumed.
1089
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
88
Table 36: Additional Retail Support from Population and Employment Growth, 2014-2035
Low Estimate
ABCDEFGHIJKL
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)
Baseline Per CapitaTotal Additional Annual AdditionalAdditionalAdditionalTotal Supportable
Annual ExpendituresRetail Potential Sales in $0002013SalesNewSalesPotentialSales perRetail
EstimatedEstimated EstimatedCaptureCaptureCapturein $000NewSquareSquare Feet
ResidentWorkerResidentsWorkers Total PotentialRateinoffrom NewSalesFootin
Store Category ExpendituresExpenditures Expenditures $000LeakageCaptureCapture Cupertino
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $2,324 $0$24,150$0$24,150na $00%$0$0$0 na
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $353 $0$3,666$0$3,66668%$2,48010%$119$2,599$350 7,000
Electronics and Appliance Stores $816$446$8,482$802$9,28427%$2,47520%$1,362$3,837$35011,000
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$1,068 $0$11,095$0$11,09521%$2,30330%$2,638$4,941$25020,000
Food and Beverage Stores $2,480$1,079$25,775$1,937$27,712104%$27,712 0%$0$27,712$0 na
Health and Personal Care Stores $687$380$7,137$682$7,81977%$6,01220%$361$6,373$50013,000
Gasoline Stations $918 $0$9,545$0$9,54597%$9,212 0%$0$9,212$50018,000
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $1,372$579$14,255$1,039$15,29446%$7,08330%$2,463$9,547$35027,000
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores $393$174$4,086$313$4,39964%$2,83420%$313$3,147$350 9,000
General Merchandise Stores $1,772$1,633$18,419$2,934$21,352104%$21,352 0%$0$21,352$0 na
Miscellaneous Store Retailers $347$558$3,604$1,002$4,6058%$35425%$1,063$1,417$350 4,000
Food Services and Drinking Places $2,410$1,442$25,048$2,591$27,63985%$23,52710%$411$23,938$35068,000
Total $14,939$6,292$155,261$11,300$166,560 $105,345 $8,730$114,075 177,000
High Estimate
ABCDEFGHIJKL
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)
Baseline Per CapitaTotal Additional Annual AdditionalAdditionalAdditionalTotal Supportable
Annual ExpendituresRetail Potential Sales in $0002013SalesNewSalesPotentialSales perRetail
EstimatedEstimated EstimatedCaptureCaptureCapturein $000NewSquareSquare Feet
ResidentWorkerResidentsWorkers Total PotentialRateinoffrom NewSalesFootin
Store Category ExpendituresExpenditures Expenditures $000LeakageCaptureCapture Cupertino
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $2,324 $0$24,150$0$24,150na $00%$0$0$0 na
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $353 $0$3,666$0$3,66668%$2,48020%$237$2,717$350 8,000
Electronics and Appliance Stores $816$446$8,482$802$9,28427%$2,47550%$3,404$5,880$35017,000
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies$1,068 $0$11,095$0$11,09521%$2,30350%$4,396$6,699$25027,000
Food and Beverage Stores $2,480$1,079$25,775$1,937$27,712104%$27,712 0%$0$27,712$0 na
Health and Personal Care Stores $687$380$7,137$682$7,81977%$6,01250%$904$6,915$50014,000
Gasoline Stations $918 $0$9,545$0$9,54597%$9,212 0%$0$9,212$50018,000
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $1,372$579$14,255$1,039$15,29446%$7,08360%$4,926$12,010$35034,000
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores $393$174$4,086$313$4,39964%$2,83460%$939$3,773$35011,000
General Merchandise Stores$1,772$1,633$18,419$2,934$21,352104%$21,352 0%$0$21,352$0na
Miscellaneous Store Retailers$347$558$3,604$1,002$4,6058%$35460%$2,551$2,905$3508,000
Food Services and Drinking Places$2,410$1,442$25,048$2,591$27,63985%$23,52710%$411$23,938$35068,000
Total$14,939$6,292$155,261$11,300$166,560$105,345$17,769$123,114205,000
All sales, expenditures, and leakages are expressed in 2013 dollar equivalents. Total additional potential sales are in $000.
(a) From Appendix C.
(b) From Appendix E.
(c) Column A times estimated population increase in Cupertino, 2013-2040. Population increased derived from using an average annual compound
rate to trend out population over the time period. Population in 2010 and 2040 derived from household estimates per times DOF estimate of
average household size in 2013.
Increase in Resident Population, 2013-2040 12,993
(d) Column B times estimated increase in net worker inflows in Cupertino 2013-2040. Net worker inflow derived using an average annual compound
rate to trend out worker growth over the time period. Number of workers in 2010 and 2040 derived from worker estimates per times the 2011
percent inflow of workers per LEHD as noted in Appendix F.
Increase in Net Worker Inflows, 2013-2040 2,252
(e) E = C + D
(f) F = (100%-leakage), where "leakage" is the leakage/injection percentage column from Table 14. Since leakage is a negative number while
injection is positive, this is representative of the total capture of potential sales, and thus also of categories that show captures greater than 100%.
(g) G = minimum of (E x F) or E. This caps the capture at 100% for sectors with no leakage of sales. Consistent with the lack of suitable sites for motor
vehicle retail in Cupertino, no capture is assumed for the motor vehicle sector.
(h) Assumes same additional capture of leakage as for existing residents and workers.
(i) I = H x (E - G)
(j) J = G + I
(k) From Table 35.
(l) L = J x K
Sources: BAE 2013, based on data from CA Department of Industrial Relations; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census of Retail Trade, 2007;
2010 Zip Code and County Business Patterns; CA Dept. of Finance; Nielsen SiteReports; U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household
Dynamics (LEHD); Corporate SEC filings, Urban Land Institute/International Council of Shopping Centers (ULI/ICSC); Hinterliter de Lamas; and other
sources as noted in supporting tables and appendices.
1090
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
89
Demand for Additional Retail
The retail analysis indicates that demand for retail from existing and new residents and workers
in Cupertino will total approximately 227,800 to 398,000 square feet by 2020 and 334,000 to
521,000 square feet by 2035. Projects that are entitled or currently under construction in
Cupertino include approximately 353,000 square feet of retail space. Assuming that fifty
percent of these projects are built, the potential remaining demand through 2020 would be
51,800 to 222,000 square feet and by 2035 would be approximately 158,000 square feet under
the low scenario and 345,000 square feet under the high scenario, depending on the quality of
new and redeveloped stores and their ability to recapture sales currently leaking to stores
elsewhere in the Regional Trade Area. While a portion of this new demand can be meet with
new retail facilities in all four corridors, the primary opportunity for capturing existing and new
retail demand would be in the Vallco Shopping district. However, the Vallco shopping center
will need to be reformulated or redeveloped in order to be attractive to both retailers and
shoppers (see detailed discussion of these issues in the Retail Strategy).
Table 37: Projected Retail Demand and Allocation Balances, Cupertino, 2020 & 2035
LowHighLowHigh
Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.
Demand from Existing Residents and Workers157,000316,000157,000316,000
Demand from Residential and Employment Growth70,800 82,000 177,000 205,000
Total Gross Retail Demand 227,800398,000334,000521,000
Less: Entitled Retail Projects 176,000176,000176,000176,000
Net New Retail Demand 51,800222,000158,000345,000
Note: 2035 estimate is cumulative and includes estimates for 2020.
Source: BAE, 2013.
2020 Estimate 2035 Estimate
1091
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
90
Hotel Demand
As discussed above, the hotel market in Cupertino is relatively robust, as indicated by strong
occupancy rates at the city’s five existing hotels. Demand for hotel rooms is particularly strong
during the week due to high levels of business travel to Cupertino. There has been recent
interest in additional hotel development in Cupertino with the opening of the Aloft hotel in
early 2013, and approximately 300 new hotel rooms in the city’s development pipeline.
Furthermore, some property owners have expressed interest in developing additional hotel
rooms that are not yet in the project pipeline.
The potential range of future hotel room demand in Cupertino was estimated based on the
city’s current share of hotel rooms in Santa Clara County and projected employment and
household growth. Table 38 shows the range of projected demand for hotel rooms in Santa
Clara County and Cupertino in 2020 and 2035. As shown, business travel is estimated to account
for 75 percent of hotel room demand in Santa Clara County, and leisure travel is estimated to
account for 25 percent of hotel room demand. Using this breakdown, the number of existing
hotel rooms in Santa Clara County, and current employment and household estimates for the
county, the table shows that current demand allows for 0.021 hotel rooms per employee and
0.011 hotel rooms per household.
The One Bay Area Plan anticipates an annual average growth rate of 7,140 households and
10,108 jobs in Santa Clara County between 2010 and 2040. Based on this future growth,
lodging demand in the county could support an approximately 2,000 new hotel rooms by 2020
and over 6,000 new hotel rooms by 2035. Again, note that these are cumulative estimates (e.g.,
the estimated for 2020 in contained in the total for 2035).
As shown in Table 38, hotel rooms in Cupertino currently account for approximately three
percent of hotel rooms in Santa Clara County. The low end of the demand estimate assumes
that the City continues to capture a similar share of hotel room demand through 2035. A high
estimate is also presented that takes into consideration the catalyst effect of the Apple Campus
2 and new professional football stadium in Santa Clara on Cupertino’s lodging market, while the
high end of the demand estimate assumes that the City will capture ten percent of new hotel
room demand through 2035.
Using the low capture rate, estimated net hotel room demand in Cupertino is negative through
2020 after subtracting fifty percent of the 302 hotel rooms currently in the city’s development
pipeline (e.g., 151 rooms), which means that the number of hotel rooms in the project pipeline
exceed the market demand for new lodging. By 2035, there is demand for 40 additional rooms.
The high demand estimate uses the higher capture rate. Under the high demand scenario,
there is positive demand by 2020 for up to 51 rooms and by 2035 demand for 485 additional
hotel rooms. This high demand estimate would suggest demand for three to four additional
standard hotel properties (e.g., 125 to 150 rooms) over the long term. However, the hotel
1092
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
91
demand estimate needs an adjustment when applied to setting new allocations. Multiple hotel
sites need to be planned for to give the City flexibility in locating new hotel facilities and to
account for the riskiness of new hotel development (designated sites often remain undeveloped
for extended periods of time to due to credit market and site ownership characteristics.
Allocating 1,000 hotel rooms under a high demand scenario would permit such flexibility since
even if half the rooms ultimately were not built, long term demand shown in Table 38 would be
likely met.
Table 38: Projected Lodging Demand, Cupertino
Projected Growth, Santa Clara County 20202035
Employment Growth, Santa Clara County (2013 Base Yr)70,758222,383
Household Growth, Santa Clara County (2013 Base Yr)49,978157,073
Growth in Hotel Room Demand from Business Travel 1,4864,671
Growth in Hotel Room Demand from Leisure Travel 539 1,693
Total Growth in Hotel Room Demand 2,0256,364
Projected Hotel Room Demand, Cupertino 20202035
Low Estimate (a)
Gross New Hotel Room Demand 61191
Less: Planned and Proposed Hotel Rooms (151)(151)
Net New Hotel Room Demand - Low (90)40
High Estimate (b)
Gross New Hotel Room Demand 202636
Less: Planned and Proposed Hotel Rooms (151)(151)
Net New Hotel Room Demand - High 51485
Assumptions
Total Hotel Rooms - Cupertino 785
Total Hotel Rooms - Santa Clara County 26,044
Cupertino Share of Santa Clara County Hotel Rooms 3.0%
Cupertino Potential Share of Santa Clara County Hotel Rooms (c)10.0%
Total Employees in Santa Clara County 929,952
Percent of Hotel Stays from Business Travel 75%
Hotel Rooms per Employee 0.021
Projected Annual Average Employment Growth, 2010-2040 10,108
Total Households in Santa Clara County 604,204
Percent of Hotel Stays from Leisure Travel 25%
Hotel Rooms per Household 0.011
Projected Annual Average Household Growth, 2010-2040 7,140
Notes:
(a) The low estimate of projected hotel room demand assumes that Cupertino continues to
capture the same portion of the County's hotel room demand, or approximately three percent of
countywide demand, and that all of the hotel rooms that are currently entitled are built.
(b) The high estimate of projected hotel room demand assumes that, over the medium to long
term, Cupertino captures a slightly higher portion of countywide hotel room demand than the City
currently captures, and that half of the hotel rooms that are currenly entitled are built.
(c) Cupertino's potential share of Santa Clara County hotel rooms assumes that the City will
capture a slightly higher proportion of countywide hotel room demand than the City currently
captures.
Sources: US Census, 2010; ACS, 2007-2011; STR, 2013; BAE, 2013.
1093
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – MARKET STUDY
92
Summary of Demand Estimates
Based on the above analysis, the following table summarizes the market demand findings of this
report. These findings will be considered during the planning process and inform the setting of
new allocations for the indicated uses.
Table 40: Summary of Demand Estimates
Office
LowHighLowHighLowHigh
Through 2020
Demand Through 2020 (Units/Sq.Ft.)8771,535303,061227,800 398,000 61202
Demand Adjustments (a)- - 2,750,000 - - - -
Less: Entitled Projects (404)(404)147,050176,000 176,000 (151)(151)
Net Demand 4731,9392,906,01151,800 222,000(90)51
Through 2035
Demand Through 2035 (Units/Sq.Ft.)2,7574,824952,477 334,000521,000 191636
Demand Adjustments - - 2,750,000(a)- - - 500 (b)
Less: Entitled Projects 404404147,050176,000176,000(151)(151)
Net Demand 2,3534,4203,555,428158,000345,00040985
Notes:
(a) For Office Apple Campus 2 and 1.5 million sq.ft. added; see text for description.
(b) Adjustment for flexibility in meeting long-term demand under high scenario; see text for description.
Sources: City of Cupertino; BAE 2013.
Residential HotelRetail
1094
93
APPENDIX A: ZIP CODES IN THE RETAIL TRADE AREA
Table A-1: Zip Codes in the Retail Trade Area
Zip Code City
94022 Los Altos
94023 Los Altos
94024 Los Altos
94035 Mountain View
94039 Mountain View
94040 Mountain View
94041 Mountain View
94043 Mountain View
94085 Sunnyvale
94086 Sunnyvale
94087 Sunnyvale
94088 Sunnyvale
94089 Sunnyvale
95008 Campbell
95009 Campbell
95014 Cupertino
95015 Cupertino
95050 Santa Clara
95051 Santa Clara
95052 Santa Clara
95053 Santa Clara
95055 Santa Clara
95070 Saratoga
95071 Saratoga
95117 San Jose
95129 San Jose
95130 San Jose
Note: Some Zip Codes represent single-organization sites or Post Office Boxes,
but have establishments listed in Zip Code Business Patterns.
1095
94
APPENDIX B: RETAIL SALES TRENDS
1096
95
Ta
b
l
e
B
-
1
a
:
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
8
Sa
l
e
s
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
0
0
0
(
a
)
(
b
)
(
c
)
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
$6
0
,
7
1
7
$
5
7
,
3
5
0
#
#
$
2
2
,
5
1
1
$
3
,
5
1
4
$
3
,
8
0
2
$
3
,
5
5
6
$
3
,
4
6
5
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
$4
9
,
4
3
8
$
3
2
,
8
3
2
$
2
7
,
2
2
2
$
2
2
,
6
5
8
$
1
6
,
5
1
9
$
1
7
,
4
4
2
$
1
1
,
1
4
4
$
1
1
,
0
8
8
$
1
0
,
5
8
5
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$9
,
2
7
4
$
7
,
0
4
4
$
6
,
2
7
4
$
4
,
9
7
6
#
#
#
##
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
e
s
$3
4
,
1
9
2
$
3
2
,
3
9
5
$
3
2
,
2
2
8
$
3
0
,
5
5
7
$
3
0
,
5
4
1
$
3
1
,
6
6
3
$
3
0
,
5
3
5
$
3
3
,
2
6
0
$
3
3
,
6
6
5
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$6
3
,
0
9
4
$
5
7
,
0
7
6
$
4
8
,
8
9
6
$
5
4
,
4
8
4
$
6
1
,
3
7
4
$
6
9
,
3
1
8
$
6
8
,
1
4
0
$
7
2
,
9
0
1
$
7
3
,
9
2
7
A
p
p
a
r
e
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$4
4
,
3
9
8
$
3
6
,
2
2
1
$
3
1
,
9
1
5
$
2
8
,
4
5
4
$
2
5
,
6
3
2
$
2
4
,
5
6
8
$
2
1
,
7
2
9
$
2
0
,
7
4
9
$
1
7
,
4
2
0
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
6
0
,
9
5
5
$
2
4
0
,
6
4
6
$
2
1
0
,
9
9
0
$
1
9
0
,
2
0
2
$
1
9
0
,
3
1
0
$
1
8
1
,
4
6
4
$
1
7
0
,
8
8
6
$
1
7
1
,
6
1
2
$
1
5
4
,
4
7
0
E
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$1
2
8
,
6
0
7
$
1
2
2
,
2
2
8
$
1
0
8
,
3
0
4
$
1
0
5
,
8
1
1
$
1
0
4
,
5
5
6
$
1
1
8
,
4
4
1
$
1
2
5
,
1
8
7
$
1
2
7
,
5
7
0
$
1
2
0
,
9
0
4
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$1
6
8
,
3
8
9
$
1
6
1
,
6
2
9
$
1
5
1
,
7
9
5
$
1
1
8
,
9
8
2
$
8
3
,
4
2
1
$
7
9
,
5
0
2
$
8
3
,
8
7
0
$
2
9
7
,
0
6
6
$
2
3
1
,
6
9
8
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$8
1
9
,
0
6
5
$
7
4
7
,
4
2
0
$
6
1
7
,
6
2
6
$
5
5
6
,
1
2
5
$
5
3
4
,
8
6
4
$
5
2
5
,
9
1
1
$
5
1
5
,
2
9
4
$
7
3
7
,
8
0
2
$
6
4
6
,
1
3
4
Sa
l
e
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
(
d
)
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
$1
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
1
2
6
#
#
$
4
2
4
$
6
6
$
7
0
$
6
4
$
6
2
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
$9
7
7
$
6
4
5
$
5
2
3
$
4
3
4
$
3
1
1
$
3
2
5
$
2
0
5
$
1
9
9
$
1
8
8
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$1
8
3
$
1
3
8
$
1
2
0
$
9
5
#
#
#
##
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
e
s
$6
7
6
$
6
3
6
$
6
1
9
$
5
8
5
$
5
7
5
$
5
9
0
$
5
6
2
$
5
9
8
$
5
9
8
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$1
,
2
4
7
$
1
,
1
2
0
$
9
3
9
$
1
,
0
4
4
$
1
,
1
5
6
$
1
,
2
9
2
$
1
,
2
5
4
$
1
,
3
1
1
$
1
,
3
1
3
A
p
p
a
r
e
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$8
7
7
$
7
1
1
$
6
1
3
$
5
4
5
$
4
8
3
$
4
5
8
$
4
0
0
$
3
7
3
$
3
0
9
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$5
,
1
5
7
$
4
,
7
2
4
$
4
,
0
5
1
$
3
,
6
4
4
$
3
,
5
8
5
$
3
,
3
8
3
$
3
,
1
4
5
$
3
,
0
8
6
$
2
,
7
4
4
E
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$2
,
5
4
2
$
2
,
3
9
9
$
2
,
0
8
0
$
2
,
0
2
7
$
1
,
9
7
0
$
2
,
2
0
8
$
2
,
3
0
4
$
2
,
2
9
4
$
2
,
1
4
8
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$3
,
3
2
8
$
3
,
1
7
3
$
2
,
9
1
5
$
2
,
2
7
9
$
1
,
5
7
1
$
1
,
4
8
2
$
1
,
5
4
3
$
5
,
3
4
2
$
4
,
1
1
6
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$1
6
,
1
8
6
$
1
4
,
6
7
2
$
1
1
,
8
5
9
$
1
0
,
6
5
4
$
1
0
,
0
7
5
$
9
,
8
0
6
$
9
,
4
8
3
$
1
3
,
2
6
7
$
1
1
,
4
7
7
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
,
6
0
2
5
0
,
9
4
1
5
2
,
0
8
0
5
2
,
1
9
7
5
3
,
0
8
7
5
3
,
6
3
2
5
4
,
3
3
8
5
5
,
6
1
1
5
6
,
2
9
7
(a
)
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
,
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s.
A
t
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
0
7
,
S
B
O
E
m
a
d
e
so
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
t
h
u
s
y
e
a
r
-
t
o
-
y
ea
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
d
e
w
i
t
h
c
a
u
t
i
o
n.
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
d
a
t
a
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
ta
b
l
e
d
u
e
t
o
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
,
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
.
(b
)
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
r
e
t
a
i
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
(
b
u
s
i
ne
s
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
.
(c
)
A
"
#
"
s
i
g
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
d
a
t
a
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
u
e
t
o
S
B
O
E
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
r
u
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
d
a
t
a
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
ar
e
f
o
u
r
o
r
f
e
w
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
o
r
s
a
l
e
s
i
n
a
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
do
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
e
.
S
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
.
(d
)
P
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
s
a
l
e
s
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
ti
o
n
.
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
f
r
o
m
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
2
0
0
0
&
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
;
S
t
a
t
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
U
.
S
.
Bu
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
10
9
7
96
Ta
b
l
e
B
-
1
b
:
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
2
Sa
l
e
s
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
0
0
0
(
a
)
(
b
)
(
c
)
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
(f
)
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$
3
,
2
9
9
$
2
,
9
8
5
$
2
,
9
9
1
$
3
,
8
3
4
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
(
e
)
#
#
$
1
9
3
,
3
9
0
#
B
l
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
(
e
$1
5
,
4
1
8
$
1
6
,
6
5
5
$
1
3
,
7
6
7
$
2
0
,
7
8
2
F
o
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
3
4
,
3
4
9
$
3
5
,
4
7
1
$
3
4
,
8
5
7
$
3
8
,
2
1
6
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
5
5
,
7
5
2
$
6
5
,
8
3
9
$
7
8
,
3
5
7
$
8
1
,
2
2
8
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
&
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
3
0
,
8
1
7
$
3
3
,
0
4
3
$
3
5
,
4
7
1
$
4
1
,
3
9
8
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
2
9
,
7
9
6
$
1
1
8
,
3
3
4
$
1
1
7
,
6
8
5
$
1
0
8
,
8
5
3
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$
1
1
2
,
7
7
7
$
1
2
1
,
3
1
3
$
1
3
1
,
3
9
6
$
1
3
4
,
9
0
9
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
$
2
3
1
,
3
5
9
$
2
6
6
,
9
3
5
$
1
0
4
,
9
4
8
$
3
2
2
,
8
7
5
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$6
1
3
,
5
6
6
$
6
6
0
,
5
7
5
$
7
1
2
,
8
6
3
$
7
5
2
,
0
9
7
Sa
l
e
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
(
d
)
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
(f
)
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$
5
8
$
5
1
$
5
1
$
6
5
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
(
e
)
#
#
$
3
,
2
9
7
#
B
l
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
(
e
$2
6
9
$
2
8
6
$
2
3
5
$
3
5
3
F
o
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$6
0
0
$
6
0
8
$
5
9
4
$
6
4
8
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$9
7
3
$
1
,
1
2
9
$
1
,
3
3
6
$
1
,
3
7
8
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
&
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$5
3
8
$
5
6
7
$
6
0
5
$
7
0
2
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
,
2
6
6
$
2
,
0
3
0
$
2
,
0
0
6
$
1
,
8
4
7
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$1
,
9
6
9
$
2
,
0
8
1
$
2
,
2
4
0
$
2
,
2
8
9
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
$4
,
0
3
8
$
4
,
5
7
8
$
1
,
7
8
9
$
5
,
4
7
9
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$1
0
,
7
1
0
$
1
1
,
3
3
0
$
1
2
,
1
5
1
$
1
2
,
7
6
2
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
5
7
,
2
8
9
5
8
,
3
0
2
5
8
,
6
6
5
5
8
,
9
3
1
(a
)
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
,
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s.
A
t
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
0
7
,
S
B
O
E
m
a
d
e
so
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
ss
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
t
h
u
s
y
e
a
r
-
t
o
-
y
e
a
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
th
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
d
e
w
i
t
h
c
a
u
t
i
o
n.
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
d
a
t
a
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
ta
b
l
e
d
u
e
t
o
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
za
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
,
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
.
(b
)
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
r
e
t
a
i
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
(
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
.
(c
)
A
"
#
"
s
i
g
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
d
a
t
a
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
u
e
t
o
S
B
O
E
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
r
u
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
d
a
t
a
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
ar
e
f
o
u
r
o
r
f
e
w
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
o
r
s
a
l
e
s
i
n
a
ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
e
.
S
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
s
a
le
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
.
(d
)
P
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
s
a
l
e
s
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
f
r
o
m
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
(e
)
F
o
r
2
0
1
1
,
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
f
o
r
1
o
f
t
h
e
4
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
,
s
o
s
o
m
e
s
a
l
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
p
e
r
i
o
d
a
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
ou
p
.
(f
)
2
0
1
2
d
a
t
a
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
C
i
t
y
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
M
u
n
i
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
n
s
a
l
e
s
t
a
x
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
2
0
0
0
&
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
;
S
t
a
t
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
U
.
S
.
Bu
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
10
9
8
97
Ta
b
l
e
B
-
2
a
:
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
8
Sa
l
e
s
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
0
0
0
(
a
)
(
b
)
(
c
)
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
$
5
,
3
6
1
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
6
0
2
,
6
9
4
$4
,
0
7
0
,
3
3
2
$
3
,
9
2
7
,
9
0
0
$
4
,
0
5
4
,
7
4
1
$
4
,
0
9
5
,
98
2
$
4
,
0
2
8
,
2
0
4
$
3
,
9
3
9
,
9
1
0
$
2
,
9
8
5
,
6
8
4
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
$
1
,
6
0
3
,
9
2
0
$
1
,
25
1
,
3
5
3
$
1
,
0
8
2
,
8
2
5
$
9
9
8
,
0
3
7
$
1
,
0
2
5
,
3
2
7
$
1
,
02
9
,
9
7
3
$
1
,
0
3
2
,
2
9
7
$
1
,
0
2
3
,
7
4
2
$
1
,
1
7
7
,
2
4
9
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$
1
,
9
3
4
,
5
7
0
$
1
,
7
7
8
,
0
8
8
$
1
,
69
0
,
5
0
6
$
1
,
7
0
6
,
9
2
5
$
1
,
9
7
1
,
3
9
7
$
1
,
9
9
6
,
06
1
$
2
,
0
2
9
,
0
8
8
$
1
,
7
9
7
,
0
2
7
$
1
,
4
9
4
,
5
4
0
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
,
1
4
8
,
4
2
9
$
1
,
1
1
2
,
6
0
4
$
1
,
0
6
0
,
39
8
$
1
,
0
2
4
,
6
3
9
$
1
,
0
1
1
,
9
2
6
$
1
,
0
0
5
,
57
4
$
9
9
6
,
3
8
4
$
1
,
0
1
1
,
4
4
7
$
9
5
7
,
0
0
0
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
,
9
6
9
,
1
4
7
$
1
,
7
9
3
,
4
5
4
$
1
,
5
7
6
,
31
7
$
1
,
7
6
6
,
0
6
8
$
2
,
0
3
9
,
7
2
8
$
2
,
3
0
9
,
1
6
2
$2
,
4
6
4
,
7
3
6
$
2
,
6
3
6
,
1
4
7
$
2
,
7
8
3
,
1
2
1
A
p
p
a
r
e
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
,
1
9
3
,
7
4
3
$
1
,
1
4
1
,
7
4
3
$
1
,
1
2
1
,
52
4
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
5
6
8
$
1
,
2
9
7
,
5
7
3
$
1
,
4
1
5
,
5
4
4
$1
,
4
8
3
,
1
8
8
$
1
,
5
1
5
,
5
1
0
$
1
,
5
6
7
,
4
5
7
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
3
,
8
8
8
,
7
1
1
$
3
,
5
1
5
,
9
0
7
$3
,
2
6
7
,
7
0
9
$
3
,
2
3
5
,
8
0
2
$
3
,
3
5
6
,
0
3
3
$
3
,
4
3
8
,
60
9
$
3
,
4
9
5
,
4
4
3
$
3
,
5
3
5
,
9
1
0
$
3
,
2
4
6
,
2
9
2
E
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$
3
,
1
2
2
,
1
6
2
$
2
,
8
9
3
,
82
4
$
2
,
7
1
7
,
4
5
0
$
2
,
6
7
3
,
4
5
5
$
2
,
8
1
8
,
7
9
2
$
2
,
95
4
,
9
3
2
$
3
,
1
0
4
,
0
6
1
$
3
,
1
9
6
,
2
2
0
$
3
,
1
6
9
,
5
7
8
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
6
,
7
1
0
,
1
2
2
$
5
,
0
9
2
,
5
3
7
$
4
,
30
0
,
6
0
9
$
4
,
1
4
4
,
0
3
4
$
4
,
3
0
6
,
3
3
4
$
4
,
6
4
3
,
10
2
$
4
,
8
7
7
,
6
2
6
$
4
,
9
6
2
,
2
8
0
$
3
,
8
9
7
,
6
7
4
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$2
6
,
9
3
1
,
8
0
5
$
2
3
,
1
8
2
,
2
0
4
$
2
0
,
8
8
7
,
6
6
9
$
2
0
,
6
3
8
,
4
2
8
$
2
1
,
8
8
1
,
8
5
1
$
2
2
,
8
8
8
,
9
4
1
$
2
3
,
5
1
1
,
0
2
7
$
2
3
,
6
1
8
,
1
9
3
$
2
1
,
2
7
8
,
5
9
6
Sa
l
e
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
(
d
)
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
$
3
,
1
8
6
$2
,
7
2
3
$
2
,
4
0
4
$
2
,
3
1
9
$
2
,
3
9
1
$
2
,
4
1
2
$
2
,
3
6
0
$
2
,
2
8
4
$
1
,
7
0
8
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
$9
5
3
$7
4
0
$6
4
0
$5
8
9
$6
0
5
$6
0
6
$605$593$674
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$1
,
1
5
0
$
1
,
0
5
2
$9
9
8
$
1
,
0
0
8
$
1
,
1
6
3
$
1
,
1
7
5
$
1
,
1
8
9
$
1
,
0
4
2
$855
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
e
s
$6
8
3
$6
5
8
$6
2
6
$6
0
5
$5
9
7
$5
9
2
$584$586$548
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$1
,
1
7
0
$
1
,
0
6
1
$9
3
1
$
1
,
0
4
3
$
1
,
2
0
3
$
1
,
3
6
0
$
1
,
4
4
4
$
1
,
5
2
8
$
1
,
5
9
2
A
p
p
a
r
e
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$7
0
9
$6
7
5
$6
6
2
$6
8
6
$7
6
5
$8
3
4
$869$879$897
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
,
3
1
1
$
2
,
0
8
0
$
1
,
9
3
0
$
1
,
9
1
0
$
1
,
9
7
9
$
2
,
0
2
5
$
2
,
0
4
8
$
2
,
0
5
0
$
1
,
8
5
7
E
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$1
,
8
5
6
$
1
,
7
1
2
$
1
,
6
0
5
$
1
,
5
7
8
$
1
,
6
6
2
$
1
,
7
4
0
$
1
,
8
1
9
$
1
,
8
5
3
$
1
,
8
1
3
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$3
,
9
8
8
$
3
,
01
3
$
2
,
5
4
0
$
2
,
4
4
7
$
2
,
5
4
0
$
2
,
7
3
4
$
2
,
8
5
8
$
2
,
8
7
7
$
2
,
2
3
0
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$1
6
,
0
0
6
$
1
3
,
7
1
4
$
1
2
,
3
3
6
$
1
2
,
1
8
5
$
1
2
,
9
0
5
$
1
3
,
4
7
8
$
1
3
,
7
7
6
$
1
3
,
6
9
1
$
1
2
,
1
7
4
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
,
6
8
2
,
5
8
5
1
,
6
9
0
,
3
6
6
1
,
6
9
3
,
2
3
0
1
,
6
9
3
,
7
5
2
1
,
6
9
5
,
6
0
2
1
,
6
9
8
,
2
3
4
1
,
70
6
,
6
7
6
1
,
7
2
5
,
0
6
6
1
,
7
4
7
,
9
1
2
(a
)
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
,
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s.
A
t
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
0
7
,
S
B
O
E
m
a
d
e
so
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
t
h
u
s
y
e
a
r
-
t
o
-
y
ea
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
d
e
w
i
t
h
c
a
u
t
i
o
n.
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
d
a
t
a
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
ta
b
l
e
d
u
e
t
o
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
,
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
.
(b
)
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
r
e
t
a
i
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
(
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
.
(c
)
A
"
#
"
s
i
g
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
d
a
t
a
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
ue
t
o
S
B
O
E
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
r
u
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
d
a
t
a
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
ar
e
f
o
u
r
o
r
f
e
w
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
o
r
s
a
l
e
s
i
n
a
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
do
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
e
.
S
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
ve
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
.
(d
)
P
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
s
a
l
e
s
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
f
r
o
m
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
2
0
0
0
&
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
;
S
t
a
t
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
U
.
S
.
Bu
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
10
9
9
98
Ta
b
l
e
B
-
2
b
:
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
T
a
xa
b
l
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
Sa
l
e
s
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
0
0
0
(
a
)
(
b
)
(
c
)
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$2
,
4
9
8
,
1
9
3
$
2
,
7
3
8
,
4
9
2
$
3
,
0
4
4
,
3
0
4
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
,
7
7
5
,
0
5
3
$
1
,
9
7
4
,
3
6
8
$
2
,
0
8
5
,
3
8
3
B
l
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
1
,
2
7
4
,
1
9
2
$
1
,
3
4
4
,
3
5
0
$
1
,
3
8
4
,
9
2
1
F
o
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$1
,
0
6
6
,
5
1
4
$
1
,
0
6
2
,
6
0
9
$
1
,
0
7
5
,
5
7
6
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$1
,
9
6
8
,
9
5
3
$
2
,
2
7
1
,
0
0
5
$
2
,
6
9
1
,
5
9
6
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
&
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
,
8
4
8
,
6
9
3
$
1
,
9
6
8
,
7
0
2
$
2
,
1
0
0
,
3
7
2
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
,
4
8
5
,
2
1
0
$
2
,
5
5
5
,
9
1
8
$
2
,
5
7
4
,
3
9
0
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$2
,
9
5
8
,
7
9
0
$
3
,
0
7
3
,
8
3
4
$
3
,
2
5
7
,
2
1
4
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
$2
,
0
4
5
,
9
9
5
$
2
,
1
0
4
,
2
6
1
$
2
,
2
0
8
,
0
3
2
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$1
7
,
9
2
1
,
5
9
3
$
1
9
,
0
9
3
,
5
4
0
$
2
0
,
4
2
1
,
7
8
9
Sa
l
e
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
(
d
)
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$1
,
4
1
4
$
1
,
5
3
7
$
1
,
6
9
7
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$1
,
0
0
4
$
1
,
1
0
8
$
1
,
1
6
2
B
l
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$7
2
1
$7
5
5
$7
7
2
F
o
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$6
0
4
$5
9
6
$5
9
9
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$1
,
1
1
4
$
1
,
2
7
5
$
1
,
5
0
0
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
&
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$1
,
0
4
6
$
1
,
1
0
5
$
1
,
1
7
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
St
o
r
e
s
$1
,
4
0
6
$
1
,
4
3
5
$
1
,
4
3
5
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$1
,
6
7
4
$
1
,
7
2
5
$
1
,
8
1
5
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
$1
,
1
5
8
$
1
,
1
8
1
$
1
,
2
3
1
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$1
0
,
1
4
1
$
1
0
,
7
1
7
$
1
1
,
3
8
1
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
,
7
6
7
,
2
0
4
1
,
7
8
1
,
6
4
2
1
,
7
9
4
,
3
3
7
(a
)
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
,
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s.
A
t
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
0
7
,
S
B
O
E
m
a
d
e
so
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
t
h
u
s
y
e
a
r
-
t
o
-
y
ea
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
ar
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
d
e
w
i
t
h
c
a
u
t
i
o
n.
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
d
a
t
a
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
ta
b
l
e
d
u
e
t
o
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
,
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
.
(b
)
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
r
e
t
a
i
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
(
b
u
s
in
e
s
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
.
(c
)
A
"
#
"
s
i
g
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
d
a
t
a
u
n
a
va
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
u
e
t
o
S
B
O
E
c
o
n
f
i
d
en
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
r
u
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
d
a
t
a
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
ar
e
f
o
u
r
o
r
f
e
w
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
o
r
s
a
l
e
s
i
n
a
ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
e
.
S
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
.
(d
)
P
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
sa
l
e
s
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
f
r
o
m
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
2
0
0
0
&
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
;
S
t
a
t
e
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
U
.
S
.
Bu
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
11
0
0
99
Ta
b
l
e
B
-
3
a
:
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
8
Sa
l
e
s
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
0
0
0
(
a
)
(
b
)
(
c
)
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
$
7
8
,
7
1
3
,
0
7
0
$
8
1
,
1
2
7
,
2
5
3
$
8
3
,
1
7
8
,
0
8
5
$
8
5
,
4
1
5
,
4
4
3
$
8
7
,
8
4
3
,
6
9
3
$
8
8
,
1
1
2
,
4
2
9
$
8
2
,
4
7
0
,
5
3
9
7
8
,
9
5
7
,
5
4
4
58,843,346
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
$
1
8
,
8
6
0
,
8
6
1
$
1
7
,
7
9
6
,
5
8
9
$
1
8
,
2
2
4
,
4
1
5
$
1
9
,
2
4
0
,
7
4
9
$
2
0
,
3
6
3
,
4
5
9
$
2
0
,
8
1
7
,
0
1
5
$
2
0
,
0
2
9
,
7
0
4
1
8
,
6
5
2
,
6
9
6
18,556,189
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$
3
4
,
4
1
8
,
6
6
1
$
3
5
,
3
2
2
,
0
6
4
$
3
6
,
5
8
9
,
1
6
6
$
3
9
,
0
9
9
,
7
3
1
$
4
6
,
0
8
8
,
6
3
3
$
4
7
,
4
7
6
,
3
1
1
$
4
5
,
8
7
1
,
9
9
0
3
6
,
4
2
9
,
2
7
3
28,749,433
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
2
5
,
4
9
5
,
4
3
2
$
2
5
,
1
2
6
,
8
5
6
$
2
4
,
6
9
9
,
3
7
1
$
2
4
,
7
2
2
,
9
6
6
$
2
4
,
6
0
9
,
1
2
8
$
2
5
,
2
9
4
,
1
0
3
$
2
5
,
1
9
2
,
5
2
9
2
5
,
0
5
6
,
0
9
8
23,200,980
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
3
4
,
9
7
9
,
1
1
6
$
3
2
,
8
7
0
,
9
8
3
$
3
1
,
1
8
5
,
8
1
4
$
3
5
,
3
0
4
,
7
3
1
$
4
0
,
6
6
3
,
5
3
3
$
4
6
,
1
7
0
,
2
2
8
$
5
0
,
2
1
3
,
7
9
2
5
2
,
5
2
4
,
9
0
0
56,119,209
A
p
p
a
r
e
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
7
,
8
2
6
,
3
9
7
$
1
7
,
8
7
1
,
7
0
0
$
1
8
,
2
8
4
,
2
5
3
$
1
9
,
3
3
6
,
9
1
7
$
2
1
,
0
4
8
,
3
7
9
$
2
2
,
4
0
1
,
3
5
9
$
2
2
,
8
4
8
,
0
1
7
2
3
,
2
6
5
,
4
7
6
23,865,351
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
6
3
,
5
9
0
,
6
2
5
$
6
2
,
9
9
3
,
4
0
6
$
6
3
,
1
9
2
,
9
5
4
$
6
4
,
3
9
4
,
9
6
8
$
6
6
,
9
5
3
,
5
0
3
$
6
7
,
9
8
3
,
1
6
0
$
6
8
,
2
8
6
,
6
9
6
6
6
,
8
1
7
,
5
9
2
60,877,395
E
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$
4
9
,
2
0
4
,
9
9
5
$
4
9
,
1
8
8
,
5
1
9
$
4
9
,
6
2
9
,
4
3
4
$
5
1
,
0
1
7
,
9
5
0
$
5
3
,
7
1
5
,
9
9
1
$
5
5
,
5
6
3
,
4
8
3
$
5
6
,
7
2
3
,
5
3
6
5
7
,
6
2
6
,
9
5
0
56,158,216
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
7
5
,
2
3
2
,
1
9
6
$
7
0
,
0
9
3
,
4
7
2
$
6
8
,
1
0
7
,
7
5
7
$
6
9
,
3
8
0
,
1
6
4
$
7
3
,
3
7
2
,
4
0
6
$
7
6
,
0
8
3
,
3
8
6
$
7
6
,
6
5
6
,
7
6
7
7
2
,
4
0
9
,
5
2
8
59,140,436
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$3
9
8
,
3
2
1
,
3
5
3
$
3
9
2
,
3
9
0
,
8
4
2
$
3
9
3
,
0
9
1
,
2
4
9
$
4
0
7
,
9
1
3
,
6
1
9
$
4
3
4
,
6
5
8
,
7
2
5
$
4
4
9
,
9
0
1
,
4
7
4
$
4
4
8
,
2
9
3
,
5
7
0
$
4
3
1
,
7
4
0
,
0
5
6
$
3
8
5
,
5
1
0
,
5
5
6
Sa
l
e
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
(
d
)
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
$
2
,
3
2
4
$
2
,
3
6
8
$
2
,
3
9
5
$
2
,
4
2
9
$
2
,
4
7
0
$
2
,
4
5
6
$
2
,
2
8
3
$
2
,
1
6
9
$
1
,
6
0
3
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
$
5
5
7
$
5
2
0
$
5
2
5
$
5
4
7
$
5
7
2
$
5
8
0
$
5
5
5
$
5
1
2
$
5
0
6
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$
1
,
0
1
6
$
1
,
0
3
1
$
1
,
0
5
4
$
1
,
1
1
2
$
1
,
2
9
6
$
1
,
3
2
4
$
1
,
2
7
0
$
1
,
0
0
1
$
7
8
3
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
7
5
3
$
7
3
3
$
7
1
1
$
7
0
3
$
6
9
2
$
7
0
5
$
6
9
8
$
6
8
8
$
6
3
2
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
,
0
3
3
$
9
6
0
$
8
9
8
$
1
,
0
0
4
$
1
,
1
4
3
$
1
,
2
8
7
$
1
,
3
9
0
$
1
,
4
4
3
$
1
,
5
2
9
A
p
p
a
r
e
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
5
2
6
$
5
2
2
$
5
2
7
$
5
5
0
$
5
9
2
$
6
2
5
$
6
3
3
$
6
3
9
$
6
5
0
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
,
8
7
7
$
1
,
8
3
9
$
1
,
8
2
0
$
1
,
8
3
1
$
1
,
8
8
2
$
1
,
8
9
5
$
1
,
8
9
1
$
1
,
8
3
6
$
1
,
6
5
9
E
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$
1
,
4
5
3
$
1
,
4
3
6
$
1
,
4
2
9
$
1
,
4
5
1
$
1
,
5
1
0
$
1
,
5
4
9
$
1
,
5
7
1
$
1
,
5
8
3
$
1
,
5
3
0
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
2
,
2
2
1
$
2
,
0
4
6
$
1
,
9
6
1
$
1
,
9
7
3
$
2
,
0
6
3
$
2
,
1
2
1
$
2
,
1
2
3
$
1
,
9
8
9
$
1
,
6
1
1
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$1
1
,
7
5
9
$
1
1
,
4
5
4
$
1
1
,
3
2
0
$
1
1
,
6
0
0
$
1
2
,
2
2
0
$
1
2
,
5
4
3
$
1
2
,
4
1
3
$
1
1
,
8
6
1
$
1
0
,
5
0
3
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
3
3
,
8
7
3
,
0
8
6
3
4
,
2
5
6
,
7
8
9
3
4
,
7
2
5
,
5
1
6
3
5
,
1
6
3
,
6
0
9
3
5
,
5
7
0
,
8
4
7
3
5
,
8
6
9
,
1
7
3
3
6
,
1
1
6
,
2
0
2
3
6
,
3
9
9
,
6
7
6
3
6
,
7
0
4
,
3
7
5
(a
)
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
CA
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
,
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
ti
o
n
s
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
.
At
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
0
7
,
S
B
O
E
m
a
d
e
s
o
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
t
h
u
s
y
e
a
r
-
t
o
-
y
e
a
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
p
r
e
v
i
ou
s
y
e
a
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
d
e
w
i
t
h
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
d
a
t
a
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
t
a
b
l
e
d
u
e
t
o
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
,
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
.
(b
)
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
r
e
t
a
i
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
(
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
.
(c
)
A
"
#
"
s
i
g
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
d
a
t
a
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
u
e
t
o
S
B
O
E
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
r
u
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
d
a
t
a
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
f
o
u
r
o
r
f
e
w
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
o
r
s
a
l
e
s
i
n
a
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
do
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
e
.
S
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
.
(d
)
P
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
s
a
l
e
s
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
p
o
p
u
la
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
f
r
o
m
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
2
0
0
0
&
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
;
S
t
a
t
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
U
.
S
.
Bu
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
11
0
1
10
0
Ta
b
l
e
B
-
3
b
:
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
Sa
l
e
s
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
0
0
0
(
a
)
(
b
)
(
c
)
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$
4
8
,
1
4
7
,
5
5
9
$
5
0
,
6
1
6
,
3
5
6
$
5
5
,
5
0
3
,
3
4
3
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
2
3
,
6
6
3
,
8
8
6
$
2
4
,
0
4
0
,
7
4
8
$
2
4
,
5
5
1
,
1
6
0
B
l
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
2
5
,
9
5
0
,
6
4
0
$
2
6
,
4
5
5
,
1
4
9
$
2
7
,
1
4
0
,
1
1
0
F
o
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
2
4
,
4
0
0
,
8
2
1
$
2
4
,
3
5
6
,
4
9
2
$
2
4
,
5
8
0
,
3
5
9
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
4
2
,
2
9
2
,
1
6
8
$
4
8
,
3
4
0
,
6
7
7
$
5
7
,
4
8
8
,
6
0
1
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
&
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
2
7
,
7
5
0
,
3
8
6
$
2
9
,
1
4
4
,
9
9
9
$
3
0
,
8
2
1
,
6
5
5
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
4
8
,
6
1
6
,
6
5
2
$
4
9
,
5
1
3
,
5
4
7
$
5
0
,
2
0
9
,
0
2
2
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
es
$
5
4
,
0
2
7
,
8
2
1
$
5
4
,
8
1
3
,
6
3
8
$
5
7
,
0
1
5
,
7
2
7
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
$
4
1
,
9
6
3
,
5
1
8
$
4
1
,
9
9
7
,
2
2
4
$
4
2
,
8
8
0
,
3
2
7
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$3
3
6
,
8
1
3
,
4
5
1
$
3
4
9
,
2
7
8
,
8
3
1
$
3
7
0
,
1
9
0
,
3
0
4
Sa
l
e
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
i
n
2
0
1
3
$
(
d
)
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
M
o
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$
1
,
3
0
2
$
1
,
3
5
9
$
1
,
4
8
3
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
6
4
0
$
6
4
5
$
6
5
6
B
l
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
7
0
2
$
7
1
0
$
7
2
5
F
o
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
6
6
0
$
6
5
4
$
6
5
7
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
,
1
4
4
$
1
,
2
9
8
$
1
,
5
3
6
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
&
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
7
5
1
$
7
8
2
$
8
2
3
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
,
3
1
5
$
1
,
3
2
9
$
1
,
3
4
1
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$
1
,
4
6
2
$
1
,
4
7
1
$
1
,
5
2
3
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
$
1
,
1
3
5
$
1
,
1
2
7
$
1
,
1
4
6
Re
t
a
i
l
S
t
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
$9
,
1
1
1
$
9
,
3
7
6
$
9
,
8
9
1
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
3
6
,
9
6
6
,
7
1
3
3
7
,
2
5
3
,
9
5
6
3
7
,
4
2
7
,
9
4
6
(a
)
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
A
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
,
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
ti
o
n
s
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
.
At
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
0
7
,
S
B
O
E
m
a
d
e
s
o
m
e
m
i
n
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
t
h
u
s
y
e
a
r
-
t
o
-
y
e
a
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
p
r
e
v
i
ou
s
y
e
a
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
d
e
w
i
t
h
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
1
d
a
t
a
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
t
a
b
l
e
d
u
e
t
o
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
,
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
u
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
.
(b
)
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
r
e
t
a
i
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
(
b
u
s
in
e
s
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
.
(c
)
A
"
#
"
s
i
g
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
d
a
t
a
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
u
e
t
o
S
B
O
E
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
r
u
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
d
a
t
a
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
ar
e
f
o
u
r
o
r
f
e
w
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
o
r
s
a
l
e
s
i
n
a
ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
d
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
e
.
S
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
s
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
G
r
o
u
p
.
(d
)
P
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
sa
l
e
s
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
y
e
a
r
s
f
r
o
m
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
2
0
0
0
&
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
;
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
;
S
t
a
t
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
A
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
U
.
S
.
Bu
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
11
0
2
101
APPENDIX C: LEAKAGE ANALYSIS DETAIL
1103
10
2
Ta
b
l
e
C
-
1
:
L
e
a
k
a
g
e
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
e
t
a
i
l
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
P
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
20
1
3
T
o
ta
l
A
n
n
u
a
l
2013Injection/
Re
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
/
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
t
a
i
l S
a
les
a
n
d S
a
les
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l i
n
$00
0
(c)
TotalLeakage
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
a
s
%
o
f
Sa
l
e
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
S
a
l
e
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(L
e
a
k
a
g
e
)
Potential
St
o
r
e
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
in
Are
a
(a)
Exp
e
n
dit
u
r
e
s
(b
)
in
A
r
e
a
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
ur
e
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$
0
0
0
S
a
l
e
s
Mo
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$1
3
6
$2
,
3
2
4
$
8
,
1
3
0
$
1
3
8
,
5
3
5
$0
$
1
3
8
,
5
3
5
($
1
3
0
,
4
0
5
)
-
9
4
%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
3
9
$3
5
3
$
1
4
,
2
2
8
$
2
1
,
0
3
1
$0
$
2
1
,
0
3
1
($6,803)-32%
El
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
3
9
$8
1
6
$
1
4
,
2
2
8
$
4
8
,
6
5
7
$
4
,
7
0
0
$
5
3
,
3
5
7
($39,130)-73%
Bl
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$2
2
2
$1
,
0
6
8
$
1
3
,
2
1
2
$
6
3
,
6
4
8
$0
$
6
3
,
6
4
8
($50,436)-79%
Fo
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
,
7
7
8
$2
,
4
8
0
$
1
6
5
,
6
5
3
$
1
4
7
,
8
5
9
$
1
1
,
3
0
0
$
1
5
9
,
1
5
9
$
6
,
4
9
4
4
%
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$5
8
0
$6
8
7
$
3
4
,
5
5
3
$
4
0
,
9
4
1
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
,
9
4
1
($10,388)-23%
Ga
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$8
8
6
$9
1
8
$
5
2
,
8
4
7
$
5
4
,
7
5
6
$0
$
5
4
,
7
5
6
($1,909)-3%
Cl
o
t
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$6
8
2
$1
,
3
7
2
$
4
0
,
6
5
1
$
8
1
,
7
7
2
$
6
,
0
0
0
$
8
7
,
7
7
2
($47,121)-54%
Sp
o
r
t
i
n
g
G
o
o
d
s
,
H
o
b
b
y
,
B
o
o
k
,
a
n
d
M
u
s
i
c
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
7
3
$3
9
3
$
1
6
,
2
6
0
$
2
3
,
4
4
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
$
2
5
,
2
4
0
($8,980)-36%
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
,
1
4
8
$1
,
7
7
2
$
1
2
8
,
0
5
1
$
1
0
5
,
6
6
1
$
1
7
,
1
0
0
$
1
2
2
,
7
6
1
$
5
,
2
9
0
4
%
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
S
t
o
r
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
$3
4
$3
4
7
$
2
,
0
3
3
$
2
0
,
6
7
2
$
5
,
8
0
0
$
2
6
,
4
7
2
($24,439)-92%
Fo
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$2
,
2
6
7
$2
,
4
1
0
$
1
3
5
,
1
6
5
$
1
4
3
,
6
9
0
$
1
5
,
1
0
0
$
1
5
8
,
7
9
0
($23,625)-15%
T
o
t
a
l
$1
0
,
4
8
3
$
1
4
,
9
3
9
$
6
2
5
,
0
1
2
$
8
9
0
,
6
6
1
$
6
5
,
8
0
0
$
9
5
6
,
4
6
1
($
3
3
1
,
4
5
0
)
-
3
5
%
Re
t
a
i
l
T
r
a
d
e
A
r
e
a
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
P
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
20
1
3
T
o
ta
l
A
n
n
u
a
l
2013Injection/
Re
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
/
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
t
a
i
l S
a
les
a
n
d S
a
les
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l i
n
$00
0
(c)
TotalLeakage
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
a
s
%
o
f
Sa
l
e
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
S
a
l
e
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(L
e
a
k
a
g
e
)
Potential
St
o
r
e
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
in
A
r
e
a
(a)
Ex
p
e
n
dit
u
r
e
s
(b
)
in
A
r
e
a
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
ur
e
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$
0
0
0
S
a
l
e
s
Mo
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
s
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$3
,
4
2
4
$2
,
4
5
7
$
2
,
0
0
9
,
7
9
2
$
1
,
4
4
2
,
28
5
$0
$
1
,
4
4
2
,
2
8
5
$
5
6
7
,
5
0
7
3
9
%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
H
o
m
e
F
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$3
1
3
$3
3
2
$
1
8
3
,
8
2
2
$
1
9
4
,
9
0
5
$0
$
1
9
4
,
9
0
5
($11,083)-6%
El
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$8
2
5
$7
6
4
$
4
8
4
,
0
6
6
$
4
4
8
,
1
7
0
($
5
,
6
0
0
)
$4
4
2
,
5
7
0
$
4
1
,
4
9
5
9
%
Bl
d
g
.
M
a
t
r
l
.
a
n
d
G
a
r
d
e
n
E
q
u
i
p
.
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$9
9
5
$1
,
0
0
9
$
5
8
4
,
1
4
7
$
5
9
2
,
2
0
8
$0
$
5
9
2
,
2
0
8
($8,061)-1%
Fo
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$2
,
6
2
0
$2
,
4
7
1
$
1
,
5
3
7
,
9
8
1
$
1
,
4
5
0
,
1
8
8
($
1
3
,
4
0
0
)
$1
,
4
3
6
,
7
8
8
$
1
0
1
,
1
9
3
7
%
He
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$7
1
7
$6
9
1
$
4
2
0
,
7
4
9
$
4
0
5
,
5
1
4
($
4
,
7
0
0
)
$4
0
0
,
8
1
4
$
1
9
,
9
3
5
5
%
Ga
s
o
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
$1
,
1
6
7
$9
4
1
$
6
8
5
,
2
4
9
$
5
5
2
,
5
5
6
$0
$
5
5
2
,
5
5
6
$
1
3
2
,
6
9
3
2
4
%
Cl
o
t
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$1
,
0
0
2
$1
,
2
8
8
$
5
8
8
,
2
3
2
$
7
5
6
,
1
0
3
($
7
,
2
0
0
)
$7
4
8
,
9
0
3
($
1
6
0
,
6
7
1
)
-
2
1
%
Sp
o
r
t
i
n
g
G
o
o
d
s
,
H
o
b
b
y
,
B
o
o
k
,
a
n
d
M
u
s
i
c
S
t
o
r
e
s
$5
4
6
$3
6
6
$
3
2
0
,
6
6
8
$
2
1
5
,
0
8
3
($
2
,
2
0
0
)
$2
1
2
,
8
8
3
$
1
0
7
,
7
8
5
5
1
%
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$1
,
5
1
4
$1
,
7
1
5
$
8
8
8
,
4
7
5
$
1
,
0
0
6
,
7
8
0
($
2
0
,
3
0
0
)
$9
8
6
,
4
8
0
($98,005)-10%
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
S
t
o
r
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
$4
1
2
$3
4
3
$
2
4
2
,
0
3
3
$
2
0
1
,
1
9
6
($
6
,
9
0
0
)
$1
9
4
,
2
9
6
$
4
7
,
7
3
7
2
5
%
Fo
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
$2
,
2
7
1
$2
,
3
4
3
$
1
,
3
3
2
,
7
1
3
$
1
,
3
7
5
,
3
4
0
($
1
8
,
0
0
0
)
$1
,
3
5
7
,
3
4
0
($24,628)-2%
T
o
t
a
l
$1
5
,
8
0
7
$
1
4
,
7
2
1
$
9
,
2
7
7
,
9
2
6
$
8
,
6
4
0
,
3
2
9
($
7
8
,
3
0
0
)
$8
,
5
6
2
,
0
2
9
$
7
1
5
,
8
9
7
8
%
Al
l
s
a
l
e
s
a
n
d
l
e
a
k
a
g
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
.
(a
)
F
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
1
3
.
(b
)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
a
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
RM
P
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
G
a
p
R
e
p
o
r
t
,
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
d
it
u
r
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
i
n
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
.
T
h
e
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
a
s
a
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
w
h
i
c
h
t
o
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
s
a
l
e
s
.
S
a
l
e
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
"
l
e
a
k
i
n
g
"
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
i
f
t
h
a
t
ar
e
a
h
a
s
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
b
e
l
o
w
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
s
a
l
e
s
.
P
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
s
a
l
e
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
2
0
1
3
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
T
o
w
n
a
n
d
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
f
o
r
Re
t
a
i
l
T
r
a
d
e
A
r
e
a
.
20
1
3
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
:
5
9
,
6
2
0
20
1
3
R
T
A
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
:
5
8
6
,
9
4
6
(
c
)
T
o
t
a
l
s
a
l
e
s
=
S
a
l
e
s
/
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
t
i
m
e
s
a
r
e
a
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
C
A
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
of
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
o
f
R
e
t
a
i
l
T
r
a
d
e
,
2
0
0
7
;
2
0
1
1
Z
i
p
C
o
de
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
;
Ni
e
l
s
e
n
M
a
r
k
e
t
P
l
a
c
e
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
11
0
4
103
APPENDIX D: NOTES ON METHODOLOGY FOR RETAIL
SALES AND LEAKAGE ESTIMATES
BAE has developed point-in-time estimates of retail sales by six-digit NAICS22 category,
applying sales per employee data by NAICS from the 2007 Census of Retail Trade to generate
estimates of total retail sales by category for 2011 based on Zip Code Business Patterns, the
most recent data available at the time of analysis. These estimates have the advantage over
estimates based on taxable data in that all retail sales are included, so no adjustment factors are
necessary to get from SBOE data to total retail sales. It should be noted that these estimates
should be considered as approximate, since the exact employment numbers for each store type
are not available; instead, the published data group stores into an employment class size.23
Additional comparisons were made with SBOE data to determine whether it was necessary to
reconcile major discrepancies between the Zip Code-derived estimates and the published
taxable sales data. It was determined that no adjustments were required; while the estimates
from the Zip Code data vary from SBOE figures, these differences are due in large part to the
inclusion of nontaxable sales.
22 The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) is a federally-directed system for classifying
establishments by industry.
23 For example, one store size category in the Zip Code Business Patterns ranges from 25 to 49 employees; estimates
are based on a central point in this range, since the exact number of employees is unknown.
1105
104
APPENDIX E: WORKER SPENDING CLOSE TO PLACE OF
WORK
1106
10
5
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
1
:
W
o
r
k
e
r
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
C
l
o
s
e
t
o
P
l
a
c
e
o
f
W
o
r
k
Ma
j
o
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
Avg
.
P
e
r
We
e
k
,
20
1
1
$
(
a
)
Avg
.
P
e
r
Ye
a
r
,
20
1
1
$
(
b
)
Avg
.
P
e
r
Ye
a
r
,
20
1
3
$
(
c
)
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
f
o
r
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
(
d
)
El
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
/
P
h
o
n
e
/
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
8
.
9
3
$
4
2
9
$
4
4
6
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
2
1
.
5
8
$
1
,
0
3
6
$
1
,
0
7
9
F
o
o
d
a
n
d
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
Dr
u
g
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
7
.
6
0
$
3
6
5
$
3
8
0
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
Cl
o
t
h
i
n
g
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
4
.
4
3
$
2
1
3
$
2
2
1
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
Sh
o
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
3
.
4
0
$
1
6
3
$
1
7
0
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
Je
w
e
l
r
y
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
3
.
7
5
$
1
8
0
$
1
8
7
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
Sp
o
r
t
i
n
g
G
o
o
d
s
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
3
.
4
9
$
1
6
8
$
1
7
4
S
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
G
o
o
d
s
,
H
o
b
b
y
,
B
o
o
k
,
a
n
d
M
u
s
i
c
S
t
o
r
e
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
9
.
0
3
$
4
3
3
$
4
5
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
Di
s
c
o
u
n
t
S
t
o
r
e
s
$
1
1
.
3
3
$
5
4
4
$
5
6
6
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
C
l
u
b
s
$
1
2
.
3
2
$
5
9
1
$
6
1
6
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
S
t
o
r
e
s
Of
f
i
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
/
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
e
r
y
/
N
o
v
e
l
t
y
G
i
f
t
s
a
n
d
C
a
r
d
s
$
7
.
4
1
$
3
5
6
$
3
7
0
M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
S
t
o
r
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
Ot
h
e
r
G
o
o
d
s
(
f
l
o
r
i
s
t
,
n
o
n
-
f
o
o
d
v
e
n
d
o
r
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
$
3
.
7
5
$
1
8
0
$
1
8
7
M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
S
t
o
r
e
R
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
Fu
l
l
-
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
$
1
3
.
0
6
$
6
2
7
$
6
5
3
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
Fa
s
t
F
o
o
d
/
D
e
l
i
/
L
u
n
c
h
E
a
t
e
r
i
e
s
$
1
5
.
8
0
$7
5
8
$7
9
0
Fo
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
s
To
t
a
l
$
1
2
5
.
8
8
$
6
,
0
4
2
$
6
,
2
9
2
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
e
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
-
W
o
r
k
e
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
A
g
e
(
I
C
S
C
,
2
0
1
2
)
.
(b
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
w
o
r
k
w
e
e
k
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
=
4
8
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
v
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
i
c
k
t
i
m
e
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
a
b
s
e
n
c
e
s
.
(c
)
S
u
r
v
e
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
.
I
n
f
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
U
S
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
i
c
e
I
n
d
e
x
f
o
r
A
l
l
U
r
b
a
n
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
2
0
1
3
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
a
t
t
h
e
r
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
a
y
.
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
=
1
.
0
4
1
2
7
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
(
I
C
SC
)
;
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
.
11
0
7
106
APPENDIX F: NET RETAIL EXPENDITURES NEAR WORK FOR
CUPERTINO WORKERS
Table F-1: Net Retail Expenditures Near Work for Cupertino Workers
Annual Potential Worker
Expenditures Near Work (a)
Major Retail Category Cupertino RTA
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $0 $0
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $0 $0
Electronics and Appliance Stores $4,700,000 ($5,600,000)
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies $0 $0
Food and Beverage Stores $11,300,000 ($13,400,000)
Health and Personal Care Stores $4,000,000 ($4,700,000)
Gasoline Stations $0
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $6,000,000 ($7,200,000)
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores$1,800,000 ($2,200,000)
General Merchandise Stores $17,100,000 ($20,300,000)
Miscellaneous Store Retailers $5,800,000 ($6,900,000)
Food Services and Drinking Places $15,100,000 ($18,000,000)
Net Potential Worker Retail Expenditures$65,800,000 ($78,300,000)
Notes:
(a) Estimate of worker potential expenditures based on Office-Worker Retail Spending in the Digital Age (ICSC,
2012) as shown in Appendix E. Total worker expenditures based on per worker data is multiplied by the estimated
net inflow of workers into Cupertino. Numbers rounded to nearest hundred thousand. Net inflows of workers is
used since worker expenditures for the number of workers up to the number of working residents would already
be accounted for by the expenditures of those working residents in the resident demand analysis.
Net inflow of workers into Cupertino = 10,440
Net inflow of workers into Retail Trade Area = -12,449
Based on U.S. Census Bureau's OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011).
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD); International Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC); BAE, 2013.
1108
107
APPENDIX G: CURRENTLY LEASING PROPERTIES
1109
10
8
Ta
b
l
e
G
-
1
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
L
e
a
s
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
3
To
t
a
l
S
i
z
e
Na
m
e
/
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
L
e
a
s
e
M
i
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
St
o
r
i
e
s
/
Y
e
a
r
B
u
i
l
t
Vac
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
Ma
x
C
o
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
A
s
k
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
L
e
a
s
e
T
y
p
e
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
35
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
8
,
2
0
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$4
.
0
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
N
N
N
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
p
a
c
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
20
4
0
0
-
2
0
4
5
0
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
8,
2
0
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
8
,
2
0
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
3
,
S
e
p
t
8
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
9
0
2%
v
a
c
a
n
t
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
:
2
0
1
3
,
&
J
a
n
2
0
1
4
a
n
d
a
r
e
$1
.
0
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
d
.
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
47
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$4
.
5
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
F
u
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
10
0
8
0
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
90
8
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
3
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
7
2
2%
v
a
c
a
n
t
St
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
O
f
f
i
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
10
8
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
8
4
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
3
.
5
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
F
u
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
B
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
20
8
6
3
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
3,
8
7
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
3
,
0
2
8
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
Bu
i
l
t
1
9
7
5
4%
v
a
c
a
n
t
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
21
6
8
5
G
r
e
n
a
d
a
A
v
e
2,
0
8
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$2
.
2
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
Cl
a
s
s
B
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
L
i
s
t
e
d
a
s
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
8
6
2,
0
8
0
s
q
.
ft
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
re
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
.
10
0
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
p
l
a
c
e
62
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
7
5
t
o
N
N
N
Of
f
i
c
e
s
p
a
c
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
m
i
x
e
d
-
19
6
2
0
-
1
9
7
8
0
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
21
,
3
9
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
5
,
8
7
7
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
$
3
.
7
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
:
r
e
t
a
i
l
.
A
s
k
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
p
a
c
e
$0
.
7
2
/
s
f
/
m
o
o
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
i
s
$
3
.
7
5
.
As
k
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
p
a
c
e
o
n
2
n
d
fl
o
o
r
i
s
$
2
.
7
5
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
o
n
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
a
g
e
.
11
1
0
10
9
Ta
b
l
e
G
-
1
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
L
e
a
s
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
3
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l
S
i
z
e
Na
m
e
/
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
L
e
a
s
e
M
i
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
St
o
r
i
e
s
/
Y
e
a
r
B
u
i
l
t
Vac
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
Ma
x
C
o
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
A
s
k
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
L
e
a
s
e
T
y
p
e
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Ar
b
o
r
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
20
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
4
6
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
2
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
F
u
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
B
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
20
0
4
5
/
2
0
0
6
5
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
46
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
4
6
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
8
5
2%
va
c
a
n
t
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Bi
m
a
r
k
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
10
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
1
,
0
5
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
5
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
F
u
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
B
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
21
7
6
0
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
1,
0
5
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
1
,
0
5
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
8
5
11
%
va
c
a
n
t
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
S
q
u
a
r
e
19
,
8
6
2
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
6
4
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
2
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
g
r
o
s
s
C
l
a
s
s
B
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
10
0
6
2
M
i
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
3,
6
4
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
2
,
9
9
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
8
0
18
%
v
a
ca
n
t
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
19
4
5
0
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
12
,
3
4
4
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
8
9
9
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
7
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
g
r
o
s
s
C
l
a
s
s
A
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
2,
5
4
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
1
,
6
4
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
21
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
21
0
4
0
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
d
6,
5
5
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
1
,
0
6
7
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
7
5
t
o
F
u
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
a
s
t
h
r
e
e
s
p
a
c
e
s
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
7
9
3,
2
0
2
sq
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
3
,
3
0
2
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
$
1
.
9
5
/s
f
/
m
o
av
a
i
l
l
a
b
l
e
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
m
b
i
n
i
e
d
49
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
to
f
o
r
m
o
n
e
s
p
a
c
e
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
o
n
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
a
g
e
.
11
1
1
11
0
Ta
b
l
e
G
-
1
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
L
e
a
s
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
3
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l
S
i
z
e
Na
m
e
/
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
L
e
a
s
e
M
i
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
St
o
r
i
e
s
/
Y
e
a
r
B
u
i
l
t
Vac
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
Ma
x
C
o
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
A
s
k
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
L
e
a
s
e
T
y
p
e
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
77
,
3
0
2
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
4
,
0
6
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
7
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
F
u
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
16
0
1
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
4,
0
6
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
4
,
0
6
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
5%
v
a
c
a
n
t
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
10
0
5
5
M
i
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
10
0
,
0
0
4
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
2
,
0
3
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
4
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
g
r
o
s
s
C
l
a
s
s
B
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
8
6
2,
0
3
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
2
,
0
3
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
2%
v
a
c
a
n
t
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
10
0
5
4
P
a
s
a
d
e
n
a
A
v
e
2,
0
7
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
2
,
0
7
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
$
2
.
1
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
F
u
l
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
B
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
M
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
2,
0
7
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
bu
i
l
d
in
g
w
i
t
h
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
o
n
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
gr
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ab
o
v
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
L
o
o
p
n
e
t
,
2
0
1
3
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
11
1
2
11
1
Ta
b
l
e
G
-
2
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
L
e
a
s
i
n
g
R
e
t
a
il
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
3
To
t
a
l
S
i
z
e
Na
m
e
/
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
L
e
a
s
e
M
i
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
St
o
r
i
e
s
/
Y
e
a
r
B
u
i
l
t
Vac
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
As
k
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
M
a
x
C
o
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
L
e
a
s
e
T
y
p
e
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
p
l
a
c
e
21
,
3
9
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
$
2
.
7
5
t
o
6
2
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
N
N
N
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
a
c
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
m
i
x
e
d
-
19
6
2
0
-
1
9
7
8
0
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
$3
.
7
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
5
,
8
7
7
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
:
r
e
t
a
i
l
.
A
s
k
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
p
a
c
e
$0
.
7
2
/
s
f
/
m
o
o
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
i
s
$
3
.
7
5
.
As
k
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
p
a
c
e
o
n
2
n
d
fl
o
o
r
i
s
$
2
.
7
5
.
21
6
8
5
G
r
e
n
a
d
a
A
v
e
2,
0
8
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
2
.
2
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
Cl
a
s
s
B
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
L
i
s
t
e
d
a
s
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
8
6
2,
0
8
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
re
t
a
i
l
o
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
b
u
t
m
o
r
e
10
0
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
u
s
e
s
.
10
0
8
8
N
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
63
,
8
8
3
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
4
.
2
5
t
o
8
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
N
N
N
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
a
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
Un
d
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
63
,
8
8
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
$
4
.
7
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
3
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
10
0
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
11
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
20
8
0
3
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
15
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
4
.
0
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
,
5
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
N
N
N
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
t
r
i
p
c
e
n
t
e
r
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
1
s
t
o
r
y
/
U
n
d
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
1
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
5,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
un
d
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
10
0
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
10
0
6
5
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
38
,
2
3
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
1
.
5
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
Mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
t
r
i
p
c
e
n
t
e
r
4,
1
5
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
gr
o
s
s
11
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
De
A
n
z
a
P
l
a
z
a
4,
7
2
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
$
2
.
5
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
,
7
7
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
N
N
N
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
t
r
i
p
c
e
n
t
e
r
10
5
5
5
S
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
10
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
o
n
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
a
g
e
.
11
1
3
11
2
Ta
b
l
e
G
-
2
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
L
e
a
s
i
n
g
R
e
t
a
i
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
3
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l
S
i
z
e
Na
m
e
/
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
L
e
a
s
e
M
i
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
St
o
r
i
e
s
/
Y
e
a
r
B
u
i
l
t
Vac
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
As
k
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
M
a
x
C
o
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
L
e
a
s
e
T
y
p
e
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
R
e
t
a
i
l
7,
3
4
6
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
1
.
7
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
ai
l
a
b
l
e
N
N
N
G
r
o
u
n
d
-
f
l
oo
r
r
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
20
4
8
8
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
1,
5
0
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
mi
x
ed
-
u
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
r
e
t
a
i
l
1
s
t
o
r
y
/
B
u
i
l
t
2
0
0
5
21
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
an
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
S
q
u
a
r
e
20
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
2
.
5
0
t
o
1
,
5
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
N
N
N
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
20
5
8
0
-
2
1
2
3
0
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
d
20
0
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
$
4
.
5
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
5
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
1
s
t
o
r
y
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
7
6
10
0
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
As
k
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
$
2
.
5
0
f
o
r
an
c
h
o
r
s
p
a
c
e
,
$
4
.
5
0
f
o
r
s
h
o
p
sp
a
c
e
.
20
1
4
9
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
15
,
1
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
3
.
1
3
/
s
f
/
m
o
NN
N
S
h
o
w
r
o
o
m
s
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
r
o
l
l
u
p
1
s
t
o
r
y
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
5
7
9,
6
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
do
o
r
.
5
,
6
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
o
f
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
64
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
in
r
e
a
r
.
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
t
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
1,
2
7
8
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
$
2
.
9
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
NN
N
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
m
i
x
e
d
u
s
e
19
5
0
1
-
1
9
5
0
5
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
r
e
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
.
20
5
5
8
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
20
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
2
.
2
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
N
N
N
S
u
b
l
e
a
s
e
-
e
x
p
i
r
e
s
D
e
c
2
0
1
9
.
Bu
i
l
t
1
9
5
9
20
,
9
0
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
10
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
Tr
a
v
i
g
n
e
P
l
a
z
a
1,
2
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
$
2
.
2
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
N
N
N
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
19
9
2
9
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
2
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
u
p
s
t
a
i
r
s
,
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
2
0
0
3
5
r
e
t
a
i
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
fl
o
o
r
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
u
s
e
o
f
ou
t
d
o
o
r
p
a
t
i
o
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
o
n
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
a
g
e
.
11
1
4
11
3
Ta
b
l
e
G
-
2
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
L
e
a
s
i
n
g
R
e
t
a
i
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
3
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l
S
i
z
e
Na
m
e
/
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
L
e
a
s
e
M
i
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
St
o
r
i
e
s
/
Y
e
a
r
B
u
i
l
t
Vac
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
As
k
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
M
a
x
C
o
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
L
e
a
s
e
T
y
p
e
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
20
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
2
.
5
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
ai
l
a
b
l
e
N
N
N
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
s
t
r
i
p
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
20
6
3
0
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
4,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
20
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
:
$0
.
2
5
/
s
f
/
m
o
20
2
7
9
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
9,
5
0
7
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
$
4
.
0
0
/
s
f
/
m
o
1
s
p
a
c
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
N
N
N
D
a
y
s
p
a
,
c
h
i
r
o
p
r
a
c
t
o
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
1
s
t
o
r
y
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
8
0
1,
2
8
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
ac
u
p
u
n
t
u
r
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
o
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
u
s
e
13
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
in
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
23
,
8
8
9
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
2,
9
9
9
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
i
n
.
N
N
N
D
a
y
s
p
a
,
c
h
i
r
o
p
r
a
c
t
o
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
10
9
4
5
N
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
6,
6
4
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
3,
6
4
2
s
q
.
f
t
.
m
a
x
.
ac
u
p
u
n
t
u
r
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
o
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
u
s
e
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
B
u
i
l
t
1
9
6
8
28
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
in
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
10
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
.
f
t
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
10
0
%
v
a
c
a
n
t
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
L
o
o
p
n
e
t
,
2
0
1
3
;
B
A
E
,
2
0
1
3
11
1
5
114
APPENDIX H: PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN
CUPERTINO
1116
115
Table H-1: Planned and Proposed Development, Cupertino, May 2013 (Revised January 2014)
Project
Location Site Size
Developer (acres)Size (sq. ft.)Comments
Under Construction
Apple Cafeteria 0.8824,000sq. ft. new retailCafeteria and underground parking for Apple
20625 Alves Dr.4,000 sq. ft. retail demoemployees.
Apple, Inc.20,000net new retail sq. ft.
Homestead Square 15196,622sq. ft. new retailNew commercial space in an existing shopping
20620/20580/20680 Homestead Rd.95,666 sq. ft. retail democenter. Project includes a Rite-Aid pharmacy
Sobrato Development Co.100,956net new retail sq. ft.with drive through.
Biltmore Adjacency 1380new residential unitsMixed-use development with 80 rental
20030 Stevens Creek Blvd 7,000sq. ft. new retailresidential units and 7,000 sq. ft. of commercial
Prometheus Real Estate Group 21,000sq. ft. retail demospace.
Rose Bowl
19800 Vallco Pkwy 59,827sq. ft. new retailMixed-use development with 204 residential
204new residential unitsrental units, 59,827 sq. ft. of retail space.
Cupertino Village 12.524,455sq. ft. new retailTwo new one-story retail buildings and a
SWC of Wolfe Rd & Homestead Rd two-level parking structure. No building
Kimco Realty permits submitted. Entitlement expires
11/01/2013.
Main Street Cupertino 18.5130,500sq. ft. new retailMixed-use development with retail, office,
N side of Stevens Creek Blvd b/t 180new hotel roomshotel, and rental residential units with a
Finch Ave & Tantau Ave 260,000sq. ft. new office five-level parking garage with two levels of
Ken Rodrigues and Partner, Inc.120new residential unitsunderground parking. No building permit
submitted. Entitlement expires 5/15/2015.
Approved (Construction Not Yet Commenced)
Tantau Retail and Parking Garage 9.410,582sq. ft. new retailNew retail building and one-level parking
10100 N. Tantau Ave garage on an existing office site. No building
Chang Architecture & Planning permits have been issued. Entitlements expire
8/21/2015.
Saich Way Station 15,650sq. ft. new retailApproved by City Council in Feb. 2013. No
NWC of Saich Way &11,640 sq. ft. retail demobuilding permits have been submitted.
Stevens Creek Blvd.4,010net new retail sq. ft.
The Oaks Shopping Center 8.1122new hotel roomsMixed-use development with four-story,
21255-21275 Stevens Creek Blvd 18,731sq. ft. new retail (a)122-room hotel and three-story, 56,194-sq. ft.
Sand Hill Properties, Inc.18,731sq. ft. new office (a)retail/office/ convention center over
2,430sq. ft. retail demounderground podium parking. Demolition of
15,263sq. ft. theater demoexisting theater and retail space. Entitlement
expires 9/02/2014.
1 Results Way 19.8155,000sq. ft. new officeDemolition of five buildings and construction
NWC Bubb Rd and McClellan Rd 139,632 sq. ft. office demoof three new 2-story office buildings and a
Embarcadero Capital Partners, LLC 15,368net new office sq. ft.2-level parking garage. No building permit
submitted. Entitlement expires 7/21/2014.
Apple Campus 2 1753,400,000sq. ft. new officeNew office campus for Apple, Inc. Phase I
N. Wolfe Rd, E. Homested Rd, 2,650,000 sq. ft. office demoincludes 2.82 million sq. ft. of office and
N. Tantau Ave, I-280 750,000net new office sq. ft.amenity space, a 1,000-seat suditorium, a
Apple, Inc.corporate gymnasium, a parking structure and
an onsite energy generation facility. Phase II
includes 600,000 sq. ft. of office and research
facilities. Environmental review in progress.
Continued on following page.
1117
116
Table H-1: Planned and Proposed Development, Cupertino, May 2014 (Revised January 2014;continued)
Project
Location Site Size
Developer (acres)Size (sq. ft.)Comments
Pending Approval
Parkside Trails 918new residential units18 new single family homes on 9 acres. The
E side of Stevens Canyon Rd S of Ricardo Rd project includes dedication of 33.5 acres
Parkside Trails LLC adjacent to the project site as open space.
Summary
Total New Residential Planned and Proposed (units)422
Total Residential Units Proposed for Demolition:0
Net New Planned and Proposed Residential (units)422
Total New Office Planned and Proposed (sq. ft.)3,833,731
Total Office Proposed for Demolition:2,789,632
Net New Planned and Proposed Office (Sq. Ft.)1,044,099
Total New Retail Planned and Proposed (sq. ft.)487,367
Total Retail Proposed for Demolition:134,736
Net New Planned and Proposed Retail (Sq. Ft.)352,631
Total New Lodging Planned and Proposed (# of Rooms)302
Total Lodging Proposed for Demolition:0
Net New Planned and Proposed Lodging (# of Rooms)302
Note:
(a) The Oaks Shopping Center project would include 56,194 square feet of retail/office/convention center space. The square footage of
1118
1
Retail Strategy Report
March 6, 2014
Prepared by
1119
1
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary
and
Findings
........................................................................................
4
BAE
Reports
and
Implications
for
General
Plan
Amendment
..............................................
4
Commodity/Specialty;
Active/Non-‐active
...................................................................................
4
Study
Areas
............................................................................................................................................
5
Vallco
Study
Area
.................................................................................................................................
6
Purpose
and
Background
of
Report
....................................................................................
8
Review
of
Accompanying
Studies
.......................................................................................
10
BAE
Market
Study
..............................................................................................................................
10
BAE
Sales
Leakage
Points
................................................................................................................
12
Implications
for
General
Plan
Amendment
...............................................................................
14
History,
Methodology
and
Key
Retail
Terminology
.....................................................
16
History
...................................................................................................................................................................
16
Commodity
and
Specialty
Retail
.................................................................................................................
17
Active
and
Inactive
Uses
................................................................................................................................
18
Gravity
Side
of
the
Trade
Area
....................................................................................................................
19
Omnichannel
Retail
..........................................................................................................................................
19
Lifestyle
and
Hybrid
Centers
.......................................................................................................................
21
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Study
Areas
.............................................................................
22
Study
Area
#1
–
Cupertino
Inn
and
Goodyear
Tire
.................................................................
23
Real
Estate
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................
24
Retail
Market
Evaluation
...............................................................................................................................
24
Site
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................................
25
Place-‐making
Considerations
......................................................................................................................
25
Stakeholder
Feedback
.....................................................................................................................................
25
Study
Area
#2
–
City
Center
............................................................................................................
25
Real
Estate
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................
27
Retail
Market
Evaluation
...............................................................................................................................
27
Site
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................................
27
Place-‐making
Considerations
......................................................................................................................
28
Functionality
Evaluation
................................................................................................................................
28
Study
Area
#3
–
Pacific
Gas
and
Electric
Company
(PG&E)
..................................................
28
Study
Area
#4
–
Mirapath
................................................................................................................
28
Real
Estate
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................
29
Retail
Market
Evaluation
...............................................................................................................................
29
Site
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................................
30
Study
Area
#5
–
Cupertino
Village
................................................................................................
30
1120
2
Real
Estate
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................
32
Retail
Market
Evaluation
...............................................................................................................................
32
Site
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................................
32
Site
Plan
Recommendations
.........................................................................................................................
32
Place-‐making
Considerations
......................................................................................................................
33
Functionality
Evaluation
................................................................................................................................
33
Study
Area
#6
–
Vallco
Shopping
Mall
.........................................................................................
33
Study
Area
#7
–
Stevens
Creek
Office
Center
............................................................................
33
Real
Estate
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................
34
Retail
Market
Evaluation
...............................................................................................................................
34
Site
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................................................
35
Place-‐making
Considerations
......................................................................................................................
36
Functionality
Evaluation
................................................................................................................................
36
Continuity
of
Place
Evaluation
....................................................................................................................
36
Vallco
Shopping
Mall
..............................................................................................................
38
Background
and
History
..................................................................................................................
39
Real
Estate
Attributes
.......................................................................................................................
39
Fundamental
Site
Attributes
..........................................................................................................
40
Land
Use
Designations,
Zoning
and
Land
Use
Policies
.....................................................................
40
Competitive
Landscape
....................................................................................................................
42
Valley
Fair,
San
Jose/Santa
Clara
...............................................................................................................
42
Santana
Row,
San
Jose
....................................................................................................................................
43
Westgate
Center,
San
Jose
.............................................................................................................................
43
Sunnyvale
Town
Center,
Sunnyvale
..........................................................................................................
44
Stanford
Shopping
Center,
Palo
Alto
........................................................................................................
45
Vallco
Site
Area
...................................................................................................................................
46
Vallco
Leasing
Makeup
.....................................................................................................................
47
Development,
Ownership,
and
Repositioning
History
..........................................................
48
Ground
Lease
Discussion
.................................................................................................................
51
Title
Review
Discussion
...................................................................................................................
51
Master
Ground
Lease
for
Mall
Development
........................................................................................
51
Construction
Operating
Restrictions
Easements
Agreement
(COREA)
....................................
52
First
Amendment
to
COREA
.........................................................................................................................
52
Second
Amendment
to
COREA
....................................................................................................................
52
Third
Amendment
to
COREA
.......................................................................................................................
52
Fourth
Amendment
to
COREA
.....................................................................................................................
52
Fifth
Amendment
to
COREA
.........................................................................................................................
52
Sears
Documents
...............................................................................................................................................
52
Development
Agreement
...............................................................................................................................
53
1121
3
General
Plan
Amendment
..............................................................................................................................
53
Tenant
Leases
.....................................................................................................................................................
54
Stakeholder
Interviews
and
Discussion
–
Anchor
Tenants
.................................................
54
Macy’s
.....................................................................................................................................................................
54
Sears
.......................................................................................................................................................................
56
JC
Penney
..............................................................................................................................................................
57
The
Bay
Club
.......................................................................................................................................................
58
Stakeholder
Interviews
and
Discussion
–
Rose
Bowl
............................................................
58
Stakeholder
Interviews
and
Discussion-‐
Other
.......................................................................
59
Strategies
for
Repositioning
Vallco
Shopping
Mall
.................................................................
62
Literature
Review
.............................................................................................................................................
62
Retrofitting
Suburbs:
Instant
Cities,
Instant
Architecture,
and
Incremental
Metropolitanism
................................................................................................................................................
63
Converting
Obsolete
Malls
............................................................................................................................
64
Analogous
Redevelopment
Projects
.........................................................................................................
65
Vallco
Repositioning
Alternatives
................................................................................................
70
Repositioning
Scenario
1:
An
ideal
mix
appealing
to
Cupertino
and
extended
trade
area
customers
without
regard
to
entitlement
or
site
constraints
.......................................................
71
Repositioning
Scenario
2:
Assume
market
factors
such
as
competing
projects
and
legal
limitations
such
as
those
contained
in
the
COREA
and
land
use
regulations
.........................
80
Non-‐Vallco
Related
Stakeholder
Interview
Feedback
.................................................
86
Recommendations
...................................................................................................................
89
Bibliography
..............................................................................................................................
92
1122
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
Cupertino is an affluent community with a bifurcated retail sector: Daily needs and some
commodity categories perform well while other categories perform poorly or not at all. Overall,
the City leaks sales to the overall Trade Area, probably more as a result of being bested by
more aggressive economic development and better-executed development elsewhere than by
any fundamental flaw such as the City’s location in the Trade Area, transportation issues, or
demographics.
Cupertino is centrally located in the west portion of the Santa Clara Valley, commonly known as
Silicon Valley. The City is well served by road infrastructure; however, there exist few regional
mass transit options.
There are significant barriers to entry such as lack of available land to build new retail projects in
Cupertino. Careful consideration should be given to the planning and redevelopment or
repositioning of existing retail projects, and to how retail might be added to existing or new
mixed-use projects. Careful consideration should also be given to whether a retail
development or retail component of a mixed-use development should be designed and
positioned as a “commodity” or a “specialty” project.
The City appears to have adequate commodity shopping alternatives within its borders. For
example, Target, Safeway, Whole Foods, Ranch 99 (2), Walgreen’s, CVS, Sears, Michaels, Home
Goods, TJ Maxx, Party City, and Aaron Brothers operate within the City’s borders. Barriers to
entry contribute to robust sales for many of these stores. Focusing on redeveloping existing
retail stores with robust sales (e.g. Target) may be interesting as a planning exercise but
unrealistic from a purely economic perspective, particularly with an owner-user.
BAE Reports and Implications for General Plan Amendment
The City expects population to increase by 5,000 and job growth by 7,000 by 2040. Both
residents and workers have higher wages than the County or the State. The City’s ethnic
makeup has evolved so that over 63% of the resident population is of Asian descent.
There are few good entry-housing opportunities in the City for younger members of the
workforce, and few amenities that would incentivize these workers to live in Cupertino.
In the defined Trade Area, there is little leakage or injection of retail sales. On a per-capita
basis, the City’s retail sales underperform as compared with the County and the State. Some
categories, like general merchandise, perform well while others, such as electronics and fashion,
underperform. Any opportunity to increase retail sales in Cupertino would likely be at the
expense of sales happening elsewhere in the Trade Area.
Commodity/Specialty; Active/Non-active
As the United States became more auto dependent, downtown shopping districts gave way to
suburban shopping including enclosed malls.
1123
5
Department stores gave up market share to big boxes, and consequently the number of viable
malls contracted.
The best model for illustrating how retail organizes itself today is by contrasting commodity
retailers, where consumers based their purchasing decisions on price and convenience from
specialty retailers, where consumers choose to spend their discretionary income during their
discretionary time. The latter is particularly affected by the retailer’s environment. The advent
of the so-called lifestyle center was driven by a trend in which small specialty retailers faced a
shortage of high quality specialty retail space at the same moment that regional mall failures
were accelerating.
When designing retail environments, creating active, interactive environments where the
consumer is engaged by businesses even when passing by, as opposed to inactive
environments where the consumer does not interact with businesses, is of key importance.
The trend towards “omnichannel” continues. This trend is characterized by retailers creating a
seamless shopping experience regardless of whether consumers are shopping online, from
portable devices, from catalogs, or in a store.
Study Areas
Presently, there are a number of Study Areas being considered for redevelopment. Of these,
not all are well-suited for retail development. Additionally, for those that are well-suited for
development, retail is not necessarily the highest and best use..
The best retail application for the Cupertino Inn/Goodyear Study Area is service retail
(examples might include a cleaner or cell phone store), and foodservice, which serves the
adjacent hotel and creates a synergistic use adjacent to the Homestead Square Shopping
Center.
Except for retail supporting the office tenants (e.g. sandwich shop or sundry store), the City
Center Study Area is not well suited for retail development, and entitlements for office uses are
presently being contemplated.
The PG&E and Mirapath Study Areas might be developable with a big box anchoring the site,
however, the site is not well located for retail development, and mitigations in excess of those
typically required, for traffic and noise in particular, would be expected due to the site’s location
away from a major intersection, freeway interchange, and close to housing.
Cupertino Village already has entitlements for redevelopment of the site as a denser shopping
center. This repositioning of the Study Area seems well thought out and appropriate. A
change of use to residential, while possibly yielding a higher residual land value, would not
necessarily be in the best interest of the immediate area since neither is there another daily-
needs shopping area in the immediate vicinity nor are there many projects in Cupertino with so-
called “lifestyle” components.
1124
6
The Stevens Creek Office Center could be redeveloped as a retail project, however, there are
other options that might be higher and better uses. The creation of cross access with an
adjacent site is a positive development for both properties
Other sites in the City were not included in the scope of work for this Report, but are worthy of
evaluation. The Oaks, at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Route 85 and across the street
from De Anza College, is one example of a site well positioned for redevelopment, perhaps as a
retail-residential mixed-use project.
Vallco Study Area
The Vallco Shopping Mall is centrally located in the City. The property, which is zoned for
regional commercial uses and was originally developed in the 1970’s, consists of 14 parcels and
contains a 1.3 million square foot mall anchored by Macy’s, Sears, JC Penny, and AMC Theaters.
The property has been remodeled several times since it was built.
Despite being the largest retail project in the City, the Mall is largely vacant, save for the anchor
tenants who continue to perform well. According to stakeholders, Vallco represents not only
one of the best-located properties in the City, but also one of the City’s largest redevelopment
opportunities, and challenges.
Governing documents control what can be changed on the property, including parking,
building requirements, and certain uses. Ground leases and various tenant leases have
provisions further restricting changes and certain uses.
The Mall operates in a competitive environment with successful project to the north (Stanford
Shopping Center), east (Valley Fair and Santana Row), and south (Westgate Shopping Center).
All of the anchor tenants state their stores perform well despite the Mall having a low
occupancy rate, and their commitment to the Trade Area. All of the anchor tenants say they are
receptive to redevelopment plans that might improve the project.
There is an oversupply of mall space in the United States; Vallco’s circumstances are not unique.
Key to the repositioning process is creating a brand that sets Vallco apart from competing
projects and communicating that brand to the community and prospective tenants alike. An
owner or developer with the expertise and financial capability to execute such a strategy is
required for a successful outcome. The City’s ability to contribute financially and/or to use its
governmental powers to facilitate redevelopment will have a material impact on the success
and timing of any redevelopment. There are examples of similarly situated projects that have
been successfully repositioned, including in California.
An ideal redevelopment alternative that is not limited in its scope by ownership interests,
controlling documents, or leases would likely see the existing project demolished entirely and
replaced with a mixed-use project. In the alternative, a scenario that does recognize these
limiting factors would more likely result in a mixed-use project with less density and a larger
retail component.
1125
7
Several adjacent projects are planned or under construction. The adjacent Rose Bowl project is
under construction, and the owner expects to receive competitive rents for the 60,000 square
feet of retail space. Main Street is entitled and being marketed for lease, but grading has only
just begun. The Apple Campus 2 is approved, with construction expected to start soon.
1126
8
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND OF REPORT
In August 2012, the City Council initiated a process to have City staff and the community
identify options for replenishing citywide office, commercial (retail) and hotel development
allocations in order to meet economic development goals.
During this time, the City was contacted by several property owners, including some within the
Vallco Shopping District, who inquired about potential General Plan amendments for their sites.
In order to comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, the City Council
decided in early 2013 to combine these efforts into a single General Plan Amendment project.
A General Plan is a regulatory document that sets the “ground rules” for conserving resources,
designing new projects, expanding public services, and improving community amenities. Every
city in California is required to adopt and regularly update a General Plan. It functions as the
City’s primary regulatory document and must be used as the basis for all planning-related
decisions.
While this project will consider citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic topics,
it is not a rewrite of the City’s 2005 General Plan. Rather, this project is focused on identifying
and analyzing potential changes within seven key study areas (identified in the Summary and
Analysis of Study Areas section), and possible changes to urban design and mobility policies
particularly along five major corridors in the City.
The City has established several important goals for this project:
• Goal 1: Involve the community in a comprehensive discussion on mobility, urban
design, and economic development challenges facing Cupertino.
• Goal 2: Identify and analyze potential increases to commercial (retail), office, mixed-use
and hotel development allocations within the study areas.
• Goal 3: Enhance and improve the overall commercial experience in Cupertino by
retaining existing business and attracting new companies.
• Goal 4: Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant
shopping and entertainment destination that serves both the region and the local
community.
• Goal 5: Protect and enhance Cupertino’s quality of life so the city remains a desirable
place to live, work, recreate and raise a family.
• Goal 6: Revise existing General Plan policies and diagrams as they relate to the goals
listed above, and make some additional minor changes to address recent State and
regional requirements.
As part of the City’s overall growth management system, Cupertino’s General Plan establishes a
development allocation system for commercial (retail), office, hotel room and residential
growth.
This Retail Strategy Report (the “RSR” or “Report”) will address each Study Area’s
suitability specifically for retail development, and thereby help inform any decisions
made regarding the various allocations noted above as well as some of the design
1127
9
principles discussed in the September 2013 Settings and Opportunities Report prepared
as a part of this project.
Particular attention will be paid to the centerpiece of the South Vallco Master Plan Area:
The Vallco Shopping Mall.
While this Report is not intended to update the South Vallco Master Plan, it will touch on
some of the key goals illuminated in that Plan including:
• Revitalizing the South Vallco Master Plan area,
• Coordinating aesthetic improvements,
• Connecting individual properties,
• Optimizing roadway infrastructure, and
• Promoting a unique identity for the area.
As part of the General Plan Amendment process, BAE Urban Economics developed a Market
Study,which contains a Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis. The market study analyzes future
demand for retail, office, hotel, and housing over the coming 20-25 years. The retail sales and
leakage analysis identifies sectors where the City might have an opportunity to capture more
sales locally from its residents and employees (while possibly attracting shoppers from nearby
areas). Below is a summary of the key findings from both studies. This summary will help
provide context for this Report.
1128
10
REVIEW OF ACCOMPANYING STUDIES
BAE Market Study
The BAE Market Study identifies a number of attributes that provide important context for this
Report. Consider the following:
• ABAG’s One Bay Area Plan indicates that Cupertino will gain almost 5,000 households
and over 7,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040.
Cupertino has a strong housing market due largely to the high quality of local schools
as well as proximity to well-paying high-tech jobs. The median price for Cupertino
homes changed very little between 2009 and 2011, but increased significantly in 2012
to $1,045,750, higher than pre-recession levels and twice as high as the median for
Santa Clara County with virtually no low- or moderately-priced options, and a steady
rental market.
The shortage of young adult residents and workers in Cupertino could be largely the
result of the lack of moderately priced housing options for many young or single-
earner households, which suggests a need for smaller, more affordable units that can
serve as workforce housing.
• On a per capita basis, Cupertino’s annual retail sales for 2011 are $10,483, compared
to $13,404 for Santa Clara County, and $12,493 for California.
• The City’s household composition is weighted towards family households with
children and has a correspondingly larger household size than the overall trade area.
• Cupertino differs markedly from the County and region with respect to racial and
ethnic breakdown. The City’s Asian population comprised 63.1 percent of total
population in 2010. By contrast, just under 35 percent of daytime workers are of Asian
descent.
• Reflecting high education levels and professional occupations, Cupertino households
earn a significantly higher median household income ($123,700) than Santa Clara
County ($87,200), and the Bay Area ($75,800).
Cupertino residents’ high level of educational attainment correlates positively with a
high degree of professional occupations concentrated in management, business,
science, and arts as compared with Santa Clara County or the Bay Area.
As a result of the higher percentage of management, business, science, and arts
occupations, the median earnings of those working in Cupertino (as opposed to those
living in Cupertino) is $81,000, again higher than Santa Clara County overall.
• Office demand continues to be strong, limited primarily by supply constraints and
Apple’s demand for office space.
1129
11
Anticipated office job growth of 49,000 jobs in the west portion of Silicon Valley (the
area including Cupertino) will generate demand for approximately 12 million square
feet of new office space between 2010 and 2040.
There is significant potential for the City to attract an additional corporate campus to
accommodate an existing major employer or to attract a new major employer
Office workers and consequently office tenants more and more demonstrate a
preference for working environments that offer urban-style amenities as opposed to
traditional suburban office parks, and for green certified buildings. Proximity to public
transportation, bicycle and pedestrian access, attractive retail offerings, and
entertainment options are also important amenities.
Office design trends that encourage employee interaction has resulted in more open
building interiors and consequently greater employee density on a per square foot
basis.
• Business-related travel is the driver of demand for hotel rooms in Silicon Valley.
Exceptionally strong occupancy and growth in room revenue in Cupertino’s existing
hotels suggest support for additional hotel rooms. There are five hotels in Cupertino
with a total of 785 rooms. The City’s hotel development pipeline totals 302 rooms in
two projects located at the Oaks Shopping Center and within the Main Street project
respectively, the 122 room entitlement at The Oaks being due to expire in
September, 2014.
The City’s resident and workforce populations are distinct beyond the income and ethnicity
differences noted above. For example, Apple is competing with Google, Facebook, LinkedIn
and others for talent. To the extent that these workers are younger (as is often the case), there
is a greater demand for a more urban environment.
The City’s retail “outflow” can be seen most notably in per-capita sales as compared with the
County. Looking at the various Study Areas with an eye to future retail needs is important. A
retail offering tailored to better meet the needs of citizens (both those presently living in
Cupertino and likely future residents, i.e. knowledge workers) will be instrumental if the City
hopes to recapture some of the sales leakage.
Vallco will be the City’s single greatest opportunity to draw retail dollars to Cupertino. While
the present retail allocation for Cupertino is projected to be adequate to meet the retail needs
of today’s residents and projected population growth, developing an overall retail strategy as a
stated economic development goal will inform that allocation and enhance the City’s ability to
create retail facilities capable of meeting the City’s future needs and meeting any stated goal of
recapture leaking sales.
1130
12
BAE Sales Leakage Points
The BAE Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis identifies important spending patterns in the City as
well as the defined trade area used for the study. The defined “Trade Area” is shown on the
following map:
Consider the following findings:
• A broad array of retail shopping options are available in nearby communities and are
easily accessible to Cupertino residents. The leakage analysis shows that city boundaries
do not represent a constraint on Cupertino residents shopping elsewhere or non-
residents shopping in Cupertino. The fact that less than eight percent of potential sales
from trade area customers were occurring outside of the Trade Area indicates that the
overall retail trade area is well balanced with respect to retail.
• With respect to specific categories:
o Cupertino has relatively strong sales in stores selling such as the general
merchandise category which includes businesses that sell everyday items.
Another reason this category is performing well is the presence of three mall
department stores and one discount department store whose sales are
included. It should be noted that two Trader Joe’s and two Safeway stores are
1131
13
located just outside the City limits, but that a new Safeway will be opening
within the City shortly.
By contrast, stores specializing in other types of comparison goods are lacking
in the City. With the exception of the Vallco Shopping Mall, which has its own
challenges, most of the retail in the City serves daily needs and convenience-
oriented shoppers.
o There are also no major electronics or appliance stores such as Best Buy or Fry’s
in Cupertino, although Sears (in the general merchandise store category) carries
a large variety of appliances and may capture a larger share of resident
expenditures that would otherwise occur in stores dedicated to electronics and
appliances.
o The lack of clothing and apparel-related stores is due in part to the lack of
fashion-driven, destination retail centers in Cupertino. The exception may be
Vallco Shopping Center, however, Vallco has suffered from competition with
Valley Fair and other projects, leading to high vacancy and shoppers on
apparel-driven trips turning to destinations outside Cupertino.
• The BAE Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis suggests that a strong regional retail
environment in the overall Trade Area constrains opportunities for additional capture of
resident spending through new retail development in Cupertino itself. While it is true
that over the entire Trade Area there is not significant leakage, we believe that
Cupertino’s central location within the Trade Area as well as access to freeways and
major arterials creates the opportunity to introduce new retailers to the City, and
perhaps even to capture sales presently leaking out of the City to other parts of the
Trade Area.
• Cupertino has more jobs than employed residents, leading to a net inflow of workers
(31% of people employed in Cupertino live in San Jose, 16% live in Cupertino, and 34%
elsewhere in Santa Clara County). This daily inflow creates a significant opportunity for
well-located properties in Cupertino to be positioned as destination-oriented retail
development.
• In contrast to the City itself, a smaller number of persons work in the Trade Area than the
total number of employed residents. Because the Trade Area’s leakage is minimal,
people living outside the Trade Area must be shopping in the Trade Area.
• Daytime workers generate demand for purchases near their workplace, especially meals
eaten during the workday. Additional daytime or to/from work shopping opportunities
are created when shopping alternatives are near to or on the path of travel to/from
workplaces.
Due to the balanced overall Trade Area, some of the new sales needed to support new retail
development would need to be retained in the City, instead of occurring elsewhere in the Trade
Area. Since this process depends on shifting spending patterns and providing store types
targeted to local demographics, BAE provided estimates in a range of “low” and “high.” The
1132
14
“low” estimate assumes modest additional recapture of leaking sales, while the “high” assumes
a shift in spending patterns with well-located and well-merchandised new store types.
Summary of Demand Estimates
LowHigh
Through 2020
Demand Through 2020 (Units/Sq.Ft.)NANA
Demand Adjustments (a)NANA
Less: Entitled Projects NANA
Net Demand NANA
Through 2035
Demand Through 2035 (Units/Sq.Ft.)334,000521,000
Demand Adjustments (a)- -
Less: Entitled Projects 176,000176,000
Net Demand 158,000345,000
Notes:
Sources: City of Cupertino; BAE 2013.
Retail
Implications for General Plan Amendment
Making “high altitude” decisions about the amount and character of retail development and
redevelopment opportunities in Cupertino over the coming years is a primary goal of this
General Plan update process.
By way of background, there are eight projects with a retail component that are under
construction, approved, or planned in Cupertino. These projects, summarized in Table H-1 of
BAE’s Market Study, will bring a total of approximately 352,600 net new square feet of retail to
the City. The Study recommends that the following should be considered:
• Cupertino’s strong demographics (e.g. families with high incomes and education levels)
constitute a strong base of potential support for renovated or new retail facilities.
• The City has relatively few younger households and singles, indicating potential support
for smaller residential units (both for-sale and rental). The development of this sort of
housing stock, attracting younger residents, would shift retail demand.
• Retail in Cupertino must cater to a more diverse base of customers than reflected by the
City resident profile alone.
• The highly compensated workforce that provides a potential strong base of demand for
housing closer to work and for retail sales during the workday is somewhat tempered by
onsite food service and other amenities offered by major employers such as Apple.
The leakage study draws an empirical conclusion that if stores in categories leaking sales were
to be opened, those sales could be recaptured in the City. The degree to which this can be
1133
15
achieved will depend on competitive factors and availability of real estate with the correct
location and site attributes for these particular sorts of stores.
From an empirical perspective, the market analysis suggests that there is no additional need for
increased retail allocations beyond the existing 701,500 square feet to meet potential demand
during the planning period. However, the Vallco Shopping Center represents additional
available square feet of existing retail that could redeveloped or re-allocated (depending on
how it is redeveloped) to support efforts to attract additional retailers to Cupertino and increase
the City’s share of retail sales within the Retail Trade Area.
The Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis also comments that: “(n)one of the shopping centers in
Cupertino are ‘lifestyle’ centers, although Cupertino Village, The Oaks, and Vallco Shopping
Center have certain elements of “lifestyle” retail. This newer type of retail, which combines
upscale, specialty retail, dining, and entertainment in one shopping experience, has recently
been developed elsewhere in the Bay Area.” Exemplified by Santana Row in San Jose and Bay
Street in Emeryville, the Main Street project planned for Cupertino appears intended add a
similar type of experience to the City’s retail inventory.”
With respect to Vallco specifically, the Mall represents a mixed picture for Cupertino: Its anchor
department stores and entertainment options appear to draw shoppers to the City, but the
poor performance of the remainder of the Mall contributes to Cupertino’s weakness in
comparison goods shopping and destination retail. Vallco is the City’s greatest potential
redevelopment opportunity with implications for recapturing leaking retail sales, and creating a
so-called lifestyle or mixed-use environment. Vallco will be addressed in greater detail later in
this Report.
The purpose of this Report is to comment on how the various study areas might be positioned
or redeveloped to attract new and to retain existing retail in the City, notwithstanding the
proposed or in-development projects listed above. It should be noted that an impression could
be created that Vallco alone could recover retail sales that might be leaking from Cupertino. In
its present form, Vallco is not a viable retail project. Additionally, competitive market forces and
infrastructure are not taken into consideration in this empirical analysis. Alternatives to Vallco’s
present condition are discussed later in this Report.
1134
16
HISTORY, METHODOLOGY AND KEY RETAIL
TERMINOLOGY
History
By way of background, a brief history of how retail has evolved over the past century will provide
context for this Report and its findings. In the early 20th century, cars were a rarity. Most towns
and cities had downtown districts that served as the community’s commercial hub and were
characterized by a massing of retail that evolved to serve the community’s needs. Towns often
had their own homegrown department stores that sold a wide variety of goods. The best
known examples of these include Emporium and May Co. on the West Coast, Dayton’s and
Marshall Field in the Midwest, and Filene’s and Macy’s in the Northeast. These were
department stores in the truest sense, having separate departments under one roof for a variety
of goods including clothing and shoes, electronics, housewares, books and records, pets, home
goods, and the like.
When retail was clustered in a downtown or town square environment, there was not a need for
today’s ubiquitous suburban shopping center. In contrast, by the 1950’s, the automobile
became commonplace, and started a trend towards suburbanization. The need for shopping
centers was born. Over a period of time, these malls replaced downtown shopping districts in
the increasingly decentralized urban landscape.
As the advent of shopping malls began to erode the downtown shopping district’s market
share, discounters began to erode the traditional department store’s market share. Wal-Mart
and K-Mart started nationwide expansions. Even traditional department store companies
began to enter this world, perhaps the most notable example being Dayton-Hudson’s Target
division. At the same time, the suburban regional mall would often be anchored by department
store chains that expanded their market share by focusing on suburbs.
The next step in the evolution away from traditional department stores was the advent of
retailers who became more efficient by specializing in a particular “department.” Clustered
together in what have come to be known as power centers, these “big box” and “category
killer” stores were more convenient, focused narrowly on one category, but offered a wide
variety of merchandise within that category, developed supply and distribution advantages
extending from their narrower focus, and offered everyday low prices. They also started killing
off the departments in the department stores. In-turn, department stores increased their focus
on soft goods, thereby limiting the overall variety of merchandise and giving the consumer
fewer reasons to visit.
Like with many businesses, department store chains began to consolidate in order to increase
scale, decrease expenses, and maintain competitiveness … or simply to avoid going out of
business all together. By extension, the number and variety of regional mall anchor tenants
contracted, and by the 1990’s the contraction and consolidation trend of regional malls was in
full swing. In some instances, even traditional department stores (Kohl’s being one example)
began to abandon malls and join the category killers in power centers. With fewer anchors, so-
called “category killer” tenants finding each other in power centers, and the advent of the
1135
17
exurb, fewer and fewer truly successful regional malls and even fewer downtown shopping
districts remained.
Some department stores including Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney have evolved away from their
all-things-under-one-roof model to more closely resemble commodity retailers. In other words,
their product offerings are less distinguishable from what could be purchased in a variety of
other places and through a variety of retail channels. Furthermore, with the exception of chains
such as Nordstrom, Bloomingdale’s, Neiman Marcus and the like, department stores have
ceased to distinguish themselves for their service and environment.
With the homogenization of department stores has come the demise of many regional malls.
Certainly, there are many high-performing malls including Valley Fair in San Jose and Stanford
Shopping Center in Palo Alto. There are far more that are similar to Vallco or nearby Westgate
Shopping Center that have fallen by the wayside. As retail has evolved to today’s commodity
versus specialty norm, some of these will be revitalized or redeveloped altogether while others
will not. [1]
Commodity and Specialty Retail
As downtown shopping districts and regional malls declined, and big box, category killer
retailers proliferated, today’s “commodity” versus “specialty” paradigm was born. [2] At it’s
essence, today’s environment is about convenience and price versus experience.
Commodity retail goods and services are those goods and services that are purchased and
consumed on a regular basis from "primary" household funds, largely without emotional
attachment by the consumer, and at retailers and retail shopping centers offering the consumer
the combination of low price and convenience most suited to the consumer’s needs at a
particular moment. Examples of commodity retailers include local convenience stores to drug
stores, grocery stores, discounters and warehouse stores. A "commodity shopping center’s"
primary purpose is the aggregation of a number of commodity retailers in one location,
allowing for convenient cross-shopping. While habits may be developed over time (eg.
shopping at the same grocery store), consumers’ tend to view these retailers as interchangeable
and do not to have a strong connection to a commodity retailer’s brand or to a commodity
shopping venue. For the most part, internet shopping is an option most consistent with
purchasing commodity goods and services (see more in the discussion of omnichannel retail
below).
1136
18
Specialty retail goods and services, by contrast, are those goods and services that are
purchased on an optional basis by consumers using "discretionary funds” (ie. funds not
designated for basics like rent, food, and transportation), and selected and often consumed
during “free” or “discretionary” time (ie. when not working or tending to daily responsibilities).
Successful specialty shopping venues deliver a unique and attractive combination of tenant mix
and environment (ie. a sense of place), often reflecting the character of consumers in the
market or trade area in which they operate. Equally as important, these specialty shopping
areas lend themselves to extended consumer stays. An emotional "feeling" or “pleasure”
derived from the overall shopping "experience” is an important part of the consumer’s point of
reference. Successful specialty shopping venues, regardless of format, deliver a unique
combination of "product" (ie. shops) and “place” (ie. physical and conceptual environment),
unique and attractive to the consumer within the market or trade area in question.
The term “comparison goods,” which are goods that consumers do not purchase on a frequent
basis (ie. daily or weekly), and are more likely to cause consumers to compare price, quality, and
features than everyday items is often used interchangeably with “commodity” goods. Shoppers
are often willing to travel a greater distance to patronize destination retailers. Commodity and
specialty retailers, and shopping districts and malls can fit the definition of “destination” retail.
The distinction lies in the intent or desire to spend more time shopping to better understand
the product or choice of products as opposed to specialty retail, which is specifically limited to
instances where the shopping experience and environment are key, and quite likely involve an
entertainment or dining component. The distinction may also be nuanced: For example, in the
case of Whole Foods, the Apple Store, or Bass Pro sporting goods, each sells commodities,
however, the product and brand positioning, merchandising strategies, and environment or
“theater” are specialty in nature.
Active and Inactive Uses
Another important way to think about retail is in terms of active and inactive uses. “Active uses”
refers to situations where shoppers or pedestrians interact with built spaces even if they don’t
go inside to buy a good or service. Examples would include specialty retailers, restaurants,
some grocery or drug stores, and even a karate studio, art gallery, or real estate agency.
1137
19
By contrast “inactive uses” refer to situations where the flow of a retail district is broken so there
is a significant gap or in some other manner so that pedestrians don’t interact with the built
environment. Even active uses with limited hours may become inactive uses when they close
and become “dark” during non-business hours. Examples include offices, medical facilities,
auto repair, big box stores without outward-facing interactive displays (e.g. Costco, some
supermarkets and drug stores, some big-box retailers). Inactive uses can also be created
through poor design.
Gravity Side of the Trade Area
The “gravity side of the trade area” is defined as the general direction in the trade area from
which residents and daytime workers enter the trade area and to which they travel in order to
leave the area. From an operational definition perspective, much if not most retail goods and
services in Cupertino are located along Stevens Creek Blvd. and on the streets providing access
to I-280. The intersections of these streets are particularly important (eg. Stevens Creek and
Wolfe, and Stevens Creek and De Anza). This means that the “gravity side” of the trade area in
Cupertino can generally be defined as the area running along Stevens Creek between Wolfe
and Stelling, and along Wolfe and De Anza between Stevens Creek and Homestead Road.
Omnichannel Retail
Retail is now conducted through many channels (eg. traditional stores, catalogs, on-line, via
mobile devices, television, etc.). Omnichannel retail refers to the trend where the consumer
experience across these multiple retail channels is made seamless and consistent.
1138
20
Omnichannel consumers frequently use more than one channel simultaneously. For example, a
consumer might do research using a price check app or looking up product reviews while
looking at a product in a traditional retail store. Likewise, omnichannel retailers will track
customers across the various channels they utilize (catalog and on-line shopping, or on-line and
mobile shopping for example) increasing sale opportunities and more precisely targeting
marketing. Social media provides an opportunity to build relationships with consumers by
constructing a detailed customer profile and capitalizing on merchandising and advertising
initiatives.
“Simply put, it’s the notion that consumers use more than one channel (web, catalog, mobile,
store) to make a purchase. The idea reflects the fact that consumers don’t see channels, they
seek solutions: either a retailer satisfies a need or it doesn’t. Increasingly, consumers use the
digital channels to make a purchase decision even if that purchase is ultimately completed in a
store.
“An omni-channel go-to-market model is an idea whose time has come, at least according to
Macy’s Chairman, CEO, and President Terry Lundgren, who recently stated on the National
Retail Federation’s blog: ‘We talk a lot at Macy’s about omnichannel retailing. Our customer is
multi-dimensional. She is busy at work and out with friends. She always has her mobile device
in her hand. She’s active on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and a dozen other social
media sites… We want that customer to be able to interact with Macy’s no matter where she is
or how she shops. It makes no difference to us whether she buys something in our store or
online… or whether she is shopping from her desktop computer or her Droid or her iPad.
Macy’s best customers are those who shop us in-stores and online. We have a whole series of
strategies in place to drive our store customers to the Web, and our online customer to the
stores…Today’s customer is not monolithic. And that’s the way we are approaching our
customer.’” [3]
A November, 2012 “Shopping Centers Today” article summarizes omnichannel nicely: “The
idea is to favor no single retail channel (brick-and-mortar, mobile phone, catalogs) but instead
to sell things to people whenever, wherever and however they want. Omnichannel retail is
about providing a uniform experience and top-notch service in every exchange with the
customer.” The article goes on that distribution channels that once operated separately (ie.
something ordered from a catalog or online would be delivered to a customer’s house), are
merging so that real estate is now part of the picture (ie. something ordered may be picked up
the same or the next day at a local outlet). [4]
Omnichannel strategies work differently for commodity as opposed to specialty retailers. For
example, multiple retail channels might be used by a consumer to research and assist in
purchasing a particular commodity like a television, or to push out or target a promotion. By
contrast, a specialty retailer might use onnichannel strategies to drive customer traffic to a
bricks-and-mortar store, restaurant, or shopping district. Applicable to both commodity and
specialty retailers, the availability and use of multiple retail channels allow consumers to be
better informed. A byproduct of this better educated consumer is retail salespeople’s product
and competitor knowledge must match this better-informed consumer.
Today’s retail environment is challenging. Deborah Weinswig, a Citibank retail analyst, points
out that omnichannel retail also creates retailer-landlord opportunities by combining the touch
and feel of the brick-and-mortar experience with the excitement and impulse factor of
1139
21
web/mobile shopping (eg. tweet/food trucks, crowdsourcing). She goes on to point out that
retailers’ response to “tech titans” like Amazon have been insufficient when measured by
retailers having more than three times the sales of the tech titans, but half the market cap, half
the net income, and one fifth the cash. While the tech titans are schooling retailers and gaining
mindshare, brick-and-mortar retailers are fighting back. For example, Kohl’s was the first to fully
allocate costs to its online business, getting a clearer picture of the profitability of its online
business. Kohl’s also uses analytics to identify the stores that will be most profitable for “ship-
from-store” and “same-day delivery,” possibly from as few as 100 of Kohl’s 1,100+ stores.
When interviewed for this study, the Macy’s real estate director pointed out that Macy’s is
investing heavily in its web presence.
L ifestyle and Hybrid Centers
With respect to so-called lifestyle and hybrid commodity-specialty projects, ULI’s Professional
Real Estate Development manual states: “Early lifestyle centers successfully combined desirable
retail shops with appealing architecture and a variety of outdoor settings spawning the lifestyle
center. [… ] These early centers were, in part driven by a trend in which small specialty retailers
faced a shortage of high quality specialty retail space at the same moment that regional mall
failures were accelerating. The dominant new commodity retail and shopping center formats
had, in fact, left small store specialty retailers with few reliable anchors, and, developers with no
clearly defined shopping center template to replicate, spawning the ill-defined and somewhat
chaotic lifestyle center concept. Most malls failed to function as places conducive to social
interaction and connection to community […] Roy Higgs noted a ‘Need to create a powerful
and different sense of place. This is especially true of mixed-use developments where, very
often, it is the space between the buildings that requires more design attention.’”
The same text notes that hybrid commodity-specialty projects “…are generally a risky option
for a shopping center developer because the elements of price and convenience that underlie
optimal commodity shopping center development generally weaken the elements of better
product and place-making essential to well-executed specialty retail centers. Likewise, the
higher costs and place-making principles central to specialty retail, degrade the
price/convenience equation essential to commodity retailers.” [5]
1140
22
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF STUDY AREAS
The general plan amendment, sometimes called a GPA, will focus on identifying land use,
economic development, and urban design changes for seven study areas, shown on the
following map:
The study areas together comprise 121.12 acres and contain approximately 1.9 million square
feet of existing commercial improvements, 126 hotel rooms, and 423 residential units. The
study areas range in size from approximately one acre (the Mirapath site study area) to over 60
acres (the Vallco Shopping District study area). Each study area is located east of Highway 85 in
areas with existing commercial or office development, mostly adjacent to high volume traffic
corridors: Stevens Creek Boulevard, Interstate 280, and Homestead Road.
Most of these sites are developed with existing uses. While complete demolition and
redevelopment of these sites is one possible approach, new development facilitated by the
GPA could also consist of either redevelopment of existing buildings, selective demolition of
existing structures and replacement with new construction, or new infill development adjacent
to existing uses. Detailed descriptions of the study areas presented in the September, 2013
“Settings and Opportunities Report” are augmented here with an analysis and discussion of
each site’s utility and the steps necessary to implement successful retail development or
redevelopment.
1141
23
Study Area #1 – Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire
The Cupertino Inn and the Goodyear Tire study area, comprised of two parcels totaling 3.21
acres, includes both the Cupertino Inn and the Goodyear Tire store located at the northwest
corner of I-280 and De Anza Boulevard, both owned by John Vidovich. The Cupertino Inn is a
full service boutique business hotel that offers 125 rooms as well as event facilities. The
Goodyear Tire store is an auto service center offering tire, oil change and other automotive care
services. The study area is adjacent to the Homestead Square Shopping Center that is being
redeveloped with a 24-hour Safeway as the anchor tenant. The site is effectively already a
mixed-use site by virtue of having adjacent hospitality and retail components. The location
adjacent to a major arterial and a freeway on-ramp makes it less desirable for residential
development.
From a retail potential perspective, the site is more notable for adjacent retail redevelopment
than it is as a redevelopment site in and of itself. The adjacent 15-acre Homestead Square
Shopping Center is presently being redeveloped. The boxes are fully leased to Safeway at
55,000 square feet (planned opening April, 2014), Ross 22,000 square feet, Michaels 25,000
square feet, Steinmart 32,000 square feet, ULTA 13,000 square feet, and FedEx 6,000 square
feet. Chase Bank will occupy a 5,000 square foot pad, and there will be 12,000 square feet of
shops. A 17,000 square foot Rite Aid pharmacy is open and operating, and most of the other
tenants will take possession in the 1st quarter of 2014. A site plan follows. Ownership feels the
site is unique as it is one of the last power center development opportunities in the Valley with
all surface parking.
1142
24
The same owner owns the adjacent property occupied by a Goodyear retail outlet. Goodyear’s
lease will not be renewed, and an application for this project is expected to be submitted to the
City for review. The Goodyear parcel is intended for redevelopment as a 10 to 11-story hotel
project with ground floor retail that is expected to act as an amenity for the hotel, and
potentially additional hotel rooms as well as a conference center. There is a reciprocal access
agreement between Vidovich and Homestead Square Shopping Center presently being
redeveloped by its owner, the Sobrato Organization. This agreement does not impose any use
restrictions upon the Study Area parcels.
Real Estate Evaluation
The study area is tucked into the corner of North De Anza Boulevard and I-280 without direct
access, making it a destination as opposed to a convenience-oriented site from a retail
perspective. Access to and from the site and circulation between the Study Area and
Homestead Square Shopping Center is limited to the established reciprocal rights with the
adjacent projects. Since there is a lack of retail space and land for development of additional
retail space in the immediate area, especially north of I-280 and continuing to El Camino Real,
this barrier to entry makes this Study Area more viable for retail development than it would be
in an easier to build environment.
Retail Market Evaluation
Given the limited retail development opportunities in the area discussed above, and adjacency
to what will be one of the two dominant retail projects in Cupertino located north of I-280, the
Study Area has good long-term prospects for continued operation as a retail development.
Service and food uses that serve the hotel’s clientele may act as a bridge between the Study
Area and Homestead Square. Potential uses consistent with creating this “bridge” might
include full-service sit-down restaurants, service uses such as cleaners, salon or spa, or a fitness
studio. If the study area were to be developed more intensely, for example with a 10-11 story
1143
25
hotel with a meeting center, the need for convenience retail, restaurants, and service uses
would be even more acute. In the case, a clearly-marked, appealing, and safe path-of-travel
between the study area and adjacent Homestead Square Shopping Center, and the inclusion of
both sit-down and convenience restaurant and service uses in particular should be encouraged.
Site Evaluation
The only access to/from the subject site is from southbound De Anza; no northbound access is
available because of an unbroken median on De Anza. Additional access through adjacent
Homestead Square is established by a reciprocal access agreement. Circulation via Celeste
Court is restricted by the locked gate between the Cupertino Inn and the adjacent self-storage
facility and apartment complex. Parking appears to be adequate for existing uses, however, no
plans were available for review in connection with any planned redevelopment of the Goodyear
Tire site.
Place-making Considerations
Given present uses and the project's de facto location behind the primary retail project, uses
are placed on the Study Area as well and as functionally as could be as expected. No plans
were available for review for any planned redevelopment of the Goodyear Tire site. The hotel
has public meeting and gathering areas and a pool area within its facility. Project monument
signage is deteriorating and inconspicuous due to being obscured by landscaping. Overall, the
facility is dated.
Stakeholder Feedback
The owner’s representative is desirous of adding density for redevelopment of the hotel as a
taller building with additional amenities such as a rooftop bar/lounge. If no additional hotel
allocation were to be made as part of this process, the existing hotels in the City would continue
to enjoy an artificial cap on room supply, and, by extension, higher room rates resulting from
the constrained supply of rooms.
Study Area #2 – City Center
This Study Area, located along Steven’s Creek Boulevard between Torre Avenue and De Anza
Boulevard, is comprised of eight parcels totaling 12.51 acres and encompasses the City Center
Towers, private open space, City Center Apartments, Park Center Apartments, and surface (240
stalls) and structured (3 levels down and 2 levels up) parking facilities. This mixed-use
development includes a variety of components including residential, office, commercial and
retail space.
The City Center study area incorporates a mix of uses ranging from office to residential with a
small amount of retail that principally serves tenants within and near the Study Area. The
various uses include the City Center Towers (169,400 square feet of office space) with some
ancillary retail uses (approximately 7,000 square feet not including Apple’s cafeteria which is
located just outside the Study Area boundary), Cupertino Park, City Center Apartments (99
units), Park Center Apartments (120 units), and surface and structured parking. Adjacent uses
are also mixed residential and commercial, including the Kimpton Cypress Hotel (224 rooms)
and Cali Mill Plaza that offers café style outdoor seating, and additional Apple leased office
space.
1144
26
Prometheus, the owner, has a conceptual proposal for the redevelopment of the surface
parking lot adjacent to the office towers into a 400,000 square foot 10-story office building with
4 levels of below-grade parking and an additional 4 levels of parking to the existing parking
garage. No additional retail is anticipated as a part of those plans, although there could be
some service-retail depending on tenant needs. Any parking afforded to any retail would need
to be in structures, further reinforcing that any retail would be limited as a tenant amenity. The
7,000 square feet of existing retail that is immediately adjacent to, although outside of the Study
Area defined above, will remain.
1145
27
Real Estate Evaluation
The Study Area is located on Stevens Creek Boulevard between South De Anza Boulevard and
Wolfe Road in the center of Cupertino's business and retail core, and close to the Civic Center.
The existing office product’s primary competition is located at the southeast corner of Stevens
Creek and North De Anza Boulevards where there is a sizable inventory of garden office space.
The Study Area contains no retail space, but there is a small amount of retail space as well as a
boutique hotel immediately adjacent to the west. Despite being mid-block and median-bound
for access purposes, the small amount of retail has reasonable long-term viability given its small
size and primary purpose of serving the Study Area. However, the retail has little synergy with
other nearby projects, and has no orientation to or visibility from adjacent streets. It should be
noted that Apple is the major office tenant. Apple’s employee commissary, located adjacent to
the project site, features extremely reasonable prices, good food quality and variety, and
inviting indoor and outdoor dining areas, capturing much Apple-generated foodservice
demand. This "closed architecture" further limits retail potential on-site.
Retail Market Evaluation
Uses most appropriate for the site include office, residential, and retail that serves the daytime
office population. For retail, convenience-oriented or lifestyle uses would fare best (e.g.
restaurant, salon, health club, convenience or sundry store). Restaurants with a nighttime
gathering element (e.g. a bar or more casual sit-down restaurant with a bar component), in
particular, might do well. Apple’s commissary and other services to employees limit the viability
of other retail and especially restaurant users establishing themselves at this site.
Site Evaluation
The limited retail offerings on the block have no visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard or side
streets. The project’s main entrance from Stevens Creek Boulevard is mid-block and median-
1146
28
bound. Secondary access is available from Torre Avenue and by way of other internal streets.
Right-in right-out access is available on South De Anza Boulevard. Daytime parking demand
appears to be accommodated on-site, though the designated retail parking is not in close
proximity to the on-site retail.
Place-making Considerations
Fundamentally, City Center is not a retail site. The project would need to be redesigned to
create a retail statement, and better access and wayfinding signage would need to be provided
to attract customers from outside of the Study Area. Only limited retail can be supported by
City Center's office and residential population alone. Attractive outdoor and public gathering
areas have been developed at City Center as well as on adjacent projects. Clearly, thought has
been given to public gathering areas, with some providing protection from the elements. Some
wayfinding signage is provided, however, it is not oriented to retail uses. Materials and
amenities such as public seating areas are provided, and are of good quality.
Functionality Evaluation
Trucks block internal streets and by extension vehicular circulation when making deliveries. This
impacts all site users and in some cases makes for less than ideal (or even unsafe) conditions for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Study Area #3 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
Study Area #4 – Mirapath
While the PG&E and Mirapath sites are two separate Study Areas, for purposes of this Report,
because they are adjacent and would function as one site for retail development purposes, they
will be discussed as if they were one Study Area. These adjacent Study Areas are located on
the city’s northern border with Sunnyvale and are surrounded by industrial, low- to medium-
density residential, and an adjacent small neighborhood-serving strip retail center located at
the southeast corner of Homestead Road and North Blaney Avenue. If the two sites were to be
developed together, the overall site may be appropriate for mixed-use development with both
commercial and residential uses. If this approach were undertaken, careful consideration
should be given to planning the retail component with access and visibility and access in mind.
In the case of PG&E, the Study Area includes an approximately 21.91-acre parcel of land used
as a regional customer service center, training facility, and equipment staging and storage
facility. There is a large amount of vacant land. By way of background, PG&E is comprised of
two entities: A publically traded corporation, and a public trust. This land is held by the trust,
complicating matters if and when PG&E might initiate a sale of the Study Area land.
The Mirapath Study Area encompasses one 0.98-acre parcel owned and operated by Mirapath,
a data entry and lab infrastructure provider. The parcel fronts North Blaney Avenue and backs
up to the PG&E Study Area. Existing improvements consist of a single-story building in front
with a two-story structure behind.
1147
29
Real Estate Evaluation
The Study Area is located in a predominantly residential area that, with the exception of the
site’s current use and small adjacent commercial uses is characterized by low to medium density
residential development. Existing power centers such as Target in Cupertino and Sunnyvale
and Costco in Santa Clara presently serve the Cupertino Trade Area. Despite barriers to
development such as its “inside” location, poor freeway access (although there would be
freeway visibility for well-positioned signs), and need for mitigations on the surrounding
residential area, the site may be viable for development of a big box commodity retail use such
as Costco or Wal-Mart if for no other reason than the supply constraints on adequately sized
sites for these users in the Trade Area. Emphasis should be placed on this site having potential
viability due to its size and supply constraints, and not because it possesses site attributes that
otherwise would make it attractive for retail development. The appropriateness of placing
large-scale retail abutting non- or less-compatible uses will likely be considered should such
development be proposed on this site.
Retail Market Evaluation
The only viable use for the Study Area would be a destination big box user, such as a Costco
(which has expressed interest) or Wal-Mart. Perhaps two smaller big box users such as Winco
and Dick’s, both of which are presently expanding their presence in the Bay Area, sharing the
site in lieu of the big box would make some sense. In either scenario, some smaller-scale users
that frequently co-locate with these large anchors might then become viable co-tenants
depending on site planning constraints. If not for the capacity constraint posed by the lack of
large developable sites in the trade area, this site would not be considered for retail
development. That it has been considered reinforces that market demand for new
1148
30
development in the Trade Area is likely greater than supply of large developable sites or as
allowed by current zoning regulations. Rezoning the Mirapath study area from ML (light
industrial) to CG (general commercial) almost certainly makes sense. This property is small,
fronts a thoroughfare, and is adjacent to another commercial use (the small shopping center to
the north). Allowing this study area the flexibility to evolve into a small office or convenience
retail use almost certainly would have greater utility for the owner, be more compatible with
surrounding uses, and yield a higher residual land value than would a light industrial use.
Site Evaluation
Site access and visibility are poor. The site could have some freeway visibility if well placed and
large enough signs were to be permitted. Visibility from Homestead Road is poor and limited
from North Blaney Avenue. The small corner strip center at the hard corner of Homestead and
Blaney means that the site has a mid-block location on both arterials, with no signal on either.
These significant impediments to site access could be rectified through the integration of the
corner strip center into the Study Area and/or the addition of traffic signals on both arterials
(likely required traffic mitigations).
The Mirapath Study Area’s value is primarily to provide a secondary access point to the PG&E
Study Area. Required significant traffic mitigations should be expected, possibly further
complicating access. As entitlements and land use designations are considered, treating both
Study Areas and the corner strip center as one integrated site is recommended.
Despite barriers to entry, and given the site’s mid-block position with no direct freeway
connection, depth, and poor visibility, a Costco or other large destination retailer with strong
drawing characteristics would likely be the only sort of use that might succeed in breaking this
site free for retail development.
Study Area #5 – Cupertino Village
Located at the southwest corner of Homestead and Wolfe Roads, the Cupertino Village Study
Area lies at the northern end of Cupertino at the city’s border with Sunnyvale. Cupertino Village
is comprised of three parcels totaling 12.51 acres and is home to an 113,200 square foot
shopping center directly across from the proposed Apple Campus 2. Cupertino Village is a
multi-cultural center with over 40 retail businesses including 99 Ranch Market, Starbucks, Joy
Luck Place restaurant, and the Duke of Edinburgh Pub and Restaurant. Adjacent uses include
hotels (directly south, reciprocal access with the Study Area), small office uses, and multi- and
single-family residential. Apple plans to build their second campus (Apple Campus 2) directly
across Wolfe Road. With this in mind, Cupertino Village serves an important role in the
northeast part of the City, particularly in light of the Apple Campus 2’s coming development.
Cupertino Village, no doubt, would be a desirable housing site, and housing would likely yield a
higher residual land value than would retail. If repurposing the site for residential development
were ever desired, the loss of this retail amenity may not be in the best interest of the
community and should be carefully considered.
1149
31
Owner Kimco has worked on redevelopment plans for the Study Area since 2009, with a
majority of its activity in the last year. Entitlements allow for a total of 25,000 square feet of new
retail in two structures known as Retail A and B, and a new parking structure to increase parking
capacity.
1150
32
Over the last 12 months, Kimco has refreshed the architecture of the buildings, acknowledging
Apple Campus 2 across the street, while trying to work within the previous entitlements.
Ownership recognizes that this center has been extremely successful as an Asian-oriented
shopping center with both a commodity/daily-needs and a lifestyle component, and
acknowledges strong retail performers such as 99 Ranch. The renovation will have to be
sensitive to existing customer base while also attempting to capture some of the value
represented by Apple Campus 2 as well as the younger demographic in the area. There is an
opportunity to diversify the tenant base with new buildings (e.g. quick service restaurant or
other daily good amenities).
The renovation is now anticipated to update the look and feel of the center and try to attract a
broad mix of tenants who compliment the many Asian-oriented tenants presently on site.
Reinvestment is planned to update older facades, bringing them to current standards and using
new materials, cleaning up building lines, and opening up gateways for a more modern
appearance. The renovated site will seek to make common areas more conducive for “hanging
out” with seating areas and other features.
Real Estate Evaluation
The Study Area is located at one of the major intersections between I-280 and El Camino Real,
and has close freeway access. Other competing retail areas include Stevens Creek and Wolfe
Road (Vallco Shopping Center if redeveloped), Ranch 99 located at South De Anza Boulevard
and McClellan Road, and the El Camino Real retail corridor in Sunnyvale. The site is well
positioned given project spacing between Stevens Creek and El Camino Real, and Vallco's
present condition. The site’s location across Wolfe Road from the planned Apple Campus 2 is a
singular strength as well as an identifying feature for the project.
Retail Market Evaluation
Cupertino Village and the Marketplace are perhaps the closest examples in the City to a so-
called lifestyle center. The Asian community serving tenant mix has proven to be a strong one,
with daily-needs convenience-oriented users, foodservice and specialty tenants, and hospitality.
An expansion of the Ranch 99 market should be explored, along with additional daily needs
uses such as a drug store, boutique foodservice, and service uses (eg. cleaners, salon, office
supply or stationary, etc.) due to the proximity to the new Apple campus and adjacent
hospitality uses.
Site Evaluation
The site has good visibility from all directions, though it is somewhat obscured in places due to
landscaping. Access is good with right-in right-out access on both Homestead Road and Wolfe
Roads, and access to and from all directions being possible at the signalized access point at the
Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue intersection, and signalized U-turns at the Homestead and
Wolfe Roads intersection. There are significant barriers to building new shopping centers in
Cupertino. The combination of daily needs, foodservice, and hospitality users is well suited for
this corner, particularly in light of the newly proposed Apple campus.
Site Plan Recommendations
Cupertino Village is well located at a prime signalized intersection. Parking, visibility, and
access are all good. Internal circulation can be a bit difficult due to tight drive aisles, and the
45-degree orientation of buildings to the street grid. Ranch 99 parking is routinely impacted
1151
33
during the afternoon peak shopping period, though parking on the south portion of the project
is generally more available. A pedestrian bridge across Wolfe Road to the Apple Campus 2
would be an excellent amenity for both the Study Area and Apple. The owner points out, we
believe correctly, that the main question is how to maximize density on the site while
maintaining balance with the surrounding uses and the community.
Place-making Considerations
As discussed, the 45-degree orientation makes parking and circulation less efficient than it
otherwise might be, and its design further complicates widening the sidewalks in front of retail
spaces that currently are not wide enough to accommodate outdoor seating areas and
comfortable strolling through the various retail offerings. There are some nice courtyard and
outdoor seating areas with protected promenades in some areas but not in others. Generally,
there is inadequate protection from the elements. Little to no wayfinding signage makes the
already difficult circulation even more of a challenge, however, it should be noted that tenant
signs are prominent. Landscaping also hinders visibility in places. Outdoor seating is generally
provided by tenants for the use of their customers, but the lack of project seating and
uniformity of outdoor amenities is a lost opportunity for keeping customers on site and cross-
shopping. There is neither a particularly strong sense of place nor any historic façade, however,
it should be noted that the "Town & Country" environment is a pleasant one, and the Ranch 99
front elevation heralds back to the era in which the center was originally built. Cupertino
Village’s more contemporary design should add curb appeal and be more compatible with the
Apple Campus 2, however, incorporation of design elements showcasing the project’s (and the
region’s) town-and-country roots might be worthy of consideration.
Functionality Evaluation
The loading area behind Ranch 99 is unattractive and perhaps dangerous with delivery trucks
parked haphazardly and making deliveries, preventing motorists from easily maneuvering in the
same space. Some improvements are planned with the planned renovation of the shopping
center. These changes may provide some relief.
Study Area #6 – Vallco Shopping Mall
Vallco is addressed at length in the next section of this Report.
Study Area #7 – Stevens Creek Office Center
This approximately 6.99 acre Study Area, located along Stevens Creek Boulevard (between
Saich Way and North Stelling Road), is improved with 108,500 square feet of office and 5,000
square feet of retail space (a small retail strip tenanted by Peet’s Coffee and Panera Bread). The
existing buildings are one to two stories with on-site amenities such as covered parking,
common areas, and a gym for office workers. The Study Area is directly between a Whole Foods
to the west and a small retail redevelopment project immediately east. Additionally, a Target is
located across Saich Way. Single-family residential neighborhoods are located to the north and
northwest of the Study Area, a YMCA is located immediately north of the site, and there is other
garden office space in the immediate area. Stevens Creek Office Center is already a mixed-use
project with adjacent office and retail uses. The site might be desirable for residential
1152
34
development, more dense office development, additional retail development, or a combination
of any or all of these uses. With respect to a mixed-use redevelopment of the site, particular
attention should be given to access, parking, and visibility for the retail component of the site.
Real Estate Evaluation
Stevens Creek Office Center Study Area, centrally located in the City, is an older garden office
development that, while appearing a bit dated, the owners try to maintain in a first class
manner: Siding was recently replaced, and roof and mechanical systems are reported to have
considerable remaining useful life. The project has a successful small retail component with
Peet’s Coffee and Panera Bread.
An adjacent property, Saich Way Station (see “New Retail Project” on the aerial above), has
been fully entitled for redevelopment as a retail center, and a leasing campaign is underway.
That project will likely have two restaurants with the balance being non-food uses. This
redevelopment project is notable as it provides access from the Study Area to Saich Way (a
signalized intersection), and also due to the integration of the Study Area’s retail with retail on
the hard corner. Because of this adjacent project, the Study Area may be a candidate for
further repositioning as a retail project, particularly if cross access with Whole Foods could be
established. It should be noted that this connection was explored and rejected during the
development of the Whole Foods project in 2005 due to grading difficulties. This concept
could be explored again in connection with a complete renovation of the Stevens Creek Office
Center.
Retail Market Evaluation
In its present configuration, the site is best suited for daytime population-serving retail uses
such as restaurant (quick-serve or full-service), and service uses. There is some competing quick
1153
35
serve restaurant space (Starbucks, Noah’s Bagels) at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek and
North De Anza Boulevards, and a number of commodity box stores in the immediate area (TJ
Maxx, Party City, Home Goods). Once the adjacent retail redevelopment project is built, the
Study Area will enjoy ingress and egress on Saich Way, have all turning movements available at
the signal at Stevens Creek and Saich Way, and no longer be “median bound.” This improved
access and the Target co-tenancy will be key attributes for which commodity retailers who
prefer positioning stores near Target, and daily-needs retailer such as a drug stores.
Consequently, all of these uses would become potential retail uses for this Study Area. For
these reasons, continuation of the retail portion of Stevens Creek Office Center as it is presently
configured, or a partial or complete redevelopment of the Study Area as a retail project are
both viable options.
Site Evaluation
The site has good visibility from both eastbound and westbound traffic on Stevens Creek
Boulevard with right-in right-out access from Stevens Creek Boulevard and from all turns on
Alves Drive at the north end of the project (providing access back to Saich Way and the
signalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard). The Study Area’s overall parking ratio is 3.3
spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable space, and the retail in particular is under parked and
of poor design and circulation (e.g. narrow and dead-end drive aisle), reliance on compact
stalls, and lack of reciprocal access to adjacent retail to the east.
As discussed above, the proposed retail redevelopment project immediately adjacent to the
Study Area will have a reciprocal access and parking agreement with the Study Area,
significantly improving access and circulation to the site. This new site plan will alleviate some
1154
36
of the issues just noted. In addition to other reasons noted here, these improvements make the
Study Area a potential candidate for redevelopment as a retail project.
Taking advantage of the improved access, circulation, and parking will be key to maximizing the
Study Area’s potential. If the site remains primarily an office project, there is probably little that
could be done except restriping stalls to maximize stall size (given the limited area available for
parking) and posting signs stating parking is limited to 30 or 60 minutes (limiting, for example,
students using Panera as a long-term homework hangout) as well as improving way-finding
signage. If the balance of the site is to be redeveloped as retail, then creating entry gateways
from both Stevens Creek and Saich Way, and an overall site plan that maximizes visibility and
parking, while simultaneously simplifying circulation would be of utmost importance. In either
scenario, creating delivery zones to minimize congestion caused by double-parked trucks is
important.
Place-making Considerations
The Study Area is a well-maintained suburban garden-style office project. Any opportunity to
create pedestrian and/or auto paths of travel between the Study Area and the new retail project
to the east and the Whole Foods to the west should be encouraged. The retail portion of the
Study Area benefits from attractive outdoor areas, however, the outdoor area’s orientation does
a better job of creating “curb appeal” to Stevens Creek Boulevard than it does providing as
appealing an amenity as it might, making it less appealing to users than a more protected area
might be. The introduction of additional protection from the elements as well as some
protection from street noise could make the outdoor area more pleasant in the summer months
and more usable during cooler, rainy seasons. Buildings and retail parking areas are well
identified, but wayfinding signage for the overall Study Area as well as signage directing traffic
through the project to the Alves Drive exit is missing.
While it impacts the adjacent retail redevelopment project and not the Study Area, it is worth
noting an opinion from an individual knowledgeable of that project’s entitlement process that
policy makers appear to believe that retailers will locate where they want them to, and cited
under-parked retail on the hard corner of Stevens Creek and Saich Way as an example (while
this may be parked to code, it nonetheless may be underparked from a demand perspective).
That these spaces will be leased should not be taken as evidence that the site plan is ideal or
functional, but rather as evidence of a general undersupply of retail space in the City. These
tenants will be looking for opportunities to relocate, and there will be ongoing implications for
leasing the balance of the project. Conversely, the City required cross-access with the Study
Area that it is reported to do elsewhere in the City. While this sort of cross-access will not
necessarily make Stevens Creek a walkable shopping environment, it does foster a better
overall retail environment, albeit occasionally to the betterment or detriment of a given
landowner.
Functionality Evaluation
Both the retail and the office portions of the project are congested and under parked. The lack
of service and loading areas leads to delivery trucks double parking, adding to congestion.
Continuity of Place Evaluation
The Study Area’s owner has evaluated redeveloping the property, evaluating a variety of uses
from mid-rise office to residential to a variety of retail concepts. Like with many such
1155
37
evaluations, the allowed density has a significant impact on whether a particular redevelopment
scenario might be justified by the required investment, and to take development, leasing, and
construction risk as opposed to maintaining the status quo given the project’s occupancy and
rental rates. To date, the status quo has prevailed.
1156
38
VALLCO SHOPPING MALL
This Study Area, located on either side of Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek and I-280 and
outlined below in a black dashed line, is comprised of 16 parcels. Ownership is split among
seven owners and includes the Vallco Shopping Mall, and adjacent commercial and mixed-use
properties. The Study Area is adjacent to the recently entitled Main Street project, the under
construction Rose Bowl project, and to office space owned and used by Apple. It is
immediately south of the proposed Apple Campus 2 and the Cupertino Village study area, both
of which are located just north of I-280. This Study Area has historically been the commercial
heart of Cupertino, however, Vallco itself has suffered for many years.
The Vallco Shopping Mall consists of 14 parcels and contains the 1.3 million square foot mall
anchored by Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney. Various pads comprising the mall are either owned
or operated on a long-term basis.
There are various opportunities for this Study Area to be explored including:
1157
39
• Identify a viable, community-based strategy for revitalizing the current Vallco Mall and
broader Study Area so that it remains a regional shopping destination,
• Explore opportunities to create a walkable, vibrant, mixed-use “downtown” within the
Vallco Shopping District that can serve Cupertino residents, workers and visitors,
• Explore the possibility of incorporating public or recreational uses,
• Ensure future development is more cohesive by creating better connections,
architectural relationships, common spaces and parking between individual
properties/ownerships, and
• Consider creating a specific plan with specific detail and directions for future
infrastructure improvements.
Background and History
The mall was originally constructed between 1974 and 1979. In 1988, the lower level was
converted to retail from a former parking lot at a $20 million cost, increasing the total store
count from 140 to 190. [6] The construction type is structural steel and concrete block frame,
with masonry and concrete exterior.
Despite these efforts, increased competition from other regional malls such as Stanford
Shopping Center, and in particular Valley Fair which opened 1986 began to take market share
from Vallco. Thereafter, while its competitors renovated, expanded, and re-tenanted to meet
market demands, Vallco languished with incomplete development, defaults from prior
ownerships, prolonged and unrealized redevelopment plans, management changes, and other
set-backs.
After beginning in the 1990s, the emptying of the mall continued into the mid 2000’s. One
widely and commonly-cited reason for Vallco’s decline was a mismatch between Vallco’s mid-
range stores and Cupertino and the surrounding area’s growing affluence and changing ethnic
makeup, however, this only tells part of the story. The Balance of the story lies in the
competitive nature of regional mall operation, leasing, and management: Vallco was unable to
compete with the much larger and more sophisticated operators of Stanford and Valley Fair. [6,
7]
Real Estate Attributes
The Vallco Shopping Mall is centrally located in both the City of Cupertino and the Trade Area
at the NWC of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road. This is the second busiest intersection south of
I-280 in Cupertino after Stevens Creek and De Anza. The Vallco site is bordered Stevens Creek,
Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and I-280. [8]
• Stevens Creek Boulevard (31,845 ADT, 2007) is an east-west six-lane divided arterial that
connects western Cupertino to downtown San Jose (via West San Carlos Street).
1158
40
Stevens Creek Boulevard provides access to SR 85, I-280 and Lawrence Expressway via
interchanges.
• Wolfe Road (27,390 ADT, 2009) is a four-to-six-lane north-south roadway that bisects
Vallco Shopping Mall, provides access to I-280 via a partial cloverleaf interchange.
North of Stevens Creek Boulevard the roadway is designated as an arterial in the City of
Cupertino General Plan; south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, called Miller Avenue, it is
designated as a major collector. It extends north to the City of Sunnyvale and south to
the City of Saratoga.
• Vallco Parkway (2,880 ADT, 2009), a less than 1/2 mile six-lane, east-west roadway,
connects Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. Several entitled development projects
border Vallco Parkway including JC Penney, Rose Bowl, and Main Street. Vallco
Parkway’s lane configurations will be modified in conjunction with these development
projects to four travel lanes with some on-street parking, and two additional traffic lights
will be added at Finch Avenue (Main Street) and at the new entrance to the Main Street
garage between Finch and Tantau Avenues.
• I-280 (159,000 ADT, 2012) borders the north boundary of Vallco Shopping Mall. I-280
provides easy access from Cupertino to San Jose to the east, and to Peninsula
communities and San Francisco to the north.
• Public transportation serves the Vallco site. VTA, VTA Express, and VTA Limited bus
service are all offered with stops at the Mall.
Fundamental Site Attributes
The Vallco Shopping Mall has excellent visibility from all directions as well as visibility of the
project’s approximately 80’ foot tall monument sign which can be seen from I-280. Access is
available from both Stevens Creek (right in, right out only), and Wolfe Road (RIRO, slip lanes
north of the pedestrian bridge, and a signalized access point south of the pedestrian bridge).
Internal circulation allows access to all major parking lots and structures as well as access under
Wolfe Road. Parking of 4,886 stalls is provided in a combination of surface lots and parking
structures. The overall parking ratio for the project is 3.8:1,000 s.f. of GLA.
Land Use Designations, Zoning and Land Use Policies
Policy 2-30: Maintain and enhance as a regional commercial area (including hotel), office, and
entertainment center with supporting residential development at up to 35
du/acre. Create a master plan to define the mix of land uses. Encourage
daytime and nighttime activities. Development agreement expired in 2006.
Height limits of 60’ if a retail component, and 45’ if no retail component. Focus
on better integration with surrounding uses.
Source: Cupertino General Plan, 2005
Land Use: South Vallco Park Special Center (in 2005 General Plan)
Heart of the City Specific Plan
South Vallco Master Plan
1159
41
Current Land Use
Future Land Use
Note (a): Mixed-Use development now under construction
Source: South Vallco Master Plan
Zoning: P (Regional Shopping), and P (CG, ML, O, Hotel, Regional Shopping, Res)
Source: Heart of the City Specific Plan
(a)
1160
42
Competitive Landscape
The area along Stevens Creek from ¼ mile east of Wolfe to ¼ mile west of De Anza represents
the focal area for retail in Cupertino. There are no projects in the immediate area that compete
directly with Vallco. Valley Fair and Santana Row (approx. five miles east), Westgate Mall
(approx. three miles southeast), Sunnyvale Town Center (approx. four miles north), and Stanford
Shopping Center (approx. thirteen miles northwest) represent the next closest regionally-
oriented retail projects.
Valley Fair, San Jose/Santa Clara
Westfield’s Valley Fair Shopping Center opened in 1986. Presently 1,477,393 square feet, the
Mall is home to 272 retailers including Nordstrom, Macy’s, Apple and Cartier producing $494.9
million in annual sales from over 16 million annual customer visits. Valley Fair is often cited as
the highest performing mall in California. A new food court called the Dining Terrace opened
in November, 2013, and a Bloomingdales is under consideration as a new anchor.
Per the Macy’s representative, the Valley Fair Macy’s is one of their highest grossing stores in
the United States. Macy’s is discussing locating a new Bloomingdale’s unit at Valley Fair.
Westfield is exploring a 200,000 square foot expansion to accommodate Bloomingdale’s and a
movie theater.
Westfield recently remodeled its food court and created what it now calls a “dining terrace.”
1161
43
This amenity creates a place for people to gather, mingle, and linger. Lighting, materials, and
the inside-outside connection expand the open environment during warmer seasons.
Banquettes, tables that can be moved together, and internet stations allow visitors with various
needs (groups, families, couples) to patronize the dining terrace.
Santana Row, San Jose
Opened in 2003, Santana Row is a 647,000 square foot mixed-use project with retail, hospitality,
office, and residential components. There are over 3,500 parking stalls supporting the 70 shops,
20 restaurants, the 212 room Hotel Valencia, 622 rental units, 219 condominium units, and
65,000 square feet of office space.
Westgate Center, San Jose
A former regional mall that fell out of favor in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s, Westgate Center
has been “demalled” and presently operates as a 645,000 square foot power center with over
50 tenants including anchors Wal-Mart, Target, Nordstrom Rack, Burlington Coat Factory, Ross
Dress for Less, and Old Navy.
1162
44
Sunnyvale Town Center, Sunnyvale
Originally built in 1979, the 36-acre site has recently been redeveloped into an outdoor, Main
Street-style project anchored by Target (located on a podium over parking area 4) and Macy’s.
The project’s 2007 plans called for 275,000 s.f. of office, 933,000 s.f. of retail (including Macy’s,
Target, and a 2,624 seat cinema), and 292 housing units. Plagued in recent years by a highly
public foreclosure, the site has emerged from receivership.
1163
45
Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto
Originally built in the mid-1950’s, Stanford Shopping Center has evolved into a regional mall
with 1,364,000 square feet of retail space and restaurants with 140 stores including anchors
Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, and Nordstrom. According to an October 24, 2013
San Francisco Business Times article, the owner made an application for a major remodel that
will create four new shop buildings totaling about 140,000 square feet located where
Bloomingdale's presently operates. Bloomingdale's will relocate to Fleming’s former location,
and Fleming’s has already moved to a new building. The total GLA of the mall, which generates
approximately $5.4 million in sales taxes annually, will stay roughly the same. [9]
1164
46
Vallco Site Area
Vallco Shopping Mall contains a total of approximately 50.60± acres, of which 32.04± acres are
owned by the anchor tenants, and 21.13± acres are owned by Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC. [10]
The various mall ownerships listed here as well as adjacent owners are shown on the following
map:
Parcel Owned Site Area
316-20-089 (Macy's) 6.942 Acres
316-20-080 (Sears) 12.410 Acres
316-20-094, -095 (JCPenney) 12.684 Acres
Subtotal - Anchor Parcels 32.036 Acres
316-20-099, -100 4.965 Acres
316-20-081 (Sears Lease) 4.379 Acres
316-20-096, -097, -098 9.219 Acres
Subtotal - Mall Parcel 18.563 Acres
Total Owned Site Area 21.126 Acres
Total Center Site Area 50.599 Acres
1165
47
Vallco Leasing Makeup
Vallco Shopping Mall’s tenant make up is summarized in the following chart [11] and the leasing
plan that follows:
Component GLA Area
Macy's 176,962 SF
Sears 280,185 SF
J.C. Penney 202,360 SF
AMC Theaters 80,500 SF
Total Anchor GLA 740,007 SF (58%)
In-Line 436,523 SF
Food Court 11,073 SF
Restaurants 29,960 SF
Major Tenants 59,238 SF
Subtotal-Mall Shop GLA 536,794 SF (42%)
Total Center GLA 1,276,801 SF (100%)
Total Owned GLA 617,294 SF (48%)
1166
48
Development, Ownership, and Repositioning History
Vallco Fashion Park opened in September 1976. Among its unique features were several
“parks” in the Mall's main walkway, each showcasing aspects of local history, the Ice Capades
Chalet (one of two year-round skating rinks in Santa Clara County) which operated for almost
ten years before encountering trouble in 1986, and the Tilt Family Entertainment Center which
opened in 1990.
TIAA held a loan on the property at the same time that Jacobs Group, who had an interest in
Vallco (the JG Cupertino entity), was winding down its retail portfolio. Jacobs had cleared out
the Mall’s lower level with the idea of creating additional parking, resulting in lower net
operating income at just the time the Mall was beginning to have significant issues competing
with newly opened Valley Fair. TIAA foreclosed and subsequently came to own both the fee
and leasehold interests. Shortly after the foreclosure, Douglas Wilson was appointed as the
receiver (they acted in this role from August 2002 until June, 2003). During this time, John
Nguyen approached on behalf of an investment consortium led by Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and
John Nguyen. The group offered significantly over book value, and a deal was ultimately struck
for a sale at $72 million. At the same time as the Mall was in escrow, in order to fulfill its
fiduciary obligation to maximize the value of the receivership estate, the receiver formed a
backup redevelopment plan that included hiring Callison as architect of record. [12,13]
1167
49
Among various options explored, the receiver investigated converting Wolfe Road to be one
lane in each direction with 60-degree parking, demalling the project and having tenants facing
the streets, relocating JC Penney onsite west of Wolfe Road, and addressing the pedestrian
bridge which was viewed as a major impediment to pedestrian flow and hence the success of
the Mall. Additional issues that were investigated but never resolved were the community’s ties
to the ice rink and complications from Sears owning land under the Mall.
Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and John Nguyen ultimately acquired the subject property and
adjacent land parcels (Rose Bowl, Northwest, and Northeast) for a reported price of
$67,000,000. The sale closed in June 2003.
After acquiring the center in May, 2003, the Wong, Chen, and Nguyen team undertook to
convert and upgrade the regional mall into a specialty center with an international tenant mix
including entertainment, additional restaurants, and a new food court. One of the changes
made to Vallco as part of these new renovations was to completely close the first of the mall's
two levels in 2005, leaving the focus on the second floor. A few new tenants were recruited over
the next few years including a 16-screen AMC Theater that was added on a podium level above
the existing retail space, new retail space, and two parking structures that added 1,652± parking
spaces. Unfortunately, by 2006, Vallco had the lowest occupancy rate (24%) of any mall in the
area.
1168
50
Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and John Nguyen sold the Rose Bowl, Northeast, and Northwest
parcels to Evershine, the owner/developer of Marketplace Center immediately southwest of the
subject Sears (across Stevens Creek Boulevard). The reported purchase price for the land was
$50.0 million. Surface parking lost on the sale of these parcels was replaced by the construction
of new parking garages at the subject center. These additional parking garages were intended
to permit more intense development on other parcels, including the adjacent "Rose Bowl" site,
a 50-unit detached home project on the “Northwest Development” parcel, and a hotel on the
“Northeast Development” parcel (all planned, but only the Rose Bowl site was eventually
developed).
In addition to the Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and John Nguyen purchase, a new venture partner,
Orbit, reportedly invested $33.0 million ($22.5 million in cash and $10.5 million in a note) for an
85 percent interest in the Cupertino Mall ownership entity. The proceeds were reportedly used
to clean up mechanics liens, pay down the loan, establish an interest reserve, and recapitalize
the project. In 2006, United Commercial Bank loaned Cupertino Square, LLC $195 million to
further recapitalize the project and to provide development funds. In July 2007, Orbit
Resources acquired the Mall, and Vallco Fashion Park's name was changed to Cupertino
Square, and managing agents were switched from Landmark Property Management to Jones
Lang LaSalle. Renovation of the mall that began in 2005 continued, and by 2009 two new
parking structures, a 16-screen AMC movie theater, a food court, and Strike Bowling (at the
former location of Tilt Family Entertainment Center) had been added.
In September 2008, the two owners of the complex filed for bankruptcy to prevent the primary
financier Gramercy Capital from foreclosing on their property. By September 2009, Vietnamese
food processing company Son Son Co. purchased Cupertino Square for $64 million in an all-
1169
51
cash deal, and restored the name Vallco Shopping Mall. Vallco also hosts the every-Friday
Pacific Coast Farmers' Market in the parking lot behind JC Penney. [14, 15]
Ground Lease Discussion
As noted, three parcels comprising portions of the subject property are on ground leases. The
details of these leasehold interests are as follows: [16,17]
• The first ground lease (APN 316-20-081) dated 8/26/88 with Sears as the ground lessor
and the mall owner as the ground lessee, is for a 4.38±-acre parcel of land, expiring
November 30, 2074. The annual rent of $290,628 is flat over the lease term. The land
subject to this ground lease is improved with approximately 52,000 square feet of mall
shops.
• A second ground lease dated 8/22/06 was consummated with JC Penney as the ground
lessor and the mall owner as the ground lessee to construct an additional 45,000±
square feet of retail space adjacent to JC Penney. The ground lease commenced
November, 2006 with a term of 30 years and three ten-year options to extend at an
annual rent of $320,000 per year, with ten percent increases every ten years. At
expiration, JC Penney may require the demolition of any improvements, and conversion
back to parking.
• Cushman Wakefield was also provided with an unexecuted (draft) lease for a second
ground lease by the mall owner for a 0.36±-acre parcel owned by Sears. The
commencement date was reported to be November 2006, with a 50-year term, and five
five-year options at an annual rent of $189,656, increasing eight percent every five years
during the term and options. Based on the draft, unsigned leases, California Pizza
Kitchen and Islands restaurants each planed to lease stand-alone restaurant buildings
that mall ownership planned to construct, but which were never built. It is assumed this
lease was never consummated.
Title Review Discussion
As part of the process of developing alternative scenarios and recommendations, thousands of
pages of recorded documents were reviewed. These documents give insight about
development intent, certain tenant’s lease rights, and restrictions placed on the project.
Following are the key findings:
Master Ground Lease for Mall Development
Originally the developer structured the Vallco Shopping Mall development on a ground lease
with a related developer entity as the ground lessee commencing on 9/1/74 with a term of 47
years plus two options to extend for 20-years each. On 10/22/98, a Memorandum of Ground
Lease with a term from 11/1/98-10/31/58 was recorded showing TIAA as the ground lessor, and
JG Cupertino (Jacob’s Group) as the ground lessee with JG having a purchase option. These
two interests merged on 6/12/03 when the new John Nguyen-led ownership group purchased
1170
52
the fee and leasehold interests in the Mall from TIAA. These combined interests were
transferred to the present owner, Vallco Shopping Mall LLC, on 9/11/09.
Construction Operating Restrictions Easements Agreement (COREA)
The COREA, dated 2/19/75, initially was between Vallco Fashion Park Venture (the development
entity), Federated (Bullocks, briefly Emporium, now Macy’s), and Sears. Macy’s is the successor-
in-interest in a sub-ground lessee with a 27-year term commencing on or about 12/1/74 with
one 20-year and four 10-year options to renew. The COREA provides among other things for
the following:
• A 60-year term extendable to up to 99-years if the majors continue to operate.
• Easements across all tracts for vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation.
• The parties can each redesign their own parcels, with each anchor having exclusive right to
design its entry court to the Mall.
• The establishment of minimum and maximum buildable areas and parking ratios for each
parcel.
• Use restrictions requiring operation as a first class regional mall, and establishing a list of
restricted uses which appear typical of shopping center governing documents.
• A developer requirement to continuously manage and operate the Mall, and for the anchor
tenants to operate continuously for a minimum number of years (all since expired).
• A provision that all parties are required to modify the COREA.
First Amendment to COREA
The First Amendment to COREA, dated 8/1/75, established minimum and maximum buildable
areas, parking ratios, and a developer requirement to use best efforts to maintain at least 65%
occupancy between Sears and Bullocks (now Macy’s).
Second Amendment to COREA
An amended and restated COREA was dated 12/1/75. A complete copy was not available for
review.
Third Amendment to COREA
Dated 9/14/76, the third amendment established construction and financing schedules of
performance, parking ratios, and parking locations.
Fourth Amendment to COREA
Dated in August, 1980, the fourth amendment established buildable area minimums and
maximums and updated parking ratio as well as a provision for a bus stop in the common areas
adjacent to Sears.
Fifth Amendment to COREA
Dated 2/15/84, the fifth amendment memorialized Federated’s interest being assumed by
Carter Hawley Hale (Emporium). (CHH was later purchased by Federated, reverting that interest
back to Federated.)
Sears Documents
• On 2/19/75, Sears granted the developer an easement co-terminus with the COREA to
develop parking areas, and a connection between Sears and the Mall.
• A ground lease by Sears to Westland dated 8/26/88 terminating the earlier of 11/30/74 or
1171
53
when COREA terminates with a right of first refusal by the ground lessee to purchase the
fee.
• Lease of the lower level by Sears to Westland.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement dated 10/8/74 between the City and the original Mall developer
provided for the following:
• Construction of 1,028,436 square feet of net rentable area.
• Rose Bowl site to be developed for office uses at a 0.37 FAR.
• The granting by the City of air rights over Wolfe Road for the construction of a pedestrian
bridge, and for the construction of two levels of underground parking.
• Provision for the construction of a rapid transit station adjacent to I-280.
General Plan Amendment
A General Plan Amendment dated 7/1/91 and a Development Agreement dated 8/15/91
between the City and Westland were approved with a term of 15 years expiring August 14, 2006
(in 2005, the agreement was extended to August 15, 2009) and contained the following terms:
[18]
• The General Plan Amendment (2-GPA-89) increased the designated development capacity
for the Shopping Center by 260,000 net rentable square feet, which, taken together with the
available capacity under existing approvals, provided for 535,000 square feet of future
development on the Property and the Rose Bowl site (for a total build-out of 1,645,700
square feet of net rentable space). At least 80,000 square feet of the total 260,000 square
feet of additional net rentable square feet authorized under 2-GPA-89 were to be reserved
for use by a “Single User.” This single user became AMC Theaters which leases 80,500
square feet
• Cinema: A cinema complex was approved for the Shopping Center subject to the
conditions attached to Application 9-U-90 which allowed for a 2,500 seat cinema to be built
adjacent to the Sears store or a 3,500 seat cinema may be built on the Westside Site (these
locations are noted on Exhibit B attached to the development agreement). A cinema would
reduce the total build out authorized under the Master Use Permit by 100,000 square feet.
A fourth amendment to the development agreement recorded 2/9/06 permitted the 2,500
seat AMC Theater.
• Parking: Additional parking to accommodate future development was required to be
provided at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 248 square feet of gross leasable floor area
of retail space. Additional parking requirements are established in the COREA as noted
above.
• Ice Rink: The developer was required to operate and maintain the ice rink facility at no cost
to the City. If the developer expanded the center by 100,000 square feet of new net
rentable space during the term of the development, the continued operation of the ice rink
would become a permanent condition. If 100,000 net new square feet are not added, the
developer would only be responsible for operating the ice skating rink for the term of the
development agreement. The ice rink is excluded from the maximum GLA calculation.
• Park and Ride: The developer agreed to establish a shared use park and ride area for 75
spaces.
• Child Care: The developer agreed to operate or cause to be operated a child care facility
within the Shopping Center throughout the term of the development agreement.
• The Rose Bowl parcel was rezoned to P (CG, ML, Office, Hotel, Regional Shopping);
1172
54
however, the rezoning maintained the retail, office, industrial use, and the hotel use option
available under the prior planned development zoning for the Rose Bowl Parcel. On August
23, 2004 Resolution 6269 was passed calling for the approval of an architectural and site
review for 138,760 square feet, 204 residential units and a parking structure on the Rose
Bowl site. On the same date, the City Council recommended the approval of a use permit
permitting the development to construct 204 residential units (for-rent condominiums) and a
parking structure. The Architectural and Site Approval was completed by the Cupertino City
Council on March 15, 2005. A fifth amendment to the development agreement recorded
2/9/06 permitted development of the Rose Bowl site with 138,760 s.f. of retail and 204
dwelling units.
Tenant Leases
Various leases are on record with the following terms noted:
• TGIF: TGIF’s lease commenced 9/1/74 and expires 8/31/21 with two 20-year options to
extend. A separate memorandum of lease shows TGIF’s lease dated 11/29/76 commencing
12/21/77 and running for a term of 20-years with one 5-year option to extend. It is unclear
which is correct, however, Friday’s still operating would support a theory that it is the former.
• AMC Theaters: AMC executed a lease on 5/5/05 for 15 years with three 5-year options and
one 4½-year option. The lease includes the following provisions:
o A protected area requiring AMC’s approval for changes of any parking areas west of
Wolfe Road including the then newly built parking deck, and all pedestrian access to
and from the parking areas, but allowing the landlord rights to certain future
building areas (lease § 26).
o A requirement for the landlord to continuously operate the property as a shopping
center.
o Restrictions on the sale of movie concession food or beverage within 50 feet of
AMC’s premises, in common areas, or in parking areas, on so-called noxious uses
typically restricted in shopping center governing documents (but allowing Lucky
Strike bowling alley), and on a health club.
• Lucky Strike: The bowling alley executed a lease on 12/11/06 for 38,000 square feet of
space for a term of 15 years from 1/1/07 to 12/31/22 with three 5-year options to renew.
• Ross Dress for Less: Ross executed a lease on 7/21/92 for 10 years plus three 5-year options.
The lease requires the mall to remain retail in nature, and no so-called noxious uses in
defined protected areas. Ross has since relocated out of the mall.
• The Bay Club: The Bay Club’s lease dated 3/15/11 has a term of 15-years 4-months plus
options to renew for three 5-year periods. The lease establishes part of the common areas
as protected areas requiring Bay Club’s approval for modifications, and an exclusive for a
health club on Sears’ lands.
• Sprint: Sprint has two leases for cell towers, each commencing in 2002 with a 15-year initial
term plus two 5-year options to renew.
Stakeholder Interviews and Discussion – Anchor Tenants
Macy’s
Todd B Scheffler, Macy’s Director of Real Estate responsible for the area including Cupertino,
was interviewed regarding Vallco. Like with all chain retailers, market share and goodwill are
1173
55
important considerations for Macy’s. Macy’s cites a legacy customer that shops at its Vallco unit
as well as low operating costs, and a low book value which allows relatively flat sales (+/- 1-2%
from year to year) that are “moderate not killer” to produce a positive EBITDA and contribution
to the parent company.
Macy’s sees itself as a partner in the community; giving back to the community is a stated policy
initiative. The Company feels it is important to remain open where goodwill has been built over
time and they are vested in the community. Mr. Scheffler noted the Chairman is a merchant for
whom aligning the Macy’s brand and merchandising with market demand and serving its legacy
customer are key.
It was confirmed that the Vallco store does better than Macy’s at Sunnyvale Town Center, but
much lower sales than Valley Fair. Macy’s self-characterized as a conservative company
concerned with operating department stores rather than being in the real estate business.
While no plans to do so were expressed, if choosing a store to close between Vallco and
Sunnyvale, Sunnyvale would be the more obvious choice.
With respect to Vallco specifically, notwithstanding the focus on operations as opposed to real
estate, Macy’s is keenly aware that its long-term control has real value. From an operational
perspective, there is always an eye to market share and goodwill, and the potential impact
closing a long-established unit might have on its overall market position. Since the store makes
money, the tendency is not to consider closure, however, if there were an opportunity for a
meaningful capital event, and if there were an opportunity to transfer the Vallco business to
another location, a closure would be evaluated by the company.
Macy’s believes they get some AMC and some JC Penney cross-shopping, but that the project
really is no longer a shopping center in the traditional sense. The common areas are a vacuum
with no energy or amenities, and it is not a place to socialize or walk. With respect to
redevelopment strategies, the answer was that everything is plan-specific. For example, Macy’s
understands that the underutilized parking next to its store is a development opportunity.
Citing a potential increase in customer traffic and that traffic generates sales, Macy’s indicated it
would look at any opportunity to increase customer traffic and to optimize the site including a
mixed-use redevelopment plan, a demalling strategy that would bring in larger box retailers, or
an open air environment with inviting common area.
Macy’s previously agreed to permit the undeveloped triangular parcel north of its store to be
developed as residential and for a parking deck supporting the mall and the to be built AMC
Theater (see Grammercy site plan) with the thought that the additional development would be
good for the project and for Macy’s. A 6th Amendment to the COREA would have established
fee interest transfers, but was never consummated. While the residential portion was never
built, the added parking infrastructure does serve Macy’s customers’ needs.
Grammercy documents indicated that a never executed 6th Amendment to the COREA called
for Macy’s to receive $2.3 million as consideration for a new REA that extending through 2075.
Macy’s reportedly indicated that a store remodel would be explored if a major interior mall
model were to be undertaken. At the time, the store upgrade was estimated to be a $5 million
investment. By way of comparison, the Macy’s store at Westfield’s Eastridge Mall (13 miles
from Cupertino) was in similar condition to Vallco before being renovated in 2005 (an AMC
1174
56
theater was also added as part of that repositioning). The Eastridge Macy’s post-renovation
sales reportedly increased 40%. [19]
Citing their positive anticipation about Sunnyvale Town Center (which had Macy’s along with
other retail, office, restaurants, and residential uses), Macy’s reiterated its interest in evaluating
any redevelopment plan that would increase traffic, and that, at this point, there is no
disposition initiative. Clearly disappointed with Sunnyvale Town Center and frustrated with
delays caused by ongoing legal maneuvering, the Macy’s representative stated there is
“nothing wrong with their Sunnyvale store except it needs a mall.” Similarly, Macy’s is not
happy with Vallco, and believes the current owner, who is not experienced with regional malls,
purchased the property for its redevelopment potential and appreciation value rather than to
operate as a Mall.
Sears
Jim Terrell, Vice President of Real Estate, and Robyn Alexander, Associate General Counsel -
Real Estate, both of Sears Holding Company, and Ivor E. Samson of Dentons discussed Vallco
on behalf of Sears.
Sears self-reports as the second largest holder of retail real estate in the United States after
Wal-Mart. Sears does not see Vallco as a cohesive project because, among many things, work
needs to be done on the mall portion of the project, the site is bisected by Wolfe Road, and
deferred maintenance. These factors make Sears reticent to reinvest in its store at this time.
In contrast to Sears reticence today, Grammercy documents indicate that Sears invested $4MM
of its own capital in the store in 2005, when the Vallco Sears was the second highest grossing
store in its district with sales of $35 million (as compared with average sales of $38.8 million over
the prior 5 years). As part of the unconsummated 6th Amendment to the COREA, Sears was
reported to have received $1 million which they were required to invest in their space. [20] We
note that Sears has since given up considerable market share in the Peninsula sub-market with
the closure of both its Mountain View and San Mateo stores.
Sears first and foremost wants to understand how its property is key to any redevelopment of
Vallco. Stating they would be cooperative, they cautioned they intend to maintain control over
their real estate, they do not want any planning process to result in a redevelopment plan they
do not like, they want to retain the flexibility to improve their parcel with the highest and best
use whatever that might be, and they want to participate in any conversation that might be
happening with a developer who might be in the wings (which they believe to be the case).
There was little interest expressed in either relocation or a store closure.
The Sears representative commented that Sears is not in the business of creating
redevelopment proposals, and they would like to hear more about what the City would like to
see at Vallco. Sears was interested in understanding whether Successor Agencies would be
permitted to exercise power of eminent domain in the public interest since the dissolution of
redevelopment agencies in the state.
Sears feels the community embraces its store in Cupertino, and without citing specific sales or
1175
57
other parameters, confirmed that the store contributes well. Any redevelopment analysis would
take into account added value with respect to both real estate and operations with a view to the
long term and how the property will be positioned far (say, 20 years or more) in the future. Bay
Club was cited as an example of a nice addition, but also one that does not fit well with the mall
in its present iteration. Sears also pointed out that the impact of construction on operations
would need to be taken into consideration; while there may be a sales lift after a remodel, sales
are negatively impacted during the remodeling process that can easily take up to 24 months.
Sears’ perception is that others are “envious” of Sears having the largest parcel within Vallco
and more than ample parking. While possessing good real estate and store level economics,
Macy’s is viewed by Sears as disadvantaged when compared with Sears. Sears is concerned
that its parking stands alone, and that any redevelopment scenario should have each parcel
stand alone with respect to parking. Sears would consider newly created shared parking
(including structured parking) where that shared parking is advantageous to Sears and where
Sears is not being asked to “subsidize” parking for the balance of the project. We do note that
the operating documents state that all parking is to be in common among all parcels of the
shopping center. Sears will certainly also evaluate key retail real estate fundamentals such as
ingress/egress, traffic flow, visibility, and compatible uses.
JC Penney
Bradley Syverson, VP Real Estate and Area Research, and April Webster, Real Estate Manager
were interviewed about JC Penney’s Vallco store.
Once operating as both a store and as a stockroom for local catalog sales, Penney’s building
contains 213,000 s.f. while only 130,000 s.f. is merchandised today for retail sales. Penney would
like to see a dramatically improved retail project, and would like to have 120,000-130,000 s.f. of
selling area (130,000-140,000 s.f. of gross floor area).
While the surrounding mall environment is severely lacking, the store performs well. JC Penney
has reinvested in the Vallco store over the past two years including the addition of a home
department and other shops within the store. Book value would have increased with this
reinvestment. Sales were quoted at $22 million in 2012 which is attributed to JC Penney’s
strong franchise with local consumers, and favorable site attributes such as good visibility and
easy access and parking.
With respect to redevelopment of the property, Penney would entertain any reasonable
proposal including a mixed-use alternative. They would be concerned about the size of a retail
component as part of such a project, like many retailers wanting to be part of a critical mass
large enough to be a destination attraction for customers.
According to Grammercy, in 2005, the Vallco JC Penney (Penney’s only unit in Silicon Valley)
generated $2 million in net income, placing it in the top 18% of all JCP stores nationally and
2nd among the 14 stores within the Bay Area. Sales in 2005 were $32 million with average sales
of $30.9 million over the prior 5 years, and the store reportedly maintained profitability despite
on-going construction. JC Penney invested $3.5 million in 2005 to remodel the store’s interior,
1176
58
and would have received $400,000 towards that effort per the unconsummated 6th Amendment
to the COREA. [21]
It is well known that JC Penney is repositioning itself in the retail marketplace. The Company’s
stated goal is to monetize its fee ownership of 12+ acres, however, they would like to continue
operating in the market and at Vallco. Both a sale-leaseback or an on-site relocation would
meet the Company’s dual objectives. With respect to the sort of transaction that Penney’s
would consider, if the value being paid for the real estate were to be significantly more than
income from operations, store closure would be considered, however, like Macy’s and Sears,
the Company’s goal is to be an operator of retail stores and not a real estate investment
company. Accordingly, any buy vs. sell or relocation vs. closure analysis would weigh heavily
towards store results, take into account Penney’s low occupancy cost, and be mindful of Bay
Area real estate costs creating a high barrier to entry at another location.
The Bay Club
Per Peter Berkowitz, the Bay Club opened in 2012 as Sears’ sub-tenant. Membership is
reported to be growing nicely, and due to a combination of the Club’s upscale market
positioning and Cupertino having a significant daytime in-migration of workers, the Club draws
from a wider radius than might otherwise be assumed. An interesting observation is that
shoppers will go from Cupertino to Valley Fair and Santana Row, but Vallco does not have a
compelling offering for anyone to think of it as a destination. The Club’s parent company
maintains a keen interest in how the intersection of Stevens Creek and Wolfe is developed.
Stakeholder Interviews and Discussion – Rose Bowl
KCR, a family held development company and the Rose Bowl developer, has operated retail
projects in Cupertino since the mid to late 1990’s. They own and oversaw the repositioning of
The Marketplace, and continue to do ground-up as well as value-add project which they
manage themselves. The Marketplace is successful: Marukai’s only Northern California store is
a top performer, Elephant Bar does well despite selling more food than alcohol, and most other
tenants are reported to be doing well with solid customer counts.
The Rose Bowl, a mixed-use project KCR purchased with entitlements in place and located at
the SEC of Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway, will have 204 residential rental units and 60,000 s.f.
of retail space when complete. Retail space will face Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road with three
access points (one off Wolfe, two off Vallco). Structured retail parking is to have a 10:1,000 s.f.
ratio which, while not the stated intent, would allow for the project to be predominantly
restaurant.
1177
59
The mix is purported to have mainstream uses such as full service and QSR restaurants, dessert
shops, and neighborhood-serving retail such as a dry cleaner and other daily needs,
convenience oriented tenants. Tenants are beginning in inquire in connection with the
anticipated Apple Campus 2.
With respect to the Mall, KCR also owns the triangular parking lot north of JC Penney, with a
business-oriented hospitality use in mind for the property. Changes in general plan designation
as well as limited freeway visibility are viewed as the primary development risks. KCR believes
there is a real opportunity to reposition as a mixed-use project. KCR has been approached
about taking on the Mall and has declined.
S takeholder Interviews and Discussion- Other
Note: Many of those interviewed asked that their comments be held in confidence. Identifying
remarks and references have thusly been eliminated.
• A common sentiment was that Vallco presents a huge opportunity if all parties can be
brought to the table. A stakeholder hoped that after years of neglect, the City is finally
recognizing the need for involvement in change at Vallco, and there is popular support
for different uses.
• While it is quite dated, a shopping center developer felt there is an opportunity to
position Vallco as a community shopping center driven by daily needs and convenience,
and that if Vallco were to go through a significant reinvestment, it would only be good.
• An interviewee familiar with Sears commented that Sears’ position that its real estate is
valuable, and not wanting to “subsidize anyone else” is consistent with its approach
elsewhere. A number of people familiar with Vallco pointed out that if those controlling
1178
60
restrictions in the COREA and leases were pushed towards a common position, one of
the biggest obstacles to redeveloping Vallco would be removed.
• Another interviewee noted that in order for Santana Row to work, residential was
required to justify development and open space costs, and to create a place people
want to be. Yet another view was that the City is culpable for Vallco’s present situation,
particularly when Vallco is contrasted with how progressive neighboring cities have been
(for example, Santa Clara with Related Company of California’s Santa Clara project near
the new 49ers Stadium ).
• According to a broker with considerable experience in the Cupertino market, Vallco is
challenged by being roughly midway between Valley Fair and Stanford Shopping
Center. Consistent with this opinion that Vallco will never be able to compete with
either of these highly successful projects given the highly competitive nature of the
regional mall leasing business: Larger landlords with multiple shopping centers are able
to condition offering tenants spaces in highly desirable projects (ie. Valley Fair) upon
tenants also leasing spaces in less desirable projects. Furthermore, they are able to
withhold spaces from tenants who might open in a competing project, and this is
precisely the issue that Vallco might face if it were to try to reinvest itself as a traditional
regional mall. Westfield likely views Vallco as a nuisance, but one that needs to be
addressed nonetheless. On the plus side, the entertainment value of the ice rink and
AMC was acknowledged. Redevelopment issues include restrictions (governmental, and
controlling documents such as the COREA), and the anchors’ naturally slow-moving
internal decision making processes. The site is thought to have significant potential for
other than retail uses: High-density housing and office space for companies associated
with Apple in particular. The question was raised about whether retail might, in fact,
yield the lowest residual land value of the available options.
• An interviewee with familiarity about both Vallco and other regional malls in the Trade
Area was aware of a group that did not move forward to purchase Vallco when
Grammercy was marketing the project because it did not have enough leverage to
attract tenants, and further had doubts that a third party regional mall operator (ie. a
company working for a fee but who would never own Vallco) such as General Growth
would leverage its relationships or trade a willingness to lease a desired tenant space in
other in-demand projects as a trade for locating a store in Vallco.
• Vallco operates in a trade area that is relatively mature. It was pointed out that strong
projects in all major categories already serve the Trade Area that includes Cupertino:
Valley Fair is an outstanding regional mall, Westgate Shopping Center is a strong
commodity-oriented power center, and Santana Row has grown into an established and
high-performing specialty center. Another interview reiterated that Westfield, owner of
both Valley Fair and Oakridge Shopping Center, has a vested interest in making sure
Vallco remains a third-rate mall. In so doing, it holds significant market share in the
Trade Area as the dominant landlord for mall tenants wanting to serve the Trade Area.
• A decision needs to be made about whether the project should be turned into a power
center with box tenants that can absorb a lot of square footage, a specialty project, a
mixed-use project, or something completely different. An executive with a national
1179
61
retail development firm commented that the biggest challenge with a project like Vallco
would be to balance redevelopment economics with defining the project’s place in the
market: The investment needed to buy out tenant interests, tear down the project, and
rebuild it into something new would likely never work given rents that might be
achieved. A corresponding recognition that a complete repositioning may necessitate
“going backward” before “going forward” was also expressed. Overcoming retailers’
perceptions of Vallco will be another challenge. A leasing team that can leverage tenant
relationships to get the opportunity to tell the “right story” – the pitch and the hook –
about rebranding the project and why tenants need to locate at Vallco rather than going
elsewhere would be necessary just to start the process. The tenant attraction process will
likely be a years-long endeavor, and likely take 5-7 years to “get it right.” A traditional
transaction-oriented leasing team (eg. a broker or institutional 3rd party leasing team)
would find the assignment extremely frustrating. Accordingly, an adaptive reuse of the
existing project would only be viable with a forward-thinking owner possessing a
combination of a clearly articulated, long-term vision and the determination and deep
pockets to match.
• Santana Row is often invoked to describe a vision of a desired project. Santana Row’s
success is attributed to the mix of retailers, service uses, and restaurants. The 640,000
square foot project can be thought of as follows: One third of the project is Crate &
Barrel, The Container Store, Best Buy, and a theater. The next largest space is Club One
at 30,000 square feet, H&M at 26,000 square feet, 8,000 square feet, and then quickly
2,500 square foot spaces. With restaurants mixed through the project, the opportunity
was in creating the right groupings of tenants in districts-within-the-project. For
example, Olin functions as a unit with a gym, office, emphasis on fast casual rather than
sit down dining where families might go, moms and strollers and mommy & me classes,
and park events. Olson is sleepier with two restaurants and service tenants such as a
bank, dental office, and hair salon. Santana Row acts as the project’s “Main Street” with
a mix of fashion, street retail and restaurants. A fashion tenant would not be appropriate
for Olin or Olsen Streets whereas Dry Bay would not be for Santana Row. A sense of
place was created through common area design, but also through architecture and, in
particular, tenants having unique storefronts. The project’s biggest weakness is the lack
of a traditional anchor tenant.
• A project’s DNA and its tenants’ DNA need to match: Some tenants will have a so-called
“comfort zone” in a regional mall and not in a Main Street environment. In contrast to
Santana Row’s more experimental approach, Valley Fair tends to seek retailers with the
biggest consumer franchises and the most ubiquitous names. While Santana Row may
never win the back to school shopper, it will win on where you want go on Friday night.
• Every retail project either works or does not work in its unique context and with its
unique set of circumstances. Understanding that a “Santana Row” will not work
everywhere is important. An important analog was drawn between Vallco and Santana
Row: Neither project is easy to lease, and projects need a clear marketing
statement/message to be successful, and a messenger capable both of communicating
that message and going toe-to-toe with competing project’s leasing strategies.
1180
62
• From a leasing strategy perspective, keeping a project cutting edge is important. The
“right” tenant mix needs to take priority over the notion that longevity guarantees future
longevity: Just because a tenant has been in a project for a long time doesn’t mean it is
appropriate to keep that tenant. Taking a step back and making a merchandising-
appropriate decisions about tenant mix is essential. Refreshing storefronts and
constantly improving the tenant mix also conveys the message that something new
continues to happen.
• Finally, the concept that every great retail center or street has its “anti-center” or “anti-
street” was introduced. For example, Valley Fair has Santana Row. Beverly Center has
The Grove. Santa Monica Place has the Third Street Promenade. Fifth Avenue has
SoHo. There will likely never be an opportunity to “beat” Valley Fair, but there may be
an opportunity to become the anti-Valley Fair
Strategies for Repositioning Vallco Shopping Mall
Vallco is being affected by the consolidation of retailers, increasing dominance of super-
regional malls, the introduction of new retail shopping channels, and a variety of other forces.
While Vallco enjoys a good location in the Trade Area, it lacks identity compared to
alternative shopping venues. The BAE Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis suggests that a
strong regional retail environment and balanced sales in the Trade Area (Cupertino’s annual
retail sales are $10,483 as compared to $13,404 for Santa Clara County) constrain
opportunities for additional capture of Trade Area resident spending through new retail
development in Cupertino itself.
We believe this same strong regional retail environment might, in fact, give Cupertino the
opportunity to consolidate additional retail in the City given its compelling location and
Vallco’s fundamentally excellent location; Vallco presents a unique opportunity to create a
new retail nexus, although not necessarily in its present format.
As discussed earlier, mid-range department stores have evolved into commodity retailers.
Vallco’s anchors are effectively commodity retailers, however, the nature of a regional mall is
more specialty in nature. Vallco has already evolved in the direction of a hybrid projects as is
evidenced by its legacy anchors, which generate reasonable sales, and the beginning of a
specialty offering in the form of The Bay Club and AMC Theaters. The following literature
review and discussion of analogous projects will help explain that Cupertino and Vallco are not
unique, and that the forces impacting Vallco are happening to many malls nationwide.
Literature Review
A literature review written by Maryia Hodge while a graduate planning student at San Jose
State University summarizes issues some key concepts relevant to redeveloping Vallco as part of
a downtown area. [22] Original sources are cited where possible.
• Excess supply of retail space has shifted retail dollars to new centers without creating
additional demand, leading to the decline of older centers. As long ago as 2002, it was
1181
63
noted that of the more than 2000 enclosed malls in the U.S., approximately 15 to 20 percent
are headed for closure. [23, 24]
• While shopping center owners may opt for cosmetic improvements, retail researcher Mark
Eppli states that giving a decaying mall a facelift or introducing a new department store is
unlikely to stem the tide of decline. What is needed is a more serious reconsideration of the
relationship between the site and its surrounding community. [25, 26]
• Barnes observed that regional shopping centers with uncertain and shifting identities lacked
the ability to appeal to increasingly value-conscious consumers who had alternative
channels such as factory outlet stores, catalogs, internet sales, and big-box stores. In
addition, a “do-it-yourself” mentality drove customers from traditional retailers to
warehouse stores. Meanwhile Robbins argues that by creatively rethinking public space and
urbanism, decaying malls can be transformed into “genuine places in the older areas of our
spreading suburban environment.” [27, 28]
These observations support the theory that today’s retail landscape is a dichotomy of price
and convenience-oriented commodity retailers, and specialty retailers congregated in
appealing environments. Not coincidentally, shoppers are choosing alternatives to
enclosed regional malls in part because those malls lack an identifiable sense of place.
• Retail alternatives, or specialty projects where consumers enjoy spending their discretionary
time and income, have become a major focus. Formats that add entertainment and cultural
uses, or unconventional uses such as mixed-use centers, educational facilities, medical
clinics, or a variety of other uses are increasingly common and sought after. Fitzgerald and
Leigh agree that downtown shopping may be poised for a recovery, noting that “shoppers
who used to buy in malls are now more willing to shop on ‘Main Streets.’” [29]
• Two important notes about successful downtowns are as follows:
o They must have active streets with pedestrian-oriented retail, a concentration of
residents to promote activity, effective design that blends new and established
development,
o The successful downtowns that were studied all had either a university, a historic district,
or were a state or provincial capital, suggesting that other conditions that increase
density and contribute to a sense of place must be present. Caution is cast at so-called
“new urbanism,” suggesting that “the loss of vitality in the suburbs in a primarily
cosmetic way, opting for the appearance of cities but avoiding those essential urban
traits...” does not work. [30, 31]
Retrofitting Suburbs: Instant Cities, Instant Architecture, and
Incremental Metropolitanism
Harvard Design Magazine, Ellen Duhnam-Jones and June Williamson [32]
The authors hypothesize that cities evolving over time (“incremental urbanism”) is not
preferable to "instant urbanism" where large-scale development (as much as any real estate
1182
64
development can be instant) rises in place of a no longer viable project. They also point out
that instant urbanism often is more sustainable.
Growth trends that have resulted in once far flung suburbs now being more centrally located,
California's transit and housing policies, rising land values, and few significantly large
undeveloped sites are all trends supporting instant urbanism. Shopping centers that are no
longer competitively or financially viable are excellent candidates for instant urbanism because
they are typically well located, they offer the opportunity to crate a project of some scale, and
they offer opportunities to support infill as opposed to exurban growth strategies. Two
excellent examples cited in the report are Belmar in Colorado and Santana Row in San Jose.
As large-scale redevelopments are undertaken, a number of issues should be taken into
consideration: For example larger parcels are needed in order to justify the inclusion of
open/public spaces in projects (the economics behind this assertion are discussed in the Vallco
alternatives). Larger projects also help justify the costs of structured parking, and can be
financially more predictable leading to financial structures with better terms. The inclusion of an
office component creates jobs-housing balance as well as a "networked urbanity" that would be
more appealing to the sort of younger knowledge workers who commute to but do not live in
Cupertino. The authors note that incremental urbanism where the urban landscape has evolved
over time tends to have quirks that can contribute to place making and a "cool factor," and that
experimenting with a diversity of architecture should be considered as a part of any instant
urban project.
Converting Obsolete Malls
CoStar, October 3-17, 2012 [33]
In late 2012, Co-Star published a series of three articles on demalling America. As has already
been noted, the articles point out that as anchor tenants merge and contract, dominant
regional malls are faring better than secondary malls and do a better job attracting tenants.
This trend is particularly important in light of many retailers trending towards smaller stores,
exacerbating vacancy rates in weaker projects, and providing opportunities to augment tenant
mix in stronger ones. The dominant malls' success is often at the expense of outmoded centers
such as Vallco. The article asserts that 10% of the approximately 1,000 regional malls in the US
will fail by 2022 and repeats the quip: “Shopping centers aren’t overbuilt, they’re merely under-
demolished.”
Malls are typically well located, and are designed for a shorter lifespan than other types of real
estate such as housing and office (retail is routinely remodeled as customers are attracted to
“new and shiny”). Malls need to provide a mix of shopping, dining and entertainment
experiences, and whether with this in mind or not, many malls are being redesigned as town
squares. Projects and stores that are not refreshed in a regular basis tend to fare far worse.
Distressed malls often reflect financing issues. We agree with the author’s assertion that while
painful on a case-by-case basis, that the culling of weaker properties from the market is a
healthy process.
A fundamental decision needs to be made about whether to reposition a mall or to demolish
and start over. Regardless, a major repositioning represents key opportunities for visionary
1183
65
planning, political leadership, and the owner. There are positive externalities such as a well-
executed project helping lure desired employers and their highly desirable workers that should
be considered as well. Execution is difficult: In order to obtain financing, tenants need to be
lined up in advance, and the authors point out that successful mall repositionings involve a
combination of deleveraging, demalling, and deep pockets. These observations have been
repeated by some stakeholders whose interviews are summarized in this report.
Analogous Redevelopment Projects
In a larger context, Vallco is certainly not the only regional mall to suffer a significant decline in
the 1990’s. There are several analogs of regional malls in the United States, and one in
particular in the South Bay that declined and subsequently were successfully redeveloped.
Most of these projects have been repositioned as commodity projects, as hybrid projects with
both commodity and specialty characteristics, or as mixed-use projects. The distinctions
between commodity and specialty, and active versus non-active space (outlined above) provide
a paradigm for discussing these analogous projects, and how Vallco Shopping Mall might be
repositioned or redeveloped. Following are examples of former regional malls that became
defunct around the same time as Vallco’s decline. Each was subsequently successfully
redeveloped.
Belmar (formerly Villa Italia), Lakewood, Colorado [34, 35]
Belmar opened as Villa Italia in 1966 and flourished into the early 1980’s when a gradual decline
precipitated by a slow economy, poor maintenance and competition began. When the center
closed in 2001, three of its four anchors had left. Wanting to build an “urban mall,” the
developer decided to divide the 104-acre property into a 22 city block, 3.5 million square foot
mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly downtown district including a 900,000 square foot open-air mall,
269,000 square feet of offices, green areas, and 1,300 for-sale single-family residences,
townhouses, and condominiums and apartments.
1184
66
The site had a good location with good visibility and high-density neighborhoods nearby, and
the Villa Italia Mall had had a history of producing strong sales. The developer commented:
"Initially, the property was developed on a grant lease, which had an underlying owner plus 140
subtenants. We had to figure out how to consolidate all those subinterests -- each with veto
power -- into one. It was a huge undertaking that took several years and overlapped the actual
development process. It was certainly different from buying 100 acres of cornfield."
Another challenge was the issue of incremental development: "It would be wonderful if we
could have just dropped in, demolished everything, and started from scratch -- had it all done at
once. It doesn't work that way; it comes in increments. It's more evolutionary. You have to
manage this constantly evolving site, as well as residents' expectations. It's going to be a few
years before it comes into its own."
Even though it is still a work in progress, Belmar already has become a bustling, vibrant
downtown district for Lakewood, which had no such district before the renovation effort began.
It represents the cumulative will of the city of Lakewood and its residents, who clamored for a
downtown and an identity for the city.
Village San Antonio Center, Mountain View
Located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, developer Merlone
Geier, describes Village San Antonio Center as follows: [36]
The site encompasses approximately 229,000 square feet of retail buildings on 16 acres
of improved land. The property was developed over time with the initial construction
1185
67
taking place over fifty years ago. Formerly anchored by Sears, the current site/building
configuration is representative of what was designed in the 1950’s with an expansive
parking lot ranging from the adjacent streets to the building storefronts. Over time both
the buildings and parking lot have begun to show their age. [The following aerial shows
the pre-development plan.]
The newly approved Village San Antonio Center is an infill based residential and retail
redevelopment consisting of approximately 311,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
space, 330 residential units, and associated sub-grade, on-grade and roof-top parking.
It is anticipated that the project will contain a grocery store (+/- 65,000 square feet), a
pharmacy (+/- 17,000 square feet), 330 residential units, three to four restaurants (+/-
4,000–9,000 square feet), one or more large format retailers (+/-175,000 square feet), and
numerous small shop/office/retail spaces located throughout the project. The size and
density of the residential building is consistent with the scale of the adjacent office
building located behind the project.
The approved redevelopment of San Antonio Center aims to be sustainable, innovative,
and of long-term benefit to the City of Mountain View. Additionally, the redevelopment
will likely kick-start a renaissance of the overall 56 acre San Antonio regional retail
center. The project’s central location provides convenient citywide access from public
transportation, as well as nearby higher density residential neighborhoods, mitigating
dependence on arrival by car.
1186
68
In addition, the vertical orientation and density of the project conserves land, resources
and reduces impact on the city’s infrastructure. If developed as a conventional single-
story retail center, a project of this magnitude would occupy over 40 acres of land, in
contrast to San Antonio Center’s 16 acre site area. The fundamental design goals of the
project are: i) to create a vibrant retail and residential project that is responsive to the
adjacent context; ii) create a unique sense of place through the development of iconic
architectural elements and amenities; iii) provide public open plazas; and iv) provide an
active pedestrian oriented shopping and dining experience.
Englewood City Center (formerly Cinderella City), Englewood, Colorado [37]
Cinderella City Mall originally opened in the 1960’s. By the mid 1980’s, new and newly
renovated malls began to compete for market share and also brought new designs and new
tenants, causing Cinderella City to appear dated. By the mid 1990’s, anchors began to close,
Foley's being the first and Montgomery Ward being the last at the end of 1997. The remaining
approximately 100 tenants followed suit, often relocating to competing projects.
1187
69
During the following years, the city of Englewood would create, revise, and reject in excess of
30 redevelopment plans, ranging from complete demolition and turning the land into a park, to
keeping the structure and converting it to an art museum. In 1998, a final plan was adopted to
rehabilitate the area with transit-oriented development. Catalyzed by a future Regional
Transportation District (RTD) light rail station, Englewood planned on remaking the former mall
site as a "downtown", complete with luxury apartments, mixed-use retail and residential
buildings, and "big box" stores such as Wal-Mart, Office Depot, and The Sports Authority.
Sherman Oaks Galleria, Sherman Oaks, California [38]
The three-level mall opened at intersection of Ventura and Sepulveda Boulevards in Los
Angeles’ San Fernando Valley in 1980 with department store anchors Robinsons to the south
and May Company to the north. Pacific Theatres' Pacific 4 occupied the uppermost level of the
project. The Galleria became famous in the early 1980’s as the center of teenage mall culture
and a well-known teenage hangout as well as being immortalized in “Fast Times at Ridgemont
High” and “Valley Girl.” In 1993, Robinsons and May Company merged, and both stores in the
mall were converted to Robinsons-May, the north store becoming a Men's and Home store, and
the south store becoming a Women's and Children's store. The next decade saw business at
the Galleria decline. In January, 1994, the Galleria closed for 11 days for repairs following the
1188
70
Northridge earthquake, and although the Galleria reopened quickly, Robinson-May its south
store for four years; many smaller stores on that floor closed. During that closure, the Galleria
suffered due to having only one main anchor store. Closures continued through the late 1990’s.
The Galleria closed in April, 1999 for a major renovation and reopened in 2002 as an open-air
center. The only remnant of the original mall is the court where ArcLight Cinema is located, on
the uppermost level of what was previously the southern Robinsons-May store. The majority of
the remaining mall was turned into offices. Toady’s retail tenants include Urban Home, DSW
Shoe Warehouse, 24-Hour Fitness, Paul Mitchell-The School, and restaurants including The
Cheesecake Factory, P.F. Changs China Bistro, El Torito Grill, and Fuddruckers. The Sherman
Oaks Galleria also houses over 3,500 office workers on site daily as well as over 9,500 employees
populating the neighboring Douglas, Emmett offices. The Sherman Oaks Galleria has over
3,500 parking spaces.
Vallco Repositioning Alternatives
The retail sales and leakage analysis suggests that injections of sales for general merchandise,
where the sales are primarily derived from Target and the three Vallco Shopping Mall anchors, is
an indicator that while Vallco has significant inline shop vacancy, and is underperforming relative
1189
71
to more upscale traditional malls such as Valley Fair or Stanford Mall, the anchor stores still
function as a regional draw drawing shoppers from outside Cupertino. Put differently, Vallco
represents a mixed picture for Cupertino: Its commodity and specialty anchors both drawing
shoppers to the City while the moribund in-line component contributes to Cupertino’s
weakness in comparison goods shopping and destination retail.
The questions about Vallco is whether there is an opportunity to create a meaningful
destination (ie. specialty) retail environment combined with what essentially amounts to
commodity anchors, and whether this environment be a purely retail one, or retail as part of a
mix of uses that might include residential, office, and/or hospitality. To this end, the demand
daytime workers generate from purchases near their place of work, especially meals eaten
during the workday, or shopping done on the way to or from work could move Vallco towards a
tipping point that might influence its redevelopment. The public sector could play a
meaningful role in the repositioning process. For example, using a power of eminent domain to
gain control of all or a part of a project, or to eliminate covenants standing in the way of
development are powerful tools. Sears’ attorney, Ivor Samson, noted that while redevelopment
agencies have been disbanded in California, it has yet to be established if Successor Agencies
will be permitted to exercise a power of eminent domain in the public interest. The public
sector also has the ability to invest in projects and to eliminate barriers to redevelopment, for
example through bonding tax increment, or through thoughtful land use designations and
zoning.
Three of the key General Plan Amendment goals are:
• Goal 2: Identify and analyze potential increases to commercial (retail), office, mixed-use
and hotel development allocations within the study areas.
• Goal 3: Enhance and improve the overall commercial experience in Cupertino by
retaining existing business and attracting new companies.
• Goal 4: Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant
shopping and entertainment destination that serves both the region and the local
community.
Two repositioning scenarios have been created for Vallco Shopping Mall. The purpose of the
two repositioning scenarios outlined below will be to inform the decisions to be made in
response to these goal statements.
Repositioning Scenario 1: An ideal mix appealing to Cupertino and
extended trade area customers without regard to entitlement or site
constraints
This first scenario describes an ideal mix which might appeal to Cupertino’s citizens as well as to
residents of the larger Trade Area, and does not take into account required approvals or
encumbrances presently in place in the Study Area.
Vallco Shopping Mall is governed by a COREA, a document that establishes building and
parking requirements, and use requirements and restrictions among other things (see details
above). In addition, various tenant leases contain exclusive use clauses and further restrictions
1190
72
on competing uses as well as changes to the Mall’s common areas. For purposes of this
alternative scenario, we are assuming that none of these restrictions exist.
By way of background the following findings from the BAE Market Study and Retail Sales and
Leakage Analysis will inform this first repositioning scenario:
• Vallco operates in a defined Trade Area where retail demand and offerings are relatively
balanced, even though they are not balanced within the City of Cupertino proper.
• Cupertino proper continues to outpace the surrounding area in terms of income and
education levels.
• Those employed in Cupertino tend to have higher incomes than in the surrounding
areas.
• Cupertino has a strong housing market with high median home prices reflecting
demand outstripping supply.
• Demand significantly exceeds supply of office space. Another large corporate campus is
a reasonable expectation for Cupertino in the future.
• The City’s existing office space tends not to be configured for the sort of collaborative
working environments presently in favor.
• Occupancy and average room rate trends lead to the conclusion that hotel demand
outstrips supply.
An October, 2013 community workshop and an online forum were conducted to gather resident
input about the various Study Areas, and about the Vallco Study Area in particular. A polling
exercise revealed preferences for various site characteristics:
• Stevens Creek: Wide sidewalks and narrow setback of buildings from those sidewalks,
outdoor seating areas, rich landscaping (which also recycles storm-water and runoff),
enhanced public transportation infrastructure (including bus rapid transit and improved
shelters), incorporation of small plazas and parklets, and a mix of uses with retail on the
ground floor of residential and office buildings.
• Wolfe Road: A mix of uses with street-facing commercial uses with higher densities than
those preferred for Stevens Creek. Wolfe Road was the preferred location for a
traditional indoor shopping mall, however, a traditional shopping mall generally was not
preferred.
A block exercise was also conducted. In this exercise, participants where asked to use color-
coded blocks to create redevelopment scenarios with desired attributes. An example of this
exercise looked like the following:
1191
73
The following characteristics were frequently cited in the block exercise:
• Remake Wolfe Road into a “Main Street” with retail and other commercial uses fronting
the street.
• Design the project so that Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway become the dominant retail
corner.
• Incorporate enhanced landscaping, seating, etc. into the streetscape.
• Increase connectivity within the site and with adjacent projects (ie. Rose Bowl, Main
Street), and mobility for pedestrians and bicycles.
• Consolidate parking on the north end of the site closest to the freeway, thereby hiding
the parking and creating a noise barrier.
• Consolidate office near the freeway for the same reasons as parking.
• Create an indoor-outdoor environment including outdoor destination features such as
public spaces and parks within the project.
• Increase densities including a mix of uses with residential or office uses over ground
floor retail.
A few specific uses were called out in addition to general references to retail, residential, hotel,
and office. These included creating nightlife, retaining Sears and AMC, and adding a bigger
mix of restaurants.
A few interesting ideas were generated by individual groups. These included keeping Sears in
its present configuration as a defense against high rise development; having big-box retailers
face Wolfe Road with parking behind the stores; consolidating residential on the part of the
Study Area east of Wolfe Road; and, creating residential along the west border of the Study
Area as a buffer between the Study Area and existing single family homes to the west.
1192
74
Two groups cited specific projects: The Grove and Museum Square in Los Angeles, and nearby
Santana Row. Common elements shared among these projects include the creation of a retail
street or even a street grid, and increased densities including the integration of other uses such
as office, hospitality or residential.
Implications of Suggestions
The criteria cited by the various groups logically lead to a number of other considerations. For
example, Wolfe Road carries 27,390 cars daily. Wolfe Road being a main arterial providing
access to I-280 may be at odds with significant traffic calming and it becoming a retail "Main
Street." In order to be a "Main Street," traffic calming, on-street parking, creating a narrower
thoroughfare (perhaps by removing the median and narrowing lanes to 10½ feet), and other
features aimed at enabling pedestrians to see, cross, and access shopping options on the other
side of the street would need to be implemented, taking into account balancing traffic and
place-making objectives. In addition, the Apple Campus 2 is anticipated to add a significant
amount of traffic to Wolfe Road between I-280 and Vallco Parkway: The Apple EIR (Appendix B,
p. 38) estimates that the Apple Campus 2 will generate 35,106 net new daily vehicle trips when
at full occupancy. Over 50% of the morning and evening peak hour trips will be through the
Wolfe Road Main Driveway north of I-280, and it is anticipated that Wolfe Road to Vallco
Parkway to Tantau Avenue will be a key alternate route, increasing today’s Wolfe Road traffic
counts. Circulation and turning movements will need to be studied in order to accommodate
the additional Apple traffic as well as the additional traffic generated by a redeveloped Vallco
project. Since access and parking are key to the success of any suburban, auto-oriented retail
project, even a densely planned one, the impact of increased Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway
traffic counts on these site attributes will need to be studied as well.
Related to Wolfe Road and Vallco Parking design is improving connectivity with other adjacent
or nearby projects. One of Vallco's most notable attributes is the pedestrian bridge connecting
the portions of the project on either side of Wolfe Road, and the bridge could continue to serve
this purpose regardless of how the project is redeveloped. The bridge could also be
reengineered as an open bridge similar to the following picture of a similar amenity in Century
City in Los Angeles.
1193
75
Additional connections will need to be made between the portions of Vallco on either side of
Wolfe Road and the Rose Bowl site, the office site on the NEC of Stevens Creek and Wolfe
Road, and eventually to the Main Street project to the east. Whether additional pedestrian
bridges are constructed or crosswalks are created, there will be significant cost associated with
crossing these streets as well as accommodating the paths of travel and way-finding signage for
the various non-Vallco projects east of Wolfe Road. Many groups also mentioned improved
access to public transportation. Curb cutouts for bus loading and shelters will need to be
considered when designing the overall site plan. Decisions about creating a transit hub, and
whether to integrate that hub with the Apple Campus 2, will also need to be considered.
Among other options, many of the groups called for site configurations that would necessitate
large parts or even the entire existing mall being significantly reconfigured or even razed
including both large format retailers and shop space facing Wolfe Road. The process of
reconfiguring an existing mall is often referred to as “demalling.” Nearby Westgate Shopping
Center in San Jose is an excellent example of a former regional shopping center that was
demalled. Westgate originally opened in 1960, but starting in the late 1980’s and continuing
through today has been reconfigured mostly with outward-facing commodity retailers such as
Ross Dress For Less, Nordstrom Rack, Target, Old Navy, Any Mountain, Michaels, Hancock
Fabrics, Party City, and a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market that replaced Safeway in 2012.
Many groups indicated a desire for increased open space. The Vallco land has a basis which
could be defined in the simplest terms as the purchase price plus investment made in the
project less depreciation. Any owner or developer will be looking for a return on any
investment they might make. In the case of a redevelopment, that would mean a return on the
basis plus any investment anticipated to be made. Open space by definition would not be
developed with income-producing assets, but would require investment to create amenities
such as seating, landscaping, play areas and the like. This open space would also have
associated maintenance expenses in perpetuity. Thus, in order to achieve any particular
desired return on investment, the open space either requires a subsidy, or it places a higher
burden on the balance of the property that is to be developed. In order to accommodate this
higher burden, the balance of the property will need to be of greater density than might
otherwise be required, however, expected income is a function of supply and demand for the
sort of space that is built, and not of a “build it and they will come” wish. There is another
balancing act with respect to construction costs: Costs increase significantly once buildings can
no longer be block or wood frame construction, so if taller buildings are required in order to
achieve enough leasable area to offset the loss of buildable land that has been dedicated to
open space such as parks, some combination of yet more density and/or higher rents might be
required in order to offset these increased construction costs. To the extent the market
supports higher buildings and greater density (ie. users are interested in these spaces and will
pay rents needed to justify their construction), allowing greater heights and densities may
improve development pro-formas and by extension incent the demolition of Vallco in favor of a
complete redevelopment.
Many groups indicated a desire for parking to be hidden, and several groups designated
parking areas to be adjacent to I-280. Another option to hide parking is to create structured
parking either above or below ground, either of which are significantly more expensive to build
than surface parking (subterranean parking is yet more expensive than above-ground
structures). Cost is not the only consideration when planning parking. Retail places a premium
on convenience. Visible and easily accessible parking combined with a proximate path of travel
1194
76
to and from the retail shops contribute to “convenience.” Parking on the far north end of the
site would not meet these important criteria. Parking for The Grove, a destination regional
shopping center mentioned above, is primarily housed in one large parking structure. This
structure has the unique characteristic of being extremely well designed in terms of ease of use
and vertical transportation for vehicles and pedestrians alike. It is also situated in the
geographic middle of the Grove, minimizing the proximity issue previously mentioned.
Virtually all groups indicated a desire for a mix of uses. Mixed-use projects for a variety of
reasons are inherently more complex to design, build, and manage than single use projects.
For example, in projects where a retail use occupies the ground level and residential or office
uses occupy upper levels, there will likely need to be structured parking, vertical transportation
(ie. stairs, elevators, escalators), and separation of public and private facilities. Residents do not
want to share parking with retail shoppers, so parking entrances, parking areas, and vertical
transportation must be segregated from the same facilities for retail customers and shop-
keepers. While this segregation also addresses security issues, there will likely be a need for
additional on-site security to satisfy residents and shoppers alike. Both vehicle and pedestrian
circulation patterns will need to take into account separate residential/office and retail
driveways and visitor lobbies, each with their own identity. Loading docks, trash, utilities, and
other building systems will also need to be segregated, further complicating design and adding
cost to construction.
1195
77
Type and Size of Project, Likely Uses
The Vallco Shopping Mall land is a unique, large piece of property in an area with high land
values (the nearby Main Street site was purchased by Sand Hill Property Company for $65
million or almost $85.76 per square foot in 2008). High land values reflect high demand and
higher rents. Few large tracts of land are available for redevelopment at any price, and while
the price paid for the Main Street site may or may not have been too much, it can certainly be
concluded that land in Vallco’s immediate area is valuable. A dense, mixed-use project
incorporating a variety of uses is likely a financially viable option for this valuable site.
Demolishing most or all of the existing improvements will most likely be deemed the best
alternative, and would also be the easiest path to creating an indoor-outdoor environment. For
example, an “ideal project” (i.e. one conceived for purposes of this Repositioning Scenario 1)
might have three distinct areas: Wolfe Road as a retail “Main Street”, an office, hospitality, and
residential component west of Wolfe Road, and a commodity retail project east of Wolfe Road
is one possible configuration. Following are some specific attributes:
• Create a retail boulevard along Wolfe Road.
• Narrow Wolfe Road and add on-street parking, wider sidewalks, and enhanced street-
scape and landscaping.
• Place retail and perhaps office or residential entrance lobbies so they face Wolfe Road
(and create easy paths of travel from parking facilities).
• Determine if the existing anchor tenants would or would not be a part of a
redevelopment plan.
• Separate big-box tenants from multi-family and office components, perhaps with retail
east of Wolfe on land presently owned by JC Penney, and office, residential, and
hospitality west of Wolfe Road.
• Consider incorporating uses such as a university satellite or extension campus, or
ambulatory medical uses.
• Consider from a design and engineering perspective if AMC can remain in-place (ie. “in
the air”), or if an on-site relocation would be necessary.
• Create an interior circulation system to route visitors to and from parking facilities
serving the specific uses they had come to patronize.
• Create residential development near existing residential suites and the least compatible
commercial use (i.e. commodity retail) east of Wolfe Road, adjacent to existing
commercial uses. Note, however, in the alternative a good argument could be made
that office or residential uses designed to tie into the new Apple Campus 2 should be
assembled east of Wolfe Road.
Retail Tenant Mix
Two mutually-distinct retail components are likely: a Main Street specialty component and a
big-box commodity component. The retail fronting Wolfe Road would likely be made up of
considerably smaller shop tenants and eating and drinking establishments than the retail
presently in Vallco Shopping Mall. Displays and seating areas on wide sidewalks would be
encouraged and protection from the elements integrated into the design. Retailers and
restaurants would serve the dual purpose of catering to Cupertino’s large daytime worker
population and offer an expanded offering in the evenings for residents. While predominantly
1196
78
specialty in nature, some daily-needs (i.e. serving, commodity) retail should be particularly
encouraged to cater to the weekday users. This retail would be expected to compete favorably
with the planned retail on Main Street because of the higher traffic on Wolfe Road.
The focus of retail along Wolfe Road might sound reminiscent of Santana Row, however, it
should not be thought of in those terms. Santana Row is a unique environment, located at a
major intersection (with far more traffic than Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road), near two major
freeways, and in the retail nexus of one of the more successful regional malls in the United
States. In other words, it is simply different. The Wolfe Road retail offering would be much
smaller than Santana Row, need to integrate with adjacent non-owned projects such as the
Rose Bowl and Main Street, and more likely to resemble a nearby downtown as is found in
Campbell, Los Altos, Mountain View, or Palo Alto’s University and California Avenues.
These users could be assembled in the land presently occupied by JC Penney and its parking
facilities, thereby creating a project-within-a-project which would have a distinct commodity
retail identity. Segregating destination retail from other uses would have the benefit of
minimizing retail-oriented vehicle trips and parking impacts on residential or office uses. At the
same time, overlapping parking facilities for the commodity retail component and the Wolfe
Road specialty retail component are feasible.
The retail sales and leakage analysis revealed that, with respect to commodity retail, the Trade
Area has a balanced retail offering, while Cupertino actually leaks retail dollars to other parts of
the Trade Area. Introducing commodity retailers might help recapture some sales as well as
capturing other sales from outside the Trade Area.
Place-Making Considerations
The creation of the three distinct areas as described above, Wolfe Road as a retail “Main
Street,” an office, hospitality, and residential component west of Wolfe Road, and a commodity
retail project east of Wolfe Road, would inform place- making considerations. The location and
size of enhanced street-scape and open spaces within the projects would be one key
consideration. Likewise, integrating these amenities into the various districts, and with the uses
within those districts (and even with other nearby projects) by creating vehicular, pedestrian,
and bicycle paths-of-travel, and way-finding signage will be critical.
1197
79
Apple Campus 2
The Apple Campus 2 is designed to accommodate over 14,000 employees at full occupancy. A
redeveloped Vallco site will need to take this significant project into account. For example,
while there are benefits to placing a destination retail project on the other side of Wolfe Road
from office and hospitality uses, the area east of Wolfe Road might be better designated for
office and hospitality, rather than for retail, in order to create the most convenient proximity of
these uses to the Apple Campus 2. Another option would be to extend Wolfe Road’s “Main
Street” district onto Vallco Parkway. Regardless of how a redeveloped Vallco is designed,
creating a “front door” that invites integration with the Apple Campus 2 should be a key site
planning consideration.
Development and Entitlement Issues
Creating certainty with respect to required approvals and the process for obtaining them will be
key to the Study Area’s redevelopment. The Vallco Study Area is already zoned for a mix of
uses, however, reconciling the highest and best mix of uses with corresponding allocations for
those uses will remove a barrier to the Study Area’s evolution. Likewise, removing or
streamlining the need for conditional use permits, stating key desired design criteria and
articulating the required community outreach and approval process (ie. design review, planning
commission, or City Council) will have a positive impact on development planning efforts.
1198
80
Repositioning Scenario 2: Assume market factors such as competing
projects and legal limitations such as those contained in the COREA
and land use regulations
As discussed, Vallco operates in a retail environment dominated by Valley Fair and Santana
Row, Westgate Shopping Center, Stanford Shopping Center, and other downtowns and Main
Street areas such as Downtown Los Altos, and perhaps Sunnyvale Town Center once it’s
redevelopment has been completed. The area in which Vallco is located is governed by the
South Vallco Master Plan. While zoning allows for a mix of uses including regional shopping,
general commercial, office, hotel and residential, a development agreement allowing for the
development of certain of these uses has expired.
The project is governed by the COREA, as amended, as well as various lease restrictions and
other agreements. These documents establish building and parking requirements, and use
requirements and restrictions among other things. In addition, various tenant leases contain
exclusive use clauses and further restrictions on competing uses as well as changes to common
areas of the projects.
Type and Size of Project
Mike Rhode, Vallco’s general manager, commented when interviewed that the only way to solve
Vallco is to purchase the anchors. Based on our interviews with the anchors, we do not believe
this purchase is likely to be achieved, however, we are aware of at least two redevelopment
schemes that have been developed over the past decade that incorporate the anchors. The
past schemes are notable because each involved some level of discussion and negotiation with
the anchor tenants whose approval would be required in order to move forward with a plan. In
other words, they establish that the anchors were willing to discuss a redevelopment. The
stakeholder interviews with Sears, Macy’s, and JC Penney all confirmed that the majors remain
open to and willing to discuss a redevelopment strategy today. Furthermore, assuming a
mutually agreeable plan can be designed, cooperation is in each of the anchor tenant’s best
interest.
Probably the biggest hindrance to such a conversation happening is the current owner’s lack of
experience, obvious credentials, and apparent interest in executing a redevelopment plan. This
alternative analysis will assume that ownership is interested in pressing forward with a
redevelopment.
1199
81
Receiver’s Plan c. 2002 Grammercy Plan c. 2007
Both of these plans call for a mixed-use environment, but neither address what is almost
certainly an excess of retail space on-site, nor today’s moribund atmosphere (i.e. retaining or
rebuilding existing infrastructure). As noted in Maryia Hodge’s paper, trends today are favoring
alternative formats and even the resurgence of downtowns in certain circumstances. Cupertino
has never had a downtown per se, however, Belmar, Mountain View, and Englewood are all
examples of creating a downtown-esque environment where none had previously existed by
establishing a critical mass of commercial and residential uses. In each case, density becomes
the magnet.
Uses and Tenancy
There are other product mix and tenant merchandising decisions that will need to be made.
For example, the importance of incorporating an Asian-theme to reflect the community’s
demographic and ethnic makeup, relocating JC Penney to the west side of Wolfe Road (freeing
the entire portion of the Study Area located east of Wolfe Road for redevelopment), idenfiying
the most appropriate mix of retail and non-retail uses, and taking the Apple Campus 2 into
account are all critical to formulating a redevelopment plan for Vallco.
While the City of Cupertino’s residents are 63.1% Asian, Santa Clara County is only 31.7% Asian.
The retail sales and leakage analysis observed that while Cupertino is leaking sales to the
defined Trade Area, that Trade Area is relatively balanced with respect to sales leakage. This
balance would indicate that if Vallco is seen as a regional destination, the project’s makeup
certainly might include a variety of tenants catering to the needs and tastes of the large Asian
community, however, it should not be a so-called “Asian center” per se.
Relocating JC Penney to the west side of Wolfe Road accomplishes two goals: It is consistent
with JC Penney’s stated desire to monetize their land holding while still maintaining a
downsized presence in the project, and it frees 19.07 acres of land east of Wolfe Road for
redevelopment (4.27 owned by the mall, 2.12 by KSR, and 12.68 by JC Penney). There are
relatively few, if any, well located land parcels in Santa Clara County of this size, and the residual
land value would be expected to be quite high.
The BAE Market Study identifies demand for office, hospitality, and residential uses. Demand
for younger knowledge workers, referring to residential opportunity, was specifically mentioned.
1200
82
The 19-plus acre site could support a significant amount of office, housing, or both. Hospitality
uses could be easily incorporated on either side of Wolfe Road. From a use perspective, all of
these uses would complement the Apple Campus 2. Also, it is our understanding that the
Apple Campus 2 is designed only to meet current needs, and there will be additional future
office demand. First class, high density for-sale or for-rent housing will certainly be in demand,
and given that this sort of housing is not ideal for families, it may be a palatable proposition to
the community given sensitivity to overburdening the local school system.
Land East Versus West of Wolfe Road
With the hypothesis that the land east of Wolfe Road is highly desirable for development, and
that it could actually be freed for such development, addressing the portion of Vallco west of
Wolfe Road becomes the key topic. Parking, and especially structured parking, is expensive to
create. There are significant existing parking facilities on the west and north sides of the
existing mall, so to the extent these facilities do not need to be relocated or rebuilt, the cost of
a significant rehabilitation to the project becomes financially more manageable because returns
will be that much easier to achieve.
In either scenario, the climate in Silicon Valley is normally temperate year round, and thus
conducive to creating an open-air environment. Integrating this open-air environment with
what would become AMC’s “skybox” location will need to be addressed in the design
development phase of the project, but we believe it may be deemed possible from a structural
perspective. An open-air environment will also make establishing connections with adjacent
projects easier.
The amount and mix of tenants west of Wolfe Road is an important consideration. Given the
128,789 square feet of retail space planned for the Main Street project, we recommend that the
536,794 square feet of mall/shops space be reduced significantly. Without doing site planning
exercises and corresponding pro-formas, which were not a part of the scope of work for this
Report, it is difficult to determine the ideal amount of space. There are two most likely
scenarios: A demalling, which would combine a JC Penney on-site relocation as shown on the
2002 plan with ±100,000 square feet of shop space (this is intended as a starting place from
which to determine the ideal amount of space) on an axis between Sears and Macy’s combined
with some commodity retail (e.g. Ulta Cosmetics, a pet retailer, or Best Buy or Office Depot’s
new smaller concepts). Additionally, some Wolfe Road-facing retail could be integrated into
the new design. An alternative scenario would be to combine the shop space with non-retail
uses such as office or hospitality. Regardless of what scenario is undertaken, it is likely that the
project’s GLA will actually be reduced. This reduced mall GLA would allow the development of
outparcels without putting an undue burden on existing parking facilities.
Retail Tenant Mix
Vallco already has two full service restaurants: TGI Fridays and Alexander’s Steakhouse,
however, neither is well integrated into the Study Area’s existing pedestrian flow. The Mall’s
food court is not compelling with respect to atmosphere or selection of food operators.
Creating a path of travel for Friday’s and Alexander’s as well as augmenting the food offerings
will be key to a successfully revitalized Study Area’s success. Valley Fair’s dining terrace might
1201
83
give guidance to the sort of quick-serve food uses that should be considered. Likewise,
borrowing from Santana Row’s restaurant success should be studied. In both cases, the food
uses are designed to integrate with the surrounding uses, either through adjacency or by
literally spilling out of their spaces onto adjacent sidewalks.
Regardless of the amount of retail to be included in a revitalized project, fashion will be an
important part of the project’s identity. The BAE Market Study notes that the lack of clothing
and apparel-related stores is due in part to the lack of destination retail centers in Cupertino,
and, in part, from competition with Valley Fair and other fashion-driven projects. Fashion
tenants could run the range from ubiquitous national tenants such as Gap Inc., Osh Kosh,
Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, Zara, Bebe, Sketchers, or Juicy Couture. Alternatively, attention
could be focused on a cluster of active lifestyle concepts such as The North Face, Columbia, or
Under Armor. While not offering the same credit, a decision about whether to include local or
regional tenants will help create the project’s identity, and differentiate it from other competing
projects…creating an all-important message.
In urban areas, high costs and other barriers to entry have limited the development of
commodity retail projects, so there is significant pent-up demand. If a demalling strategy were
to be pursued, candidates for larger spaces might range from Ulta Cosmetics to commodity
tenants such as a pet superstore, or Office Depot’s new smaller concept. As no major
electronics stores exist in Cupertino (although Sears carries a large variety of appliances), the
project might present an opportunity for Best Buy’s new smaller concept store. Other
categories might include value-oriented soft-goods retailers like Ross Dress for Less, DSW,
H&M, or Uniqlo as their rollout matures.
Alternative uses might help give the project a unique identity. Apple, possibly the most
sophisticated omnichannel retailer in the world, is headquartered in Cupertino, and does
operate a company store at its headquarters that is open the to the public and is promoted as
“the only place in the world that sells Apple logo t-shirts, caps and accessories,” however, the
closest Apple Store is located at Valley Fair Shopping Center. Vallco’s proximity to Apple’s
headquarters might present Apple with the opportunity to consider opening an Apple flagship
store that ties into Apple’s HQ. Another example might be including other healthy lifestyle
alternatives to compliment The Bay Club, such as a pilates studio, or even incorporate an open
air climbing gym, which might be today’s analog to the ice rink and merry-go-round of
yesteryear. Whatever the alternative uses, they should have the multiple roles of promoting the
uniqueness of Vallco, giving the customer reason to visit and to linger, and of being active uses
that engage the consumer and the community.
Place-Making Considerations
Creating a project with a sense of “place” requires thoughtful decisions regarding use of
storefront design, store and project signage, way-finding signage, materials, lighting, tenant
mix and location, indoor-outdoor connections, and amenities such as seating, light, and shade.
While authenticity should be a consideration, we do not believe there is any particular
emotional connection between the consumer and Vallco that is worthy of preserving. In this
case we would recommend NOT maintaining “continuity of place,” and instead suggest that an
exterior remodel is an important component of any repositioning strategy as it would convey
1202
84
the all-important message that “there is something new here” to consumers. An excellent
example of such an exterior remodel strategy is the Sherman Oaks Galleria:
Before After
A large-scale redevelopment east of Wolfe Road combined with the Rose Bowl project, the
Main Street project, and an overhaul of Vallco’s infrastructure west of Wolfe Road gives rise to
opportunities to create connectivity between all projects, and to create a “city center” for the
community. On a smaller scale, careful consideration must be given to tenant placement,
configuration of indoor-outdoor areas and parklets where patrons might be encouraged to
gather and linger, protection from the elements, store and way-finding signage, and use of
inviting materials throughout the various projects in and adjacent to the Study Area.
The Mall’s “back of house” is relatively well designed in that it allows for deliveries and loading,
trash service, truck path-of-travel and the like without significant impacts on the project or the
public. These facilities will still likely need to be redesigned as part of a remodeling effort so as
not to interfere with neighbors, a new site plan, or with newly introduced non-retail uses.
Finally, JC Penney is a mid-market department store that generally does not have the same
top-of-mind association with newly gentrified retail and mixed-use projects. Creating an
identity that is fresh, appealing, and reflective of the community’s demographic makeup, and
not diluted by these brands will be a balancing act. We believe that focus on a broad mix,
fresh alternative uses, a mixed-use environment, and attention to place-making consideration
will help overcome this hurdle.
Development and Entitlement Issues
Most importantly, in order for a redevelopment to take place, the property needs a basis that
makes reinvestment possible. The present owner’s purchase price was $64 million. This price
equates to $4.48 million in net operating income at a 7.0% cap rate, or $3.84 million at a 6% cap.
Actual net operating income today is unknown, but in 2007 it was just under $2 million. Note
that gross income was significantly higher, but the high vacancy level required the owner to pay
for operating expenses that ordinarily would be reimbursed by retail tenants, which typically
operate on “triple net” or “NNN” leases where the tenant reimburses the landlord for
operating and maintaining costs, insurance, and property taxes. If occupancy levels were to
increase, top-line income would rise at the same time that the share of operating expenses the
owner needs to pay would decrease.
1203
85
Significant reinvestment will be required to reinvigorate the Mall. While grossly oversimplifying
the economic model, the following gives some perspective about the required investment: In
2002, the receiver estimated that a $51 million investment would be required (not including land
or demolition costs) to execute its redevelopment plan (site plan above). The CPI (probably a
conservative measure for purposes of calculating construction costs) has risen 30% since that
time, equating to over a $66 million investment today, again not including the cost of land,
demolition, or concessions to tenants who hold approval rights over changes to the Mall. The
net operating income required to support the original basis plus this level of investment would
be $9.1 million at a 7.0% cap, or $7.8 million at a 6% cap. In other words, a significant
investment, a leasing plan that increases net operating income from $2 million, and the time
and expertise to achieve all three are required.
In addition to creating a financially viable development plan, approvals will need to be sought
to execute that plan. It is not known at this time what mix of uses or tenants might be sought,
however, the area has the potential, with the Rose Bowl and Main Street projects, and close
proximity to Apple’s headquarters, to form the basis of a commercial City Center for Cupertino.
Absent being able to use its power of condemnation or to provide a public funding mechanism,
removing barriers to development is a key contribution the City could make in this instance.
The area has already been designated for multiple commercial uses including retail, office,
hospitality, and for residential uses. The City has a history of creating allocations for these
various uses. The economy and the real estate market ebb and flow over time making one sort
of use more or less commercially viable at any given time. It is recommended that the City set
aside allocations in the Vallco Shopping District that will allow a developer to create various
development scenarios with the knowledge of what is achievable from an entitlement
perspective.
Execution will be important. The owner will need to partner with a leasing team and a
management company that are experienced lessors and operators of regional retail and larger-
scale mixed-use projects. The leasing partner will also need to be able to compete effectively
against Westfield which has a vested interest in a Vallco redevelopment not taking place.
The anchor tenants with approval rights over changes to the project have a balancing equation
to consider: What is the right balance of concessions with the upside of anchoring a once-again
vigorous project. The owner-developer will need to carefully negotiate these tenant approvals
to allow for both the financial and planning aspects of the project to be successful.
Any partner should have relationships with the anchor tenants, as there are some significant
issues to overcome. For example, it is our understanding that due to a co-tenancy provision in
AMC’s lease, the Mall’s vacancy rate reduces AMC rent to a fraction of its contracted rent.
AMC’s sales are reported to be strong. AMC thusly has a vested interest in the status-quo since
it is quite possible that not enough incremental customer traffic could be generated, even by a
successful redevelopment, to make up for the differential between its present minimal
occupancy cost and the rent called for in its lease. A strategy for gaining AMC’s needed
approvals might be to amend their lease, replacing their contracted rent schedule with a
blending of their contract and their current rent.
1204
86
NON-VALLCO RELATED STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW
FEEDBACK
A number of interviewees commented on City characteristics. These comments ranged from
recognition of the City’s generally high education levels to its Asian-influenced ethnic makeup.
One pointed out that some retailers will think that incomes and education levels are too high to
consider opening in Cupertino, including some general merchandise and grocery discounters
(examples might include dollar stores or Grocery Outlet).
• It was also noted that contrary to development trends in some surrounding areas (for
example, Merlone Geier’s Mountain View project), the City does not have much dense
mixed-use development that is substantial in scale, well-designed, and well-built. This
lack of mixed-use product was viewed as curious given apparent redevelopment
opportunities like The Oaks. Another observed that Cupertino is a hidden gem, and has
the potential to benefit from business growth as Sunnyvale “was supposed to.” One
Cupertino property owner commented that density would help economic development,
but feared the ramifications of having that comment attributed to him and his
employer’s holdings.
• A retail real estate professional knowledgeable about the Cupertino retail market noted
that De Anza, Stevens Creek, and Homestead have the traffic counts needed for retail
development, while another noted that the De Anza corridor is viewed as being well
located for retail development, however, traffic is so great on De Anza that retailers
would lose impulse visits because potential customers do not want to fight the
congestion.
• Many stakeholders commented that residents do not like change. A stakeholder
observed that Cupertino is home to one of the world’s highest profile companies, that
Cities evolve (neighboring cities like Santa Clara are embracing opportunities brought
by high-profile high-tech companies), and that an opportunity is being missed not even
trying to meet today’s housing and amenity demand created by younger knowledge
workers. More than one person acknowledged the fear that any new housing will have a
detrimental impact on schools, and one wondered why contributions for new school
facilities were not part of conditions of approval for new residential projects (it should be
noted that SB50 limits the City’s role in imposing additional school impact fees over
those allowed by AB2926).
Some stakeholders identified concerns about government and the development process that
are seen broadly through the Bay Area. For example:
• Several stakeholders expressed views that the Planning Commission and the City
Council were not aligned about supportiveness to change. Some held the view that the
Planning Commission has been supportive of new development, but this view was not
uniformly held with respect to the rest of City government.
• Some stakeholders felt the City was good to work with on the entitlement process and
obtaining approvals, while others expressed reservations.
1205
87
• Other stakeholders commented that staff and Council often had a different vision than
developers, and by way of example noted that the City’s hesitation in approving the
Biltmore project at its fully allowed density was disappointing.
• The perception City government opposes significant development despite demand.
• A concern that policy-makers have a comprehensive knowledge of real estate and
development.
• A view that developers are market driven, and policy-makers would benefit to
developers’ analysis of what the City needs, and their market-based point-of-view of
development economics.
Other stakeholder comments more specific to Cupertino included:
• A desire that the decision-makers be more open minded about allowing the City to
grow economically.
• A concern the City is reluctant to approve new office space because ABAG would then
allocate additional RHNA numbers to meet jobs-housing balance requirements.
• Confusion was expressed about whether City government or the community has a
preference not to grow in a significant way. It was noted that if there were not resistance
to new development, there would be opportunities all along Stevens Creek and De Anza
for both commercial and residential redevelopment.
• A perception the City lets itself be bullied into decisions. The example cited was Main
Street being approved with senior housing, but soon after the housing component was
approved by the decision-makers, that housing being converted to market-rate at the
developer’s request.
• A perception that decision-makers over-weigh concerns of conservative residents who
do not want change. This person also indicated that the people who take the time to go
and speak at Council meetings are generally those that don’t like the project or some
aspect thereof. Supporters do not take the time to go to hearings.
• One stakeholder suggested that older citizens don’t want any change, citing as an
example (perhaps as a stereotype) an older citizen who appeared before the Council to
request signs only be in English.
Finally, a number of stakeholders offered opinions about prospects about Cupertino and about
some of the Opportunity Sites specifically:
• While it is a nice idea not to be car-dependent, it is unrealistic to think [the Trade Area]
will detach from the car, so there will need to be retail catering to impulse shopping that
is well designed with clear retail identity and easy parking for customers arriving by car
and not some other means.
• Traditional retail requires a low FAR (0.25 at most). The best case for land values for this
FAR would be $50-60 PSF which is substantially below market for other uses. For
example, the 3-acre southwest corner of El Camino Real and Wolfe sold in 2012 for $110
PSF. In order for retail to be developed, need to zone property for retail and keep that
property zoned for retail, or owners will hold out for more money for a different use.
• A number of stakeholders expressed optimism that Cupertino has many opportunities
going forward. Future development can be built around Apple’s highly identified
presence in the City.
1206
88
• The City’s central location in Silicon Valley makes it a prime opportunity for
redevelopment as compared with other cities. Other opportunities cited include:
• Providing places for young talent to live and to enjoy the community is important to the
City’s evolution. The line at BJ’s was seen as showing how few places there are in the
City to go out after work. The City needs more gathering places. It is hoped that Main
Street will help fill this void.
• Economics for building hotels don’t yield a much higher residual land value than retail.
While a five star hotel might be desired, select service models are more profitable and
easier to finance. A 2.0-2.5 acre site where a hotel can share parking with office would
make a good hotel development opportunity.
• Forever 21 was rumored by one stakeholder to have commented that they would not
come to Vallco even if they were given free rent. This comment is no doubt a reflection
of the project’s condition and lack of tenancy and less a comment on the desirability of
Cupertino per se. If Vallco were to be redeveloped and retailers had a reasonable
expectation of co-tenancy, stores like Forever 21 would be expected to at least evaluate
whether the project and area met their criteria for a new store opening
• Transit in particular would allow for opportunities for growth while minimizing traffic
impacts.
1207
89
RECOMMENDATIONS
Cupertino was originally conceived and planned as an auto-oriented, suburban environment.
This suburban model is evolving as population and population density increases, and as once
distant suburbs find themselves increasingly at the center of population centers. As Cupertino
decides if and how it intends to embrace increased density and mixed-use projects (an
increasing trend in real estate development and redevelopment in the Bay Area and beyond),
careful consideration should be given to retail design (location, visibility, access and circulation,
signage, parking, appropriate convenience attributes, etc.) with an eye to ensuring that design
trends do not trump basic functionality. This applies both to commodity and to specialty retail
projects.
Shopping patterns generally are not limited by city or county borders. Cupertino residents have
many alternatives for both commodity and specialty retail venues that are close to but not
necessarily within the City limits. Trader Joe’s is one excellent example. Significant successful
retail exists along El Camino Real in Sunnyvale, at Westgate Shopping Center in San Jose,
Valley Fair and Santana Row at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Winchester (and I-880 and
I-280), and downtown districts in Los Altos, Mountain View, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto.
• The City government and residents alike are widely viewed as being conservative about
approving new development projects, particularly projects with residential components.
We recommend using the feedback from the community process that has been a part of this
planning effort, and additional workshop(s) as needed including elected officials, planning
and economic development staff, the community, and retail development professionals
aimed at creating a mission and values statement about retail development and
redevelopment in Cupertino, and whether capturing retail sales presently occurring outside
the City limits is desired. Such a statement would provide a consistent baseline against
which project sponsors can plan, and staff and Council can evaluate and approve projects.
This statement could also guide how retail projects should be designed in order to be
competitive with offerings outside the City limits if that is desired.
• We believe that Cupertino is well located and could attract additional retail. The
Opportunity Sites that are the subject of this report have been evaluated for such
development. We recommend that other sites that were not part of the scope of this report
also be evaluated. The Oaks is one example.
• In order to better understand what attributes will be required for successful retail
developments in Cupertino and to augment this report, we recommend evaluating the
factors that make Westgate Mall, Valley Fair/Santana Row, and other nearby shopping
districts frequented by Trade Area residents appealing to patronize. A well-designed
intercept survey or on-line poll might suffice.
• There is a lack of destination-oriented specialty “lifestyle” and “downtown” areas within the
City’s borders. For example, while sit-down restaurants exist, they are generally not in a
project or a district where one might park, stroll, cross-shop other merchants, and “hang
out.” Cupertino Village may be one of the best examples of a successful destination-
oriented specialty project within the City’s borders (despite it actually being a hybrid with
commodity-tenant Ranch 99 market in the project).
1208
90
• Some projects have potential to be community-gathering spots, however, they do not
appear to be as well patronized as possible. The Oaks is a good example. In these cases,
careful consideration of potential audiences and project design may help reinvigorate a
stalled project.
• There are some blockbuster retail projects in close proximity to Cupertino. Santana Row is
one good example. Not every project is for every city. The suitability of a retail project for
any given community is a comment on how market forces have evolved over time. It is not a
negative comment on the community that does not have a particular facility, even if that
facility is desired.
Focus on planning retail projects that are best suited to serve the local community’s needs
as opposed to replicating facilities found elsewhere (and which are unique to those facility’s
individual circumstances) should be a primary planning focus.
• Many communities have leanings or policies about requiring retail on the ground floor of
mixed-use, and especially residential, projects. Sometimes this retail space is well executed
and serves an important purpose. Just as often, it is not as successful as it was envisioned.
As discussed in this report, retail succeeds or fails based on demand, and the relative
competitiveness of its location and site attributes (especially visibility, access, and parking)
as compared with other options. Because residential uses result in higher residual land
values than retail, the retail component of mixed-use projects is frequently designed
principally with housing and not retail in mind. We assume that the City, the project
sponsor, the retailer, neighbors and the community, and customers all want well designed
projects that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional (and without vacancy resulting
principally from lack of demand or poor design). We recommend that ground floor retail in
mixed-use projects be evaluated for its appropriateness on a case-by-base basis, taking
location and demand into consideration. We also recommend that when such a retail
component is deemed appropriate, that project sponsors be required to retain experts
(whether a retail architect, site planner, or other retail consultant) to advise on the size,
location, site attributes, and layout/design of the retail component.
Redeveloping Vallco will take significant effort on the owner and the City’s part, and the mall is
unlikely to be successful without a significant redevelopment effort. Following are our
recommendations for Vallco:
• Understand owner Son Son Co’s motivation for purchasing the property, and its long-term
plans for the property. A significant effort may be required in order to engage the owner
and to build a rapport.
• Understand Sears’ long-term plans for its property, the extent to which Sears might want to
redevelop its parcel and how, and in what ways Sears may or may not be interested in
cooperating with a redevelopment effort.
• Sears’ attorney brought up an interesting point about whether Successor Agencies will be
permitted to exercise their power of eminent domain in the public interest post-dissolution
of redevelopment. Hire land use counsel to provide guidance on this point. Depending
1209
91
upon the outcome of this investigation, explore the feasibility of contemning the COREA or
certain provisions thereof which impede obtaining approvals necessary to activate a
redevelopment of the Mall.
• Open a conversation with Apple about it’s interest in the Mall property, and if it is interested
the nature of that interest.
• Create a vision for Vallco Shopping Center (and do not hesitate to “Think big!”) to be
memorialized in a specific plan with the following goals in mind:
o Start thinking about the area comprised of Vallco, the Rose Bowl, Menlo Equities,
and Main Street as a downtown district.
o Identify the amount and type of retail desired for the Vallco property. Retail will
likely result in a lower residual land value than office or residential uses, so making
clear what portions or how much of the land needs to remain retail and the
configuration of that retail (i.e. on the ground floor of a mixed-use development,
traditional surface-parked shopping center, etc.) will lead to development
underwriting that recognizes some of the land will be used for less than its highest
and best use (i.e. most valuable use). Articulate desired uses for the portion of
Vallco east of versus west of Wolfe Road.
o Create certainty with respect to an approval process: Create clearly articulated
design criteria, FAR’s and massing guidelines, and timelines for obtaining approvals.
When a developer can see a clear path from underwriting and acquisition to
approvals and commencement of construction, it can more easily evaluate the
feasibility of a development in terms of anticipated market conditions.
o Focus on pedestrian-friendly environments, active ground floor uses, and outdoor
uses.
o Ensure cohesion throughout the specific plan area by creating better connections,
architectural relationships, common spaces and parking between individual
properties/ownerships. Address streetscape improvements, reconfiguration of
Wolfe Road, and connectivity. Explore Mello Roos districts for improvements and
infrastructure.
o Be realistic about what visibility, access, circulation, and parking facilities will be
required in order for a proposed project to compete with other shopping
destinations frequented by target customers.
• Every revitalization projects needs a champion! Have the City Council become the project’s
advocate.
• Be patient, and know when to say: “No!” The plan articulated in a specific plan may or may
not be feasible in today’s market and economic climate. Any redevelopment will be
something the community will live with for decades, so waiting a few years for the right set
of circumstances to converge is preferable to the wrong project today.
1210
92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ULI - Professional Real Estate Development The ULI Guide to the Business, 2012, By
Richard Peiser, David Hamilton
2. ULI - Professional Real Estate Development The ULI Guide to the Business, 2012, By
Richard Peiser, David Hamilton
3. Gaming Google: The Growing Importance of Omni-Channel, RSR Research, Brian
Kilcourse, March 1, 2011 www.rsrresearch.com/2011/03/01/gaming-google-the-growing-
importance-of-omni-channel/
4. Shopping Centers Today, November, 2012
5. ULI - Professional Real Estate Development The ULI Guide to the Business, 2012, By
Richard Peiser, David Hamilton
6. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007
7. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallco
8. Apple Campus 2 Environmental Impact Report
9. October 24, 2013 San Francisco Business Times
10. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007
11. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007
12. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007
13. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallco
14. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007
15. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallco
16. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007
17. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall,
September, 2007
18. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007
19. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall,
September, 2007
20. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall,
September, 2007
21. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall,
September, 2007
22. Maryia Hodge while a planning student at San Jose State University
23. J. Thomas Black, Libby Howland, and Stuart L. Rogel, Downtown Retail Development:
Conditions for Success and Project Profiles (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute,
1983).
24. Kevin Mattson, “Antidotes to Sprawl,” in Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall,
ed. David J. Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York,
N.Y.: Distributed by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002).
25. Lee S. Sobel, Ellen Greenberg, and Steven Bodzin, excerpt from “Greyfields into
Goldfields: Dead Malls Become Living Neighborhoods” in Greater Philadelphia
Regional Review (Fall 2002).
26. William Ivey, foreword to Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall, ed. David J.
Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York, N.Y.: Distributed
by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002).
27. Mark Robbins, “Redressing the Mall,” in Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall,
ed. David J. Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York,
N.Y.: Distributed by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002).
1211
93
28. Nora Ganim Barnes, “The Restructuring of the Retail Business in the US: The Fall of the
Shopping Mall,” Business Forum 27, no. 1 (Winter 2005).
29. Joan Fitzgerald and Nancey Green Leigh, Economic Revitalization: Cases and Strategies
for City and Suburb (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002).
30. Pierre Filion, Heidi Hoernig, Trudi Bunting, and Gary Sands, “The Successful Few:
Healthy Downtowns of Small Metropolitan Regions,” Journal of the American Planning
Association 70, no. 3 (Summer 2004).
31. Benjamin R. Barber, “Civic Space,” Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall, ed.
David J. Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York, N.Y.:
Distributed by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002).
32. Retrofitting Suburbs: Instant Cities, Instant Architecture, and Incremental
Metropolitanism, Harvard Design Magazine, Ellen Duhnam-Jones and June Williamson
33. Converting Obsolete Malls, CoStar, October 3-17, 2012
34. Urban Land, July 25, 2013
35. The Town Paper, Fall 2005
36. Merlone Geier, The Village at San Antonio marketing materials
37. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_City
38. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Oaks_Galleria
1212
HOUSING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: August 28, 2014
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT:
Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element and associated Municipal Code amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Housing Commission recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt the zoning text amendments (Attachment A to Attachment 1) related to:
a. Density Bonus,
b. Conformance with State Housing Law and
c. Below Market Rate Program
2. Authorize staff to send the Draft 2014 – 2022 Housing Element to the Department of
Housing and Community Development for review and certification in compliance with
State Law (Attachment B to Attachment 1)
3. Adopt a list of housing sites to be included in the Housing Element that can accommodate
1,400 units in order to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) per the
criteria list in Attachment C to Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND:
Housing Element Overview
In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which must
contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate
housing development by creating policies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes
that provide opportunities for housing development, including units that could accommodate
households with very low, low, moderate and higher incomes.
State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a regular cycle
established in the Government Code. The Housing Element for the 2007-2014 planning period
was adopted in 2010 (see Attachment 2). For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
1213
Page 2 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period). If this adoption deadline is
met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight
years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years).
State law also requires that the Element be reviewed by a State agency—the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD)—to certify compliance with State law.
DISCUSSION:
Municipal Code Amendments
Density Bonus
HCD allows “streamlined review” of the Housing Element if jurisdictions meet certain criteria.
Streamlined review provides priority in the HCD review process (shortening review times) and
limits HCD staff review and comments to just those sections of the document where changes
are proposed relative to the 2007-2014 Element. If a jurisdiction is not eligible for streamlined
review, HCD’s review generally takes longer; up to the 60-day period HCD is permitted by law
to review the documents, thereby potentially delaying the adoption of the Housing Element.
The adoption deadline remains January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period.)
The City meets all requirements to qualify for the streamlined review with the exception of the
adoption of an updated Density Bonus ordinance to comply with changes to State Law. The
City would have to comply with State Law with or without an updated ordinance. However, if
the City adopts an updated ordinance prior to HCD submittal of the Housing Element, the City
will then be eligible for streamlined review.
In order to qualify for streamlined HCD review, a draft Density Bonus Ordinance has been
prepared (See Attachment A to Attachment HC-1). State density bonus law is prescriptive in
establishing parameters for density bonuses, both related to the scale of the bonus that must be
provided and the number of incentives that the City must provide if a developer proposes to
include certain types of housing and amenities within their project (including affordable
housing, senior housing, land donation and child care centers). The proposed Ordinance has
been drafted to replicate State Law requirements.
Other Ordinance Amendments
A number of ordinance amendments are necessary to update the City’s Municipal Code to
comply with changes to State Housing Law and HCD guidelines. These were identified through
the constraints analysis conducted in the preparation of the Housing Element update (see
section “Constraints Analysis” below.) Other minor changes have also been identified in Title 19
(Zoning) of the Municipal Code related to improving readability and eliminating redundancy.
Below Market Rate Ordinance
In order to implement the City’s Residential Housing Mitigation Program identified in the
City’s previous planning period, 2007-2014 Housing Element, staff is recommending the
1214
Page 3 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
adoption of an implementation ordinance in Title 19 of the Municipal Code. The Below Market
Rate (BMR) Housing Program ordinance identifies the purpose of adopting such an ordinance
and the administration of the program. Details regarding the implementation of the program
are identified in the current BMR Mitigation Manual.
The City is working on a nexus study to update the BMR fee mitigation requirements and an
update to the BMR mitigation manual. These items will be brought to the City Council along
with the adoption of the Final Housing Element early next year.
Housing Element Content
The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population. Per
State Housing Element law, the Housing Element must be periodically updated to:
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations (Needs
Assessment)
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production (Constraints Analysis)
Describe goals, policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing objectives
(Housing Plan)
Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional
growth projections per the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify
adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels (Housing
Resources)
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements
(Consistency with General Plan)
Evaluate accomplishments in implementing programs in the previously adopted 2007-
2014 Housing Element, and evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of continuing
these programs in the 2014-2022 Housing Element (Review of Previous Housing Element)
Needs Assessment
This section describes the demographic, housing, and economic conditions in Cupertino;
assesses the demand for housing for households at all income levels; and documents the
demand for housing to serve special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment
establishes the framework for defining the City’s housing goals and formulating policies and
programs that address local housing needs. The analysis in this section has been updated with
recent data; however, the conclusions from the earlier Housing Element have not changed.
Analysis indicates that the demand for affordable housing among lower income, median and
moderate income households, including persons with a need for special needs housing (e.g.
seniors, single-parent households, persons with disabilities, etc.) continues to remain unmet in
the city. Housing costs have continued to rise, especially after the housing market crisis
between 2008 and 2010 concluded, making homeownership generally out of reach for most
except the highest earning households. It is also equally difficult to find affordable rental
1215
Page 4 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
housing. A summary of the Needs Assessment is included in the Housing Element. The
detailed and complete Needs Assessment is provided in the Technical Appendix (Section 2).
Constraints Analysis
The Housing Element must analyze the potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels. In addition, this
section of the Housing Element analyzes other factors such as infrastructure availability,
environmental features, economic and financing constraints, market conditions and community
acceptance of different housing types and densities.
The constraints analysis indicates that the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are not
development constraints to new housing. However, it indicates that currently, the Heart of the
City Specific Plan reduces density of sites by removing lot area devoted to commercial area and
parking from the density for housing. This would reduce the realistic capacity on housing sites;
thereby requiring the identification of additional sites for housing and making sites unable to
meet affordability criteria set by HCD (at a minimum capacity of 20 units/acre). In order to for
HCD to approve the sites selected at the realistic capacity assumed for each site, the Heart of the
City Specific Plan would need to be revised so that the area devoted to commercial area would
be included in housing density calculations. Projects would be reviewed for conformance with
zoning requirements including setbacks, heights, etc. as well as compatibility with the
neighborhood.
Other minor updates need to be made to the zoning ordinance to eliminate restrictions on
emergency shelters, farmworker and employee housing. These zoning ordinance updates will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption with the Draft
Housing Element.
The constraints analysis also indicates that processing time and fees for development are
comparable to surrounding communities and jurisdictions. Potential constraints include road
capacity, the availability of financing for affordable housing, aging waste water infrastructure in
some parts of the city and community acceptance of housing development. The Constraints
Analysis is contained within the Technical Appendix of the Housing Element (Section 4).
Housing Plan
The Housing Plan section identifies the goals, policies, and implementation programs that will
guide the City’s housing policy during the Plan period. State law requires that the Housing
Plan section include implementation programs that achieve the following:
1. Make sites available to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
2. Assist in the development of adequate affordable housing
3. Address, and where possible, remove governmental constraints to housing improvement
and development
4. Conserve and improve the condition of existing affordable housing
1216
Page 5 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
5. Promote equal housing opportunities regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, etc.
6. Preserve affordable housing developments that may be at risk of converting to market-
rate.
The Housing Plan section must also identify appropriate funding sources, timeframes for
completion, and responsible parties for each implementation program.
As part of the 2007-2014 Housing Element process, a wide-ranging public outreach effort was
undertaken, including interviews with stakeholders, public meetings, and study sessions with
decision makers. These meetings contributed to the development of the goals, policies, and
implementation programs that were adopted in that Housing Element (adopted in 2010).
The Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element draws strongly from the 2007-2014 Housing Element. The
input received after several community meetings (including stakeholder interviews in 2013,
three community workshops/open houses, and four study sessions—outlined in more detail
below under Public Noticing and Outreach), very closely reflects the input received during
preparation of the previous Housing Element. As a result, the draft 2014-2022 Housing Plan
reflects minimal changes from the 2007-2014 Housing Plan.
The following changes are recommended:
Policies and programs have been reformatted to reduce redundancy and reorganized for
ease in reading and implementing;
Programs have been revised to ensure that the 2014-2022 Housing Element complies with
State law. Specifically, programs were revised to encourage housing opportunities for
extremely low-income households (AB 2634) and persons with developmental disabilities
(SB 812). Programs were also added to reflect amendments to the zoning ordinance related
to density bonuses, emergency shelters, and farmworker and employee housing to comply
with State law and to amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan to revise the method in
which residential density is calculated in mixed-use developments.
A new goal to highlight City efforts in energy conservation regarding new and existing
development has been added;
An existing general plan policy related to mixed-use development to encourage
development near transportation facilities and employment centers has been added to the
Housing Plan;
Amendments have been made in the following areas to comply with State Law and the
outcome of recent litigation:
□ Redevelopment Funding: Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing set-aside funds, which
used to be a primary local funding source for affordable housing in the past, are no
longer available to assist in new affordable housing development or
acquisition/rehabilitation of existing units for conversion into affordable housing. This
1217
Page 6 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
loss is associated with the Governor’s 2011 State budget revisions and subsequent court
cases, making funding sources for affordable housing significantly more constrained.
□ Housing Mitigation Program: The City’s affordable housing program—the Housing
Mitigation Program—has been amended to comply with recent litigation. A 2009 court-
case (Palmer vs. the City of Los Angeles) has resulted in cities suspending or amending
the portion of their Housing Mitigation program requiring affordable units to be
included in market-rate rental developments.
□ Housing Preservation Program: The existing Rental Preservation Program has been
amended to provide mitigation for impacts on displaced tenants in developments with
four or more units.
Housing Resources & Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
One of the primary requirements of State Housing Element law pertains to the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA is an estimate of state-wide projected housing
construction needs and is based on regional allocations provided by the Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) to regional councils of government. Through a process
coordinated by regional councils of government, each jurisdiction in California receives a
determination of housing need (RHNA). The Housing Resources Section in the Housing
Element and the Technical Appendix is incomplete at this time since the sites for the Sites
Inventory have not been selected yet. These sections will be completed prior to the submittal of
the Draft to HCD.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) conducted the process to determine RHNA
allocations for the 101 cities and nine counties in the Bay Area. The City of Cupertino’s RHNA
allocation is 1,064 new housing units between 2014 and 2022. The City is not obligated to
construct the housing units identified by the RHNA process – HCD recognizes that the market
will determine the actual development of units. Rather, the City’s responsibility is to
demonstrate adequate capacity—by identifying specific sites—to satisfy the RHNA under
existing land use policy and zoning. State Law allows jurisdictions to take credit for residential
projects that have been approved, building permits issued during the plan period in which the
review is taking place and second dwelling units (also known as accessory dwelling units) that
are anticipated to be constructed during the plan period.
Currently, the City has issued entitlements and/or building permits for 30 units since January 1,
2014. Additionally, it is anticipated that since 32 second units (on single-family lots) were
constructed in the 2007-2014 plan period, 32 second units will be constructed in the current plan
period as well. Therefore, the City can take credit for a total of 62 units (30 units approved and
32 second units anticipated). As a result, the City only has to identify sites for the construction
of the balance or 1,002 units. However, HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus
of sites/units in order to guarantee that the RHNA realistically can be accommodated. Per
consultation with HCD and the City’s consultant, it is anticipated that HCD will require sites to
1218
Page 7 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
accommodate units equivalent to an additional 40 percent above the City’s housing need, or
approximately 1,400 units.
Housing Sites
The Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have conducted multiple
study sessions and community workshops to review potential housing sites to meet the RHNA.
On April 1, 2014, the City Council authorized staff to prepare environmental review for three
alternatives (A, B and C) for a maximum of nineteen (19) sites based on the criteria outlined
below.
HCD Criteria for Site Selection
HCD reviews each Housing Element’s sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been
identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a “site suitability analysis” is an important step in
addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must demonstrate that identified sites
can accommodate the housing needs—by income level—within the current planning period of
the element (2014-2022).
While the site suitability review has a degree of subjectivity, HCD review primarily focuses on
the following criteria in determining the likelihood that a developed site will be converted to
some form of housing over the planning period: existing use on the site, realistic potential for
recycling, site size and ownership patterns, and development density.
1. Existing Use on the Site. The following types of sites are not considered good candidates for
private residential development:
Sites with existing multi-family housing developments consisting of 10 or more units, due
to the potential loss of existing investment and revenue stream to the owner, unless the
owner indicates his/her interest in redeveloping the site with additional residential uses
that would result in a substantial increase in the number of units.
Sites with condominium developments, since they typically have complicated ownership
patterns and a developer would have to reach sales agreements with multiple owners.
Well-established organizations and institutions because of the difficulty such organizations
and institutions would face relocating to locations, unless the owner indicates his/her
interest in redeveloping the site with residential uses.
2. Realistic Potential for Recycling. HCD evaluates the feasibility of redevelopment based on a
variety of factors, some of which include property owner interest in redevelopment with
housing, market factors related to location or site characteristics, existing uses on the site that
are highly valued and anticipated to remain, the condition and age of existing development on
the site, and environmental liability risks, such as toxic contamination.
3. Site Size and Ownership Patterns. Larger sites provide the opportunity to increase capacity
potential and to provide flexibility with regard to design, public amenities, mix of housing
types, and mixed use development. Additionally, lot consolidation potential of parcels can be a
1219
Page 8 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
factor in determining site suitability. Lot consolidation potential can be based on ownership
patterns (single, limited, or multiple owners), history of lot consolidation in the area, and
specific knowledge of owner interest in lot consolidation. Where lot consolidation potential is
likely, the time and cost associated with development is reduced and thus the likelihood of
redevelopment is increased. Another concern would be if a City relied on very few sites for
their entire housing allocation since if those sites didn’t redevelop, units would not get built.
Therefore, the likelihood of sites being accepted by HCD rely not only on the numbers but also
the likelihood of units getting built within the eight-year Housing Element period.
4. Development Density. HCD requires an additional component of the site suitability analysis
for those sites identified to meet the lower income portion of the RHNA (this includes the very
low-, low-, and moderate-income RHNA). Cupertino’s lower income RHNA requirement for
the 2014-2022 Housing Element is 794 units. To identify the sites and establish the number of
units that can accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households, the Housing Element
must include an analysis that demonstrates that the sites identified have zoning regulations and
densities in place that encourage and facilitate the development of housing for lower-income
households.
Alternatively, Housing Element law allows local governments to utilize “default” density
standards determined by HCD. Per HCD’s determination, suburban cities in Santa Clara
County require a minimum “realistic” density of 20 dwelling units per acre or greater to meet
lower income/affordable requirements. With Cupertino’s last Housing Element (2007-2014),
HCD accepted a realistic yield of 85% of the maximum density allowed on the site, based on
city-specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, while the
maximum yield at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units, the realistic yield for
Housing Element purposes is (25 * 85%) = 21 units. In anticipation that the HCD will continue to
accept this realistic yield, most sites in the Housing Element are in areas that are at or above this
density.
Additionally, if properties need to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA on the sites
identified, the zoning is being proposed to be completed in conjunction with the adoption of the
General Plan Amendment to avoid additional requirements that may be imposed by the HCD.
Other Criteria for Site Selection (Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan/Cupertino
and General Plan)
In addition to the State-wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable
Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes
a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The One Bay Area Plan is a long-range integrated
transportation and land-use/housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area. The
Plan was jointly approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2013. ABAG determined the City’s and
other local jurisdiction’s RHNA based on the Plan.
Pursuant to SB375, the Plan includes the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the
2040 Regional Transportation Plan. The Plan focuses development in Priority Development
1220
Page 9 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
Areas (PDA). PDAs are locally designated areas within existing communities that have been
identified and approved by local cities or counties for future growth. These areas are typically
accessible to public transit, jobs, recreation, shopping and other services and absorb much of the
growth anticipated in the region. In Cupertino, the Priority Development Areas are located
along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the City of Santa Clara and along De
Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 280.
The City’s General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area
Plan. In addition criteria consistent with the City’s General Plan have also been identified in
order to ensure functional and attractive development occurs on the sites selected. Key themes
include:
1. Locate development along major transportation routes with access to transit or within ½
mile of a VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) (Land Use Policy - Focus Development in
Mixed-Use Special Areas with amenities including transit lines)
2. Locate higher density housing in closer proximity to employment and activity centers
(Land Use Policy - Concentrate Urban Forms in Mixed-Use Special Areas)
3. Require developments to provide transit amenities (Transportation Policy - Increased public
use of transit amenities)
4. Corner lot(s) with large frontage preferred – such parcels provide the most flexibility to
accommodate mixed-use developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivity
between mid-block parcels (Land Use Policy - Attractive Building and Site Design)
5. Incentive for redevelopment –Sites with older, under-performing retail shopping centers
have also been evaluated as to whether housing would be necessary to provide an
incentive to bring in a mixed-use housing/retail project that can improve the quality and
performance of existing retail, while also achieving the RHNA requirements. In addition,
for sites have also been evaluated to see if office development can provide the necessary
incentive to redevelop and provide higher-quality retail and justify the investment in
demolition and infrastructure improvements. (Land Use Policy – Incentives for Reinvestment)
Prioritized List
While all 19 sites have been studied for potential impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), since the largest property owner associated with Site 17 sent the City a letter
expressing their desire to not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory (see Attachment 3),
this site is not being proposed to be included in the Housing Sites Inventory. The potential list
of sites for the Housing Commission to select sites from is eighteen (18).
The sites have been prioritized by how well they meet the criteria outlined above. It is assumed
that if a site selected meets the criteria above, but comprises of multiple parcels and has
fractured ownership, the site will be Master Planned and is expected to have a cohesive
development plan. Therefore, sites that need site assembly but have a higher chance of
redevelopment due to expressed owner interest within the RHNA planning period and meet
the HCD and Other criteria outlined above have been ranked higher than sites that may not
need site assembly but do not have expressed owner interest to develop and/or do not meet the
1221
Page 10 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
HCD and Other criteria. As noted earlier, the recommendation is to select sites that can support
a total of 1,400 units towards the RHNA allocation.
The Commission’s recommendations on the Housing Sites Inventory will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council.
Consistency with General Plan
The various General Plan components have been reviewed to evaluate consistency of the
policies and programs outlined in the Housing Element. The analysis finds these are consistent
with the General Plan policies in other elements (chapters) of the General Plan. The Consistency
with the General Plan Section is contained within the Technical Appendix of the Housing
Element (Section 6).
Review of Previous (2007-2014) Housing Element
Per State law and HCD guidelines, the review of the previous Housing Element requires
analysis in three areas: (1) effectiveness of the element; (2) progress in implementation; and (3)
the appropriateness of continuing the goals, objectives, policies and programs
The Review of Previous Housing Element is contained within the Technical Appendix of the
Housing Element (Section 7.2). This section of the Housing Element provides an evaluation of
the City’s progress towards achieving housing goals and objectives as set forth in the prior
Housing Element, and analyzes the efficacy and appropriateness of the City’s housing policies
and programs. This review formed a key basis for restructuring the 2007-2014 Housing Plan for
this 2014-2022 planning period to meet the housing needs of the community.
General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Environmental Review
As discussed previously, in addition to the preparation of an updated Housing Element, a
General Plan Amendment (GPA) is also being prepared for City Council consideration. The
primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re-allocate, and potentially increase citywide
development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development activity, with the
clear goal while maintaining the community’s character, goals, and objectives. The secondary
purpose of the GPA is to consider, under a comprehensive community vision, consolidated
development requests from several property owners for General Plan amendments.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), both the Housing Element and
the GPA (and other implementing ordinances such as the Density Bonus Ordinance) are
considered projects that must be reviewed for potential environmental impacts. The
environmental review for the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element projects is being
completed concurrently. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was made available for
public review and comment for a 45-day period ending on August 1, 2014. As required by
CEQA, a Response to Comments document (RTC), to respond to comments received regarding
the adequacy of the Draft EIR is being prepared, which will include corrections necessary to the
Draft EIR. The RTC document and the Draft EIR together comprise the Final EIR. The City
1222
Page 11 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
Council must certify the Final EIR prior to making any decisions on the General Plan, Housing
Element or any ordinance amendments associated with the two projects. The Housing
Commission need not act on the EIR in order to make its recommendation.
Public Comments
Several comments were received during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. Some of
the comments received during this time did not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. These
comments included concerns by members of the public about sites that were studied in the EIR
for potential inclusion in the Housing Sites Inventory of the Housing Element. These comments
have been included in Attachment HC-6.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date.
Postcards
A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce
upcoming dates on the General Plan and Housing Element projects. A second postcard was
delivered in June 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce the availability of the
Draft EIR and invite attendance at a Draft EIR comment meeting. The postcards also provided a
description of the projects (the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element update) and
identified the project website where interested persons may sign up for project updates, further
notices, and submit comments on the Draft EIR.
Website
A website has been set up for the combined General Plan and Housing Element projects at
www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices and other important information are
available at the website. The website also has a separate tab for the Housing Element project
which provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Interested persons may also submit
comments at the website.
Meetings
Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from
stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers, service
providers, school districts, and the business community.
Joint PC/HC Workshop – January 23, 2014
On January 23, 2014, the Planning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint
workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small
groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased density in
1223
Page 12 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers on to
identify potential housing sites.
Housing Commission Workshop – February 12, 2014
On February 12, 2014, the Housing Commission hosted a workshop to discuss and prioritize
sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project update presentation, participants
broke into groups and discussed identification of new sites and prioritizing potential housing
sites to meet the RHNA. The Housing Commission recommended forwarding all the sites
highlighted by workshop participants as priority sites to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Planning Commission Open House and Study Session - February 19, 2014
On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission hosted an open house and study session to
provide a public forum to continue the Housing Element Sites discussion and prioritize sites for
inclusion in the Housing Element. The Planning Commission recommended criteria to focus the
sites selection. Specifically, the Commission recommended removing certain sites that were
viewed as not viable (successful shopping centers, sites with existing established institutional
uses, and small sites with low yield or no property owner interest). In addition, the Planning
Commission recommended including sites that would further the following three goals: 1)
distribute housing throughout the city, 2) encourage development along the Priority
Development Area designated by the One Bay Area Plan, and 3) minimize impacts to schools.
City Council Study Session - March 4, 2014
On March 4, 2014, the City Council held a study session to discuss in depth the potential
housing sites that would be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. A list of “High” and
“Moderate” priority sites was proposed based on previous public and Commission input. The
Council recommended including two sites, included in the previously adopted Housing
Element, and provided direction to study in the EIR all sites presented as “High” and
“Moderate.” The Council was also advised at this meeting that impact to schools may not be a
goal of the site selection exercise since SB 50 preempts this issue with the adoption of School
Impact Mitigation fees, which fully mitigate any school impacts from development of property.
Environmental Scoping Meeting - March 11, 2014
The City held an Environmental Scoping Meeting on March 11, 2014 at the Cupertino
Community Hall (10350 Torre Avenue, next to the library). The meeting provided an overview of
the proposed project and an opportunity for public comment on the scope and EIR content.
Housing Commission Study Session - March 19, 2014
On March 19, 2014, the Housing Commission held a study session to review the City’s
accomplishments in implementing the 2007-2014 Housing Element and to discuss draft goals,
policies, and implementation programs associated with the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
1224
Page 13 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
Joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session - April 1, 2014
The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on April 1, 2014, to
discuss draft General Plan Amendment and Housing Element policies, and hear public
comments and questions. At the conclusion of the meeting, City Council confirmed the Housing
Element sites and goals, policies, and implementation programs to be studied in the EIR.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Comment Meeting - June 24, 2014
The City held a public meeting on June 24, 2014, at Cupertino Community Hall to present the
recently published Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts
related to the draft General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update. This meeting
provided an opportunity for the community to learn about the Draft EIR and submit comments.
Housing Commission - August 28, 2014
The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting:
Notice Agenda
Email sent to all interested parties
signed up through the project website
(at least 10 days prior to hearing)
Legal Ad (at least 10 days prior to hearing)
Newspaper Ad (5 days prior to hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s website (one
week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the project website (one week prior to
hearing)
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The Housing Commission’s recommendation on the Draft Density Bonus Ordinance and the
Housing Element will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review in October 2014.
After which, the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the Draft Ordinances, Draft 2014-
2022 Housing Element and the Draft General Plan will be forwarded to the City Council for its
review and decision in November 2014,. The Housing Element will then be transmitted to HCD
for review. It is anticipated that HCD review will be completed by January 2015.
The final Housing Element, which will reflect any changes required by HCD, will be presented
to the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and the City Council for final adoption in
March /April 2015, which will comply with the May 2015 deadline for the adoption of the
Housing Element per State Law.
At that time, in addition to the final Housing Element, staff will present an updated Residential
Mitigation linkage fee and Below-Market-Rate Mitigation Manual which will reflect changes
required due to amendments to the Housing Element.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner
Christopher “C.J.” Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner
1225
Page 14 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session August 28, 2014
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. Housing Commission Resolution re:
A. Ordinance Amendments;
B. Housing Element (Chapter 3 of General Plan) & Housing Element Technical Report
Update 2014 – 2022 (Appendix B); and
C. Criteria and Prioritized list of Housing Sites
2. 2007 – 2014 Housing Element, adopted 2010
3. Letter/Email from Valley Church dated March 6, 2014
4. Comment letters that pertain to Housing Element content:
A. Ruby Elbogen - dated June 18, 2014
B. Catherine Alexander – dated June 24, 2014
C. Concerned Citizens of Cupertino - dated June 25, 2014
D. Gary Jones – dated July 4, 2014
E. Phyllis Dickstein - dated July 10, 2014
F. Patricia McAfee – dated July 10, 2014
G. Josh Tsai – dated July 28, 2014
H. Concerned Citizens of Cupertino - dated July 31, 2014
I. Apple - dated July 31, 2014
J. Youichi Y. – dated July 31, 2014
K. Huanying Cheng and Qing Li - dated August 1, 2014
1226
Attachment S –
2007-2014 Housing Element
and Technical Appendix
Please view this information on
the City’s website at:
http://www.cupertino.org/gp
Section #3
and
Appendix #B
1227
Potential Housing Element Sites ATTACHMENT T
Site
No.Name/Type Address Size
Proposed
Land Use
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
Re
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Si
t
e
S
i
z
e
Si
n
g
l
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Ne
a
r
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Co
r
n
er
L
o
t
/
P
u
b
l
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
V
T
A
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
(
P
D
A
)
Ne
e
d
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
T
o
M
e
e
t
H
C
D
&
Ot
h
e
r
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
A
(M
i
n
i
m
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
P
l
a
n
Re
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
B
(M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
C
(H
i
g
h
e
s
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Recommended Housing Element Sites
- 235 235 235
25 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac
- 600 600 800
35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac
- 344 344 820
25 du/ac 65 du/ac 65 du/ac 110 du/ac
103 103 103 103
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac
11 11 11 11
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac
93 93 93 93
20 du/ac 20 du/ac 20 du/ac 20 du/ac
Total Units on Recommended Housing Element Sites 207 1,386 1,386 2,062
High
HighX√√√√R3 (NO
CHANGE)X X6Glenbrook Apt./ Existing HE
(517 units existing)**
10160 & 21297
Parkwood 31.34
Med Density
Residential
(10-20)
5 Barry Swenson Site/ Existing
HE
19160 Stevens Creek
Blvd 0.55 Commercial/
Office/ Residential
Other CriteriaHCD Criteria Realistic Capacity @ 85% of max. density
(du/ac & net units)
P(CG, Res)√√√√√√√√√XCommercial/
Office/ Residential
P(CG, Res)
no change √√X √√√√X √√
High *
High
X *√√√
High
√
√√√
1
√√
√√√
√√√√X √
2 Vallco Shopping District /
Property Owner Interest 10123 N Wolfe Rd 33.71 Commercial/
Office/ Residential
P(Regional
Shopping,
OP, Res)
√√√
Oaks Shopping Center/
Workshop Proposed
21255 Stevens Creek
Blvd 7.9
4
United Furniture, East of E.
Estates (includes portion of
street)/Existing HE and Lot
Consolidation
10025, 10075 E. Estates,
19541 Richwood Dr.,
19550 Stevens Creek
Blvd, 10055 Miller Ave
4.43
Commercial/
Office/ Residential
(NO CHANGE)
P(CG, Res)
(no change)
3
The Hamptons/ Property
Owner Interest (342 units
existing)
19500 Pruneridge Ave 12.44
High Density
Residential
(> 35)
P(Res)
High*
√√
√√X *√√√√√√
1228
Potential Housing Element Sites Page 2 of 3
HE Site EvaluationTable for CC.xlsx 2 11/3/2014
Site
No.Name/Type Address Size
Proposed
Land Use
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
Re
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Si
t
e
S
i
z
e
Si
n
g
le
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Ne
a
r
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Co
rn
er
L
o
t
/
P
u
b
l
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
V
T
A
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
(
P
D
A
)
Ne
e
d
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
T
o
M
e
e
t
H
C
D
&
Ot
h
e
r
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
A
(M
i
n
i
m
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
P
l
a
n
Re
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
B
(M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
C
(H
i
g
h
e
s
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Other CriteriaHCD Criteria Realistic Capacity @ 85% of max. density
(du/ac & net units)
Alternate Housing Element Sites
145 204 204 232
25 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 40 du/ac
134 187 187 214
25 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 40 du/ac
- - - -
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac
27 27 27 27
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac
- 151 151 151
35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac
96 96 96 154
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 40 du/ac
33 33 33 33
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac
Total Units on Alternate Housing Element Sites 435 698 698 811
√*√X X Low-
Moderate*
√X X Low-
Moderate*
11
Summerwinds/Granite
Rock/Jack in the Box/
Property Owner Interest
1451, 1471, 1491 & 1505
S De Anza Blvd 4.57 Commercial/
Office/ Residential P(CG, Res)√√√X *√X
√√√√√√X Low-
Moderate
10
Homestead Lanes +
Adjacency/ Workshop
Proposed
20916, 20956, 20990
Homestead Rd 5.1
Commercial/
Residential
(no change)
P(CG, Res)
no change X √√X *√√√
9 Loree Center/ Existing HE 10029 Judy Ave, 19060
Stevens Creek Blvd 1.29
Commercial/
Office/ Residential
(NO CHANGE)
P(CG, Res)
no change X X X
Moderate*
12
Shan Restaurant, Q-Mart/
Existing HE and Lot
Consolidation
20007, 20021 Stevens
Creek Blvd & 10041 N.
Blaney Ave
1.58
Commercial/
Office/ Residential
(no change)
P(CG, Res)
no change √X X X *√√√√√X Low-
Moderate*
√√√√√XP(CG, Res)
no change
X √√√
9
Cypress Building/Hall
Property/ Workshop
Property
19200, 19220 & 19280
Stevens Creek Blvd
(Opposite Main Street)
4.98
Commercial/
Office/ Residential
(no change)
X X √X *
√X Moderate*
8 Stevens Creek Office Center/
Property Owner Interest
20823 Stevens Creek
Blvd 6.31
Commercial/
Residential
(no change)
P(CG, Res)
no change X √√X √X Moderate
7 Marina Plaza/ Property
Owner Interest 10118 Bandley Drive 6.86
Commercial/
Office/ Residential
(NO CHANGE)
P(CG, Res)
no change X √√X*√√√X
1229
Potential Housing Element Sites Page 3 of 3
HE Site EvaluationTable for CC.xlsx 3 11/3/2014
Site
No.Name/Type Address Size
Proposed
Land Use
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
Re
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Si
t
e
S
i
z
e
Si
n
g
le
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Ne
a
r
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Co
rn
er
L
o
t
/
P
u
b
l
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
V
T
A
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
(
P
D
A
)
Ne
e
d
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
T
o
M
e
e
t
H
C
D
&
Ot
h
e
r
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
A
(M
i
n
i
m
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
P
l
a
n
Re
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
B
(M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
C
(H
i
g
h
e
s
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Other CriteriaHCD Criteria Realistic Capacity @ 85% of max. density
(du/ac & net units)
Sites Recommended for Removal
62 62 62 62
20 du/ac 20 du/ac 20 du/ac 20 du/ac
- - - -
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac
- 27 - 27
15 du/ac 25 du/ac 15 du/ac 25 du/ac
- 14 - 19
15 du/ac 25 du/ac 15 du/ac 35 du/ac
169 169 169 169
25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac
17 IntraHealth/ Office/ Tennis
Courts/ Workshop Proposed
21020, 21040, 21060,
21070 Homestead Rd &
APN: 326 07 022, 326 07
036 (Homestead/
Stelling)
5.42 Commercial/
Residential P(CG)√√√X *√√√√X X Low - 161 161
Total Units on Removed Sites 231 272 231 277
Total Units for All Sites 873 2,356 2,315 3,150
Notes:
*
**Indicates that site will not meet affordability criteria at Realistic capacity (85% of max.)
`
Low√√X X X
P(CG, ML,
Res)
(NO
CHANGE)
X X √√16 Carl Berg property/ Existing
HE 20705 Valley Green Dr.7.98
Office/ Industrial/
Commercial/
Residential
(NO CHANGE)
X √X √
X
Low
√X √Low
15 Bateh Brothers/ Property
Owner Interest
22690 Stevens Creek
Blvd 0.67 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG, Res)
(NO
CHANGE)
√√X √X X
√X Low*
14
Foothill @ McClellan Center
(Foothill Market)/ Property
Owner Interest
10625 S Foothill Blvd 1.3 Commercial/
Residential
P(CG, Res)
(no change)√√X √X X X
√Low
13 Arya/ Scandinavian Design/
Existing HE
19930. 19936 & 19900
Stevens Creek Blvd 2.88
Commercial/
Office/ Residential
(NO CHANGE)
P(CG, Res)
(no change)X X √X *√√√X
X √X √XR3 (no
change)X X √√12 The Villages Apt./ Existing
HE (468 units existing)**
20800, 20975, 20990,
20800, 20875 Valley
Green Dr.
27.1
Med Density
Residential
(10-20)
Separate parcels on a Housing Element site shall be combined, master planned and developed under a Master Developer.
1230
-1-
SUMMARY OF LAND USE MAP, ZONING MAP AND MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENTS
Map Amendments
• General Plan Land Use designation revisions:
o An overlay for the development standards for the Housing Element sites that will go
into effect on April 30, 2015 (including the 30-day appeal period, this represents the final
date for adoption of a Housing Element per HCD) or Final Adoption of the Housing
Element, whichever occurs first. The designation is not proposed to be amended if the
sites to be rezoned are not selected as Housing Element sites;
o Revision to the PG&E site from Quasi-Public/Institutional to Commercial/Quasi-
Public/Institutional;
o Revision to the Mirapath site from Industrial/Residential to
Commercial/Industrial/Residential; and
o Revision to City-owned parkland from various residential designations to Parks and
Open Space.
o Other sites – to bring existing uses, zoning and General Plan Land use in compliance
(mostly located in the Monta Vista Village Planning Area).
• Zoning Map Amendments (to be consistent with the proposed General Plan land use
designation):
o Housing Element sites - goes into effect on April 30, 2015 (including the 30-day period,
this represents the final date for adoption of a Housing Element per HCD) or date of
adoption of the Final Housing Element, whichever occurs first.
o Rezoning of the PG&E from Quasi-public (BQ) to General Commercial/Quasi-Public
(CG/BQ) zoning to be consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation.
o Rezoning of the Mirapath site from Light Industrial (ML-fa) to Commercial/Light
Industrial (CG/ML)
o Rezoning of property being transferred to the Irvine Company by Apple as a result of a
land swap agreement, in exchange for property along Wolfe Road to facilitate street
improvements. It is recommended that this be rezoned P(Res).
o City-owned parkland – rezoning from various zoning designations (such as R1-10, R3,
R1C and A) to Park and Recreation (PR) zoning to be consistent with the recommended
General Plan designations.
o Consistency with General Plan land use designation – bringing areas into compliance
with the existing General Plan land use designations.
Municipal Code Text Amendments
1. Requests – Definition of gross lot area eliminated as redundant, since lot area will be used to
calculate maximum residential yield.
1231
-2-
2. Cleanup -
• Parkland dedication was moved from Title 18: Subdivision of the Municipal Code
(Chapter 18.24) into Title 13: Parks, as a separate chapter (Chapter 13.08).
• Conforming Heart of the City Specific Plan with Special Area boundaries in the General
Plan. Vallco Shopping District will be a Special Area in the Land Use and Community
Design element with its own Specific Plan as discussed earlier.
• Clarifications and removal of redundancies.
3. Housing Element - A number of ordinance amendments are necessary to update the City’s
Municipal Code to comply with changes to State Housing Law and HCD guidelines. These
were identified through the constraints analysis conducted in the preparation of the
Housing Element update. A brief list is provided below. The “Constraints Analysis” section
in the Draft Housing Element provides a detailed discussion of these issues.
• Density Bonus Ordinance
• Below-Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance
• Heart of the City Specific Plan
• Farm worker housing
• Permanent Emergency shelters
1232
CHAPTER 13.08 PARK LAND DEDICATION/FEE
Section
13.08.010 Purpose.
13.08.020 Definitions
13.08.030 Applicability.
.
13.08.050 Parkland Dedication.
Density
(DU/acre)
Average number of
persons/DU
Average Parkland
Dedication/DU (in acres)
0—5 3.5 .0105
5—10 2.0 .0060
10—20 2.0 .0060
20 + 1.8 .0054
10 + 1.8 .0054
Senior Citizen Housing
Development 1.0 .0030
13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Parkland Dedication.
13.08.070 Combination of Parkland Dedication and Fee.
13.08.080 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
18.24.090 Credit for Existing Dwelling Units.
13.08.100 General Procedures.
Error! Reference source not found.
13.08.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate , in the public interest, convenience, health, welfare
and safety, the provision of park and recreational facilities upon development for which
dedication of land and/or payment of a fee is required in accordance with the open space and
conservation element of the adopted General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and any
amendments.
13.08.020 Definitions
“Dwelling unit” or “unit” means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating,
cooking and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit,
occupied or intended for occupancy on a non-transient basis and having not more than one
kitchen.
13.08.030 Applicability.
A. Upon development of a new dwelling unit, at the option of the City, a parkland dedication,
or a payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or both, shall be required.
MOVED FROM
CHAPTER 18.24
1233
- 2 -
13.08.050 Parkland Dedication.
A. Where the City determines that a park or recreational facility is to be located in whole or in
part within the proposed development, land sufficient in topography and size shall be
dedicated per the formula below.
Parkland dedication/DU =
(Average number of persons/DU) x (Park Acreage Standard)
1000 persons
B. The Park Acreage Standard is three acres of property for each one thousand persons.
C. Parkland dedication based on development density: Table 13.08.050 indicates the average
parkland dedication required per dwelling unit based on development density per the
formula above (13.08.050.A).
Table 13.08.050: Park Land Dedication Formula Table
Density
(DU/acre)
Average number of
persons/DU
Average Parkland
Dedication/DU (in acres)
0—5 3.5 .0105
5—10 2.0 .0060
10—20 2.0 .0060
20 + 1.8 .0054
10 + 1.8 .0054
Senior Citizen Housing
Development 1.0 .0030
13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Parkland Dedication.
A. General Standard.
1. If the City determines that a parkland dedication is not required, a fee shall be paid in
lieu thereof.
2. Fees in Lieu of Land–Fifty units or Less. If a proposed development contains fifty units
or less, a fee in lieu of parkland dedication shall be paid, unless dedication is deemed
appropriate and in the public interest by the City.
B. Amount. The amount of the fee shall be equal to the fair market value of the land prescribed
for dedication pursuant to Section 13.08.050. The fee shall be calculated as follows:
In lieu fee = ((Average Parkland Dedication/DU)*(Net new dwelling units)*(Fair Market
Value of land/acre))
C. Fair Market Value of land per acre. The Department of Public Works shall establish the fair
market value of land within the City and update the value on an annual basis in the City’s
Fee Schedule. The fair market value shall be determined by reference to comparable land
within the City. As used herein, the term “comparable” means land of similar size and
development potential as the land which would otherwise be dedicated.
MOVED FROM
CHAPTER 18.24
1234
- 3 -
D. Use of Money. The money collected shall be paid to the Treasurer of the City or his or her
authorized agent. Such money shall be placed in a special revenue fund which shall be
known as the “park dedication in-lieu fee fund” and shall be used for all purposes allowed
by State Law.
13.08.070 Combination of Parkland Dedication and Fee.
A. The City shall determine whether it accepts parkland dedication, elects to require payment
of a fee in lieu, or a combination of both a parkland dedication and a fee in lieu, upon
consideration of the following:
1. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the development available for
dedication;
2. Size and shape of the development and land available for dedication;
3. Feasibility of dedication;
4. Availability of previously acquired park property.
B. The determination of the City as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall
be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive.
13.08.080 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
A. Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed
development, fifty percent credit shall be given against the requirement of land dedication
or payment of fees in lieu thereof, if the approval authority finds that it is in the public
interest to do so and that all the standards in Section 13.08.080 B, below are met and findings
in Section 13.08.080C can be made.
B. That the open space for which credit is given complies with the following standards:
1. The total usable open space acreage for the development must be equivalent to the
parkland dedication calculated pursuant to Section 13.08.050.
2. The open space must contain the mandatory elements and at least four of the six
optional elements indicated in Table 13.08.080 below and meet the following criteria:
a. The combined minimum acreage for a facility with a recreation center and children’s
play apparatus area is 1.3 acres.
b. The minimum combined acreage for a facility not including a recreation center or
children’s play area is 1.5 acres.
Table 13.08.080 – Mandatory and Optional Elements for private open space
Minimum
Acreage
Mandatory Element
Turfed playfield
The playfield shall be a single unit of land which is generally level and
free of physical barriers which would inhibit group play activities.
.50
MOVED FROM
CHAPTER 18.24
1235
- 4 -
Optional Elements
Children’s play apparatus area .15
Recreational community gardens .25
Family picnic area .25
Game court area .25
Swim pool (42’ x 75’ with adjacent deck and lawn areas) .25
Recreation center buildings and grounds .15
C. The approval authority may grant park credit for a combination of the above elements or a
combination of the above elements and other recreation improvements that will meet the
specific recreation needs of a specialized housing development, such as a senior housing
development, with occupancy controlled via a covenant with the City named as a third
party beneficiary.
D. Findings. The approval authority shall adopt the following written findings and shall
require the recordation of covenants running with the land to ensure that credited elements
are maintained, before credit is given:
1. That yards, court areas, setbacks, decorative landscape areas normally associated with
residential site design and other areas required to remain free and clear by zoning and
building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computation of such
private open space;
2. That such space is to be wholly or partially owned and maintained by the future
residents of the development and that the private ownership and maintenance of the
open space is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, conveyance or
restrictions;
3. That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by
recorded covenant, which runs with the land in favor of the future owners of property
and which cannot be eliminated without the consent of the City or its successor;
4. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and
recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography,
geology, access and location;
5. That the facilities proposed for private recreation or open space are in substantial
conformance with General Plan policies.
18.24.090 Credit for Existing Dwelling Units.
When dwelling units exist on the property where development is proposed, a credit shall be
given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof for the
number of units existing. As used herein, the term “existing” refers to units which exist at the
time of approval of the dwelling units or which were demolished within one year prior to the
submittal of an application for development of the dwelling units.
MOVED FROM
CHAPTER 18.24
1236
- 5 -
13.08.100 General Procedures.
A. At the time of approval of the dwelling units, the approval authority shall determine
whether a parkland dedication or a fee in lieu thereof is required unless a parkland
dedication or fee has already been provided.
B. At the time of building permit application, land shall be dedicated to the City or the fee in
lieu thereof shall be paid.
C. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the
City prior to approval of the building permits and shall be recorded simultaneously with
the issuance of final occupancy.
D. If parkland dedication is required, the design of the park shall be reviewed and approved
and construction shall be completed prior to occupancy of the development.
1237
- 6 -
CHAPTER 18.24: DEDICATIONS AND RESERVATIONS
Section
Article I. Dedication of Streets, Alleys, Rights-of-Way and Easements.
18.24.010 Dedication of Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Rights-of-way or Easements.
Article II. Park Land Dedication.
18.24.020 Purpose.
18.24.030 Requirements.
18.24.040 General Standard.
18.24.050 Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land.
18.24.060 Formula for Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication.
18.24.070 Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee.
18.24.080 070 Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication.
18.24.090 080 Subdividers Not Within General Plan.
18.24.100 090 Determination of Land or Fee.
18.24.110 100 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
18.24.115 110 Credit for Existing Residential Units.
18.24.120 Procedure.
18.24.130 Commencement of Development.
Article III. School Site Dedication.
18.24.140 General.
18.24.150 Procedure.
18.24.160 Payments to Subdivider for School Site Dedication.
18.24.170 Exemptions.
Article IV. Reservations.
18.24.180 General.
18.24.190 Standards for Reservation of Land.
18.24.200 Procedure.
18.24.210 Payment to Subdivider.
18.24.220 Termination.
Article V. Waiver of Direct Street Access.
18.24.230 Waiver of Direct Street Access.
1238
- 7 -
Article I. Dedication of Streets, Alleys, Rights-of-Way and Easements.
18.24.010 Dedication of Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Rights-of-way or Easements.
A. As a condition of approval of a final map or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate or
make an irrevocable offer of dedication of all parcels of land within the subdivision that are
needed for streets and alleys, including access rights and abutters’ rights; drainage; public
utility easements; bicycle paths, transit facilities, solar access easements, park land, fire
stations, libraries, access to public resources and other public easements as required.
B. Improvements shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.32, Subdivision Improvements, of this
title.
Article II. Park Land Dedication.
18.24.020 Purpose.
This section is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the Government Code. The park
and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of a fee is required by
this chapter are in accordance with the open space and conservation element of the adopted
General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and any amendments.
18.24.030 Requirements.
A. As a condition of approval of a final subdivision map or parcel map, the subdivider shall
dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park or
recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formula contained in
this chapter.
B. The provisions of this chapter are not applicable to the following land use categories:
1. Commercial or industrial subdivisions;
2. Condominium conversion projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the
subdivision of air space in an existing apartment building which is more than five years
old when no new dwelling units are added;
3. Convalescent hospitals and similar dependent care facilities.
18.24.040 General Standard.
The Parkland Dedication standard shall be as identified in the City’s General Plan and Chapter
13.08public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that three acres of property
for each one thousand persons be devoted for neighborhood park and recreational purposes.
18.24.050 Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land.
A. Where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the open space and
conservation element of the General Plan of the City, and is to be located in whole or in part
within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future need of the residents of
the subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for a local park sufficient in size and
topography to serve the residents of the subdivision.
MOVED TO
CHAPTER 13.08
1239
- 8 -
The subdivider shall provide park lands as related to the need for a neighborhood park and
therefore, the formula for dedication of park land for residential development should be
based upon three acres of park land per one thousand persons.
B. The formula for determining acreage to be dedicated shall be pursuant to Section
13.08.050.as follows:
Average number of Persons/Unit
Park Acreage Standard
1000 Population
Example for single-family DU:
3.5 x 3
1000 = 0.0105 ac/U
B. Table 18.24.050, of population density, is to be followed.
In the event apartment-zoned land is subdivided, the park land dedication formula shall be
applied as related to the maximum number of units permitted by the zoning classification of the
property.
18.24.060 Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication.
A. General Formula. If there is no park or recreation facility designated in the open space and
conservation element of the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the
proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the
subdivision, the subdivider shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee pursuant to the
formula in Section 13.08.060. equal to the market value of the land prescribed for dedication
in Section 18.24.080, Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication, this fee to be
TABLE 18.24.050
Park Land Dedication Formula Table
Types of Dwellings Density DU/acre Average Household
Size/DU
Average Acreage
Requirement/DU, Based on
3-acre Standard
Single-Family 0--5 3.5 .0105
Duplex, medium low 5--10 2.0 .0060
Cluster, medium 10--20 2.0 .0060
Cluster, medium high 20 + 1.8 .0054
Apartments 10 + 1.8 .0054
Elderly housing* All ranges 1.0 .0030
* A project which is occupied by an elderly household as defined in Section 50067 of the Health
and Safety Code.
MOVED TO
CHAPTER 13.08
1240
- 9 -
determined to be used for a local park which will serve the residents of the area to be
subdivided.
A. Valuation of the land described above shall be determined, for in lieu fee purposes, under
the procedures described in Section 18.24.080, Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land
Dedication.
B. Fees in Lieu of Land–Fifty Parcels or Less. If the proposed subdivision contains fifty parcels
or less, the subdivider shall pay a fee in lieu of dedication, unless dedication is deemed
appropriate and in the public interest by the City. equal to the land value of the portion of
the local park required to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed subdivision as
prescribed in Section 18.24.050 and in an amount determined in accordance with the
provisions of Section 18.24.080, Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication.
C. Fair Market Value of land per acre. The Fair Market Value of land per acre shall be
established pursuant to Section 13.08.050C.
D. Use of Money. The money collected shall be paid and used pursuant to Section 13.08.060D.
paid to the treasurer of the City or his or her authorized agent. Such money shall be placed
in a special revenue fund which is hereby created and which shall be known as the “park
dedication in-lieu fee fund.” Money within this fund shall be used and expended solely for
the acquisition, improvement, expansion or implementation of parks and recreational
facilities reasonably related to serving the public by way of the purchase of necessary land,
or, if the City Council deems that there is sufficient land available for this use, then secondly
this money shall be used for improving such land for park and recreational purposes.
C.
18.24.070 Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee.
In subdivisions of over fifty parcels, the subdivider shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in
lieu thereof in accordance with the following formula:
A. When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is proposed in the open space and
conservation element of the General Plan as the site for a local park, the portion shall be
dedicated for local park purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section
18.24.080 060, shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required to be
dedicated pursuant to Section 18.24.050, Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land.
B. When a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the
City and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision to complete the site,
the remaining portion shall be dedicated and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.24.080 060, shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land which would
otherwise have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 18.24.050, Standards and
Formula for Dedication of Land, the fees to be used for the improvement of the existing
park and recreational facility or for the improvement of other local parks and recreational
facilities in the area serving the subdivision.
MOVED TO
CHAPTER 13.08
1241
- 10 -
18.24.080 Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication.
A. When a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, the amount of the fee shall
be determined, by the Director of Public Works, based upon the fair market value of the
land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 18.24.050,
Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land, determined by reference to comparable land
within the general area of the subject land. As used herein, the term “comparable” means
land of similar size and development potential as the land which would otherwise be
dedicated. The date of valuation of the property for in-lieu fee purposes shall be the date
that the subdivider submits his or her written request for a final subdivision map.
B. The fee shall be paid pursuant to the provisions contained in Section 18.24.060, Formula for
Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication.
C. If a subdivider objects to the fair market value determination made by the Director of Public
Works, he or she may, at his or her own expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a
qualified real estate appraiser approved by the City, which appraisal of fair market value
may be accepted by the City Council, if found reasonable. Alternatively, the City and the
subdivider may agree as to the fair market value.
18.24.090 080 Subdividers Not Within General Plan.
Where the proposed subdivision lies within an area not thennot included but to be included
within the City’s General Plan, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu, or both, in
accordance with the adopted park and recreational principles and standards of the City’s
General Plan and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
18.24.100 090 Determination of Land or Fee.
A. If the relationship between a proposed subdivision containing fifty parcels or more and the
open space and conservation element is unclear, the City Council shall determine whether it
accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee, by consideration of the
standards identified in Section 13.08.070.following:
1. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision available for
dedication;
2. Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication;
3. Feasibility of dedication;
4.A. Availability of previously acquired park property.
B. The determination of the City as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall
be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive.
18.24.110 100 Credit for Private Recreation or Open Space.
Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed
subdivision, a fifty percent credit shall be given against the requirement of land dedication or
payment of fees in lieu thereof, pursuant to requirements of Section 13.08.080. if the City
MOVED TO
CHAPTER 13.08
1242
- 11 -
Council finds that it is in the public interest to do so and that all the following standards are
met:
A. That yards, court areas, setbacks, decorative landscape areas normally associated with
residential site design and other open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and
building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computation of such private
open space;
B. That such space is to be wholly or partially owned and maintained by the future
residents of the subdivision and that the private ownership and maintenance of the open space
is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, conveyance or restrictions;
C. That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by
recorded covenant, which runs with the land in favor of the future owners of property and
which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City or its successor;
D. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and
recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography,
geology, access and location;
E. That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance with the
provisions of the open space and conservation element of the General Plan; and
F. That the open space for which credit is given complies with the following standards:
1. The total usable open space acreage must be equivalent to a ratio of three acres of land
for each one thousand person, or a fraction thereof, generated by the development. The
computation for determining acreage is described in Section 18.24.050, Standards and Formula
for Dedication of Land.
2. The open space must contain the following mandatory elements and at least four of the
six optional elements:
The combined minimum acreage for a facility with a recreation center and children’s play
apparatus area is 1.3 acres. The minimum combined acreage for a facility not including a
recreation center or children’s play area is 1.5 acres.
The City Council may grant park credit for a combination of the above elements or a
combination of the above elements and other recreation improvements that will meet the
specific recreation needs of a specialized housing development, such as a senior housing
development with occupancy controlled via a covenant with the City named as a third party
beneficiary.
Before credit is given, the City Council shall adopt written findings that the above standards are
met, and shall require the recordation of covenants running with the land to ensure that
credited elements are maintained.
MOVED TO
CHAPTER 13.08
MOVED TO
CHAPTER 13.08
1243
- 12 -
18.24.115 110 Credit for Existing Residential Units.
Where any lot or lots of a proposed subdivision contains existing residential units, a credit shall
be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof for each
lot which contains residential unit or units. As used herein, the term “existing” refers to a
residential unit or units which exist at the time of the recordation of a final map or which were
demolished within one year prior of the tentative map application.
18.24.120 Procedure.
A. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall determine
pursuant to Section 18.24.100 the land to be dedicated and/or fees to be paid by the
subdivider.
B. At the time of the filing of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall dedicate the
land/or pay the fees as previously determined by the City Council.
C. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the
City prior to approval of the final subdivision map and shall be recorded simultaneously
with the final subdivision map.
Minimum Acreage
Mandatory Element
Turfed playfield .50
The playfield shall be a single unit of land which is generally level and free
of physical barriers which would inhibit group play activities.
Optional Elements
Children’s play apparatus area .15
Recreational community gardens .25
Family picnic area .25
Game court area .25
Swim pool (42’ x 75’ with adjacent deck and lawn areas) .25
Recreation center buildings and grounds .15
1244
- 13 -
18.24.130 Commencement of Development.
At the time of approval of the final subdivision map, the City Council shall specify when
development of the park or recreational facilities shall be commenced.
Article III. School Site Dedication.
18.24.140 General.
Unless otherwise prohibited by law, as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map, a
subdivider who develops or completes the development of one or more subdivisions within a
school district shall dedicate to the school district such lands as the City Council shall deem to
be necessary for the purpose of constructing thereon schools necessary to assure the residents of
the subdivision adequate elementary school service.
18.24.150 Procedure.
The requirement of dedication shall be imposed at the time of approval of the tentative map. If
within thirty days after the requirement of dedication is imposed by the City the school district
does not offer to enter into a binding commitment with the subdivider to accept the dedication,
the requirement shall be automatically terminated. The required dedication may be made any
time before, concurrently with, or up to sixty days after the filing of the final map on any
portion of the subdivision.
18.24.160 Payments to Subdivider for School Site Dedication.
The school district shall, if it accepts the dedication, repay to the subdivider or his or her
successors the original cost to the subdivider of the dedicated land, plus a sum equal to the total
of the following amounts:
A. The cost of any improvements to the dedicated land since acquisition by the subdivider;
B. The taxes assessed against the dedicated land from the date of the school district’s offer to
enter into the binding commitment to accept the dedication;
C. Any other costs incurred by the subdivider in maintenance of such dedicated land,
including interest costs incurred on any loan covering such land.
18.24.170 Exemptions.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to a subdivider who has owned the land
being subdivided for more than ten years prior to the filing of the tentative maps.
Article IV. Reservations.
18.24.180 General.
As a condition of approval of a map, the subdivider shall reserve sites, appropriate in area and
location, for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or other public uses according to
the standards and formula contained in this article.
1245
- 14 -
18.24.190 Standards for Reservation of Land.
Where a park, recreational facility, fire station, library, or other public use is shown on an
adopted specific plan or adopted general plan containing a community facilities element,
recreation and parks element and/or a public building element, the subdivider may be required
by the City to reserve sites as so determined by the City or County in accordance with the
definite principles and standards contained in the above specific plan or General Plan. The
reserved area must be of such size and shape as to permit the balance of the property within
which the reservation is located to develop in an orderly and efficient manner. The amount of
land to be reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the subdivider
economically unfeasible. The reserved area shall conform to the adopted specific plan or
General Plan and shall be in such multiples of streets and parcels as to permit an efficient
division of the reserved area in the event that it is not acquired within the prescribed period.
18.24.200 Procedure.
The public agency for whose benefit an area has been reserved shall, at the time of approval of
the final map or parcel map, enter into a binding agreement to acquire reserved area within two
years after the completion and acceptance of all improvements, unless the period of time is
extended by mutual agreement.
18.24.210 Payment to Subdivider.
The purchase price shall be the market value at the time of the filing of the tentative map plus
the taxes against such reserved area from the date of the reservation and any other costs
incurred by the subdivider in the maintenance of the reserved area, including interest costs
incurred on any loan covering the reserved area.
18.24.220 Termination.
If the public agency for whose benefit an area has been reserved does not enter into a binding
agreement, the reservation of the area shall automatically terminate.
Article V. Waiver of Direct Street Access.
18.24.230 Waiver of Direct Street Access.
A. The City may require as a condition of approval of any subdivision the waiver of direct
access rights to proposed or existing streets from any property within the subdivision and
abutting thereon.
B. Any waiver shall become effective in accordance with its provisions and shall be contained
in the owner’s certificate of the final map or parcel map.
CHAPTER 19.08: DEFINITIONS
Section
19.08.010 Purpose and Applicability.
19.08.020 General Rules for Construction of Language.
19.08.030 Definitions.
1246
- 15 -
19.08.010 Purpose and Applicability.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote consistency and precision in the interpretation of
zoning regulations. The meaning and construction of words and phrases defined in this chapter
shall apply throughout the zoning regulations, except where the context of such word or
phrases clearly indicates a different meaning or construction.
19.08.020 General Rules for Construction of Language.
The following general rules of construction shall apply to the text of the zoning regulations:
A. The particular shall control the general.
B. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of any provision and
any caption or illustration, the text shall control.
C. The word “shall” is always mandatory and not discretionary. The word “may” is
discretionary.
D. References in the masculine and feminine genders are interchangeable.
E. Words used in the singular include the plural, and the plural includes the singular, unless
the context clearly indicates the contrary.
F. The words “activities” and “facilities” include any part thereof.
G. Unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary, the following conjunctions shall be
interpreted as follows:
1. “And” indicates that all connected items or provisions shall apply;
2. “Or” indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply singly or in any
combination;
3. “Either . . . or” indicates that the connected items or provisions shall apply singly but not
in combination.
H. The words “lot” and “parcel” are interchangeable.
I. The word “building” includes the word “structure.”
J. All public officials, bodies, and agencies to which reference is made are those of the City
unless otherwise indicated.
K. “City” means the City of Cupertino.
19.08.030 Definitions.
Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this
section.
A. “A” Definitions:
“Abandon” means to cease or discontinue a use or activity without intent to resume, but
excluding temporary or short-term interruptions to a use or activity during periods of
1247
- 16 -
remodeling, maintaining, or otherwise improving or rearranging a facility, or during normal
periods of vacation or seasonal closure.
“Abutting” means having property or district lines in common.
“Accessory building” means a building which is incidental to and customarily associated with a
specific principal use or facility and which meets the applicable conditions set forth in Chapter
19.100, Accessory Buildings/Structures.
“Accessory structure” means a subordinate structure, the use of which is purely incidental to
that of the main building and which shall not contain living or sleeping quarters. Examples
include a deck, tennis courts, trellis or car shelter. Fences eight feet or less are excluded.
“Addition” means any construction which increases the size of a building or facility in terms of
site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area ratio.“Adjacent property” means
property that abuts the subject property, including property whose only contiguity to the
subject site is a single point and property directly opposite the subject property and located
across a street.
“Adult bookstore” means a building or portion thereof used by an establishment having as a
substantial or significant portion of its stock in trade for sale to the public or certain members
thereof, books, magazines, and other publications which are distinguished or characterized by
their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to “specified sexual activities” or
“specified anatomical areas,” as hereinafter defined.
“Adult cabaret” means a building or portion thereof used for dancing purposes thereof or area
used for presentation or exhibition or featuring of topless or bottomless dancers, strippers, male
or female impersonators or similar entertainers, for observations by patrons or customers.
“Adult motion picture theater” means a building or portion thereof or area, open or enclosed,
used for the presentation of motion pictures distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
matter depicting, describing or relating to “specified sexual activities” or “specified anatomical
areas,” as hereinafter defined, for observation by patrons or customers.
“Advertising statuary” means a structure or device of any kind or character for outdoor
advertising purposes which displays or promotes a particular product or service, but without
name identification.
“Aerial” means a stationary transmitting and/or receiving wireless communication device
consisting of one or any combination of the elements listed below:
1. “Antenna” means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may be
attached to a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio or
microwave frequency signals.
2. “Mast” means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod which supports an antenna.
3. “Tower” means a vertical framework of cross elements which supports either an antenna,
mast or both.
1248
- 17 -
4. “Guy wires” means wires necessary to insure the safety and stability of an antenna, mast or
both. “Affordable units” means housing units in which the rent does not exceed thirty
percent of the HUD income limits for lower and very low income households for the Santa
Clara County Metropolitan Statistical Area, adjusted for household size.
“Affordable housing cost” means the amount set forth in the Health and Safety Code Section
50052.5, as may be amended.
“Affordable rent” means the amount set forth in the Health and Safety Code Section 50053, as
may be amended.
“Agriculture” means the tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture, agriculture,
livestock farming, dairying, or animal husbandry, including slaughterhouses, fertilizer yards,
bone yard, or plants for the reduction of animal matter or any other similar use.
“Alley” means a public or private vehicular way less than thirty feet in width affording a
secondary means of vehicular access to abutting property.
“Alteration”, for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any permanent change to a sign.
“Alteration” means any construction or physical change in the arrangement of rooms or the
supporting members of a building or structure, or change in the relative position of buildings or
structures on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building or structure.
1. “Incidental alteration” means any alteration to interior partitions or interior supporting
members of a structure which does not increase the structural strength of the structure; any
alteration to electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, ventilating, or other utility
services, fixtures, or appliances; any addition, closing, or change in size of doors or
windows in the exterior walls; or any replacement of a building facade which does not
increase the structural strength of the structure.
2. “Structural alteration” means any alteration not deemed an incidental alteration.
“Amusement park” means a commercial facility which supplies various forms of indoor and
outdoor entertainment and refreshments.
Animal:
1. Animal, Adult. “Adult animal” means any animal four months of age or older.
2. Animal, Large. “Large animal” means any equine, bovine, sheep, goat or swine or similar
domestic or wild animal, as determined by the Planning Commission.
3. Animal, Small. “Small animal” means animals which are commonly found in single-family
residential areas such as chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, dogs, cats, etc.
“Animal care” means a use providing grooming, housing, medical care, or other services to
animals, including veterinary services, animal hospitals, overnight or short-term boarding
ancillary to veterinary care, indoor or outdoor kennels, and similar services.
“Apartment” means a room or a suite of two or more rooms which is designed for, intended
for, and occupied by one family doing its cooking there.
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1249
- 18 -
“Apartment house” means a building designed and used to house three or more families, living
independently of each other.
“Apartment project” means a rental housing development consisting of two or more dwelling
units.
“Approval Body” means the Director of Community Development and his/her designee, the
Planning Commission or City Council depending upon context.
“Architectural feature” means any part or appurtenance of a building or structure which is not
a portion of the living area of the building or structure. Examples include: cornices, canopies,
eaves, awnings, fireplaces, or projecting window elements. Patio covers or any projection of the
floor area shall not constitute an architectural projection.
“Architectural projection,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any permanent extension
from the structure of a building, including the likes of canopies, awnings and fascia.
“Atrium” means a courtyard completely enclosed by walls and/or fences.
“Attic” means an area between the ceiling and roof of a structure, which is unconditioned (not
heated or cooled) and uninhabitable.
“Automotive service station” means a use providing gasoline, oil, tires, small parts and
accessories, and services incidental thereto, for automobiles, light trucks, and similar motor
vehicles. Automotive maintenance and repair (minor) may be conducted on the site. The sale
of food or grocery items on the same site is prohibited except for soft drinks and snack foods,
either from automatic vending machines or from shelves. The sale of alcoholic beverages on the
site is governed by Chapter 19.132, Concurrent Sale of Alcoholic Beverages and Gasoline.
“Automotive repair and maintenance (minor)” means the supplying of routine automotive
services such as lubrication, engine tune-ups, smog certificates, servicing of tires, brakes,
batteries and similar accessories, and minor repairs involving engine accessories. Any repair
which requires the engine, drive train, transmission assembly, exhaust system, or drive train
parts to be removed from a motor vehicle or requires the removal of internal parts shall not be
considered minor. Body and paint shop operations are not minor repairs or maintenance.
“Average slope” means the ratio between vertical and horizontal distance expressed in percent;
the mathematical expression is based upon the formula described below:
S =
I x L x 100
A
S = Average slope of ground in percent; L = Combined length in feet of all contours on parcel;
I = Contour interval in feet; A = Area of parcel in square feet.
B. “B” Definitions:
“Banner” means a temporary display consisting of fabric, canvas, plastic or paper material
which is attached to a building, vehicle, pole or other form of support.
1250
- 19 -
“Basement” means any floor below the first story in a building that is fully submerged below
grade except for lightwells required for light, ventilation and emergency egress. A basement
may have a maximum exterior wall height of two feet between natural grade and ceiling.
“Block” means any lot or group of contiguous lots bounded on all sides by streets, railroad
rights-of-way, or waterways, and not traversed by any street, railroad right-of-way or
waterway.
“Boarding house” means any building used for the renting of rooms or providing of table board
for from three to five persons, inclusive, over the age of sixteen years, who are not members of
the same family.
“Building” means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or
occupancy when any portion of a building is completely separated from every other portion by
a “Fire Barrier” as defined by the California Building Code, then each portion shall be deemed
to be a separate building.
1. “Attached building” means buildings which are structurally connected by any structural
members or wall, excluding decks, patios or fences.
“Building coverage” means that portion of the net lot area encompassed within the outermost
wall line which defines a building enclosure.
“Building frontage” means the length or the surface of the building wall which faces, and is
visible to the general public from, a private or public right-of-way or driveway.
“Business” or “commerce” means the purchase, sale or other transaction involving the handling
or disposition of any article, substance or commodity for profit or livelihood, including, in
addition, office buildings, offices, shops for the sale of personal services, garages, outdoor
advertising signs and structures, hotels and motels, and recreational and amusement
enterprises conducted for profit.
“Business or trade school” means a use, except a college or university, providing education or
training in business, commerce, language, or similar activity or pursuit, and not otherwise
defined as a home occupation.
C. “C” Definitions:
“Canopy” means any roof-like structure, either attached to another structure or freestanding, or
any extension of a roof line, constructed for the purpose of protection from the elements or
aesthetic purposes in connection with outdoor living.
“Car shelter” means a roofed structure or a part of a building not enclosed by walls, intended
and designed to accommodate one or more vehicles.
“Caretaker” means a person or persons employed for the purpose of protecting the principal
use of the property or structure.
“Centerline” means the centerline as established by the County Surveyor of Santa Clara County,
the City Engineer, or by the State Division of Highways of the State of California.
1251
- 20 -
“Changeable copy sign” means any sign, or portion, which provides for each manual changes to
the visible message without changing structural surfaces, including the likes of theater
marquees and gasoline service station price signs, but excluding electronic readerboard signs
and signs which display the current time or temperature.
“Change of face” means any changes to the letter style, size, color, background, or message.
“Change of use” means the replacement of an existing use by a new use, or a change in the
nature of an existing use, but not including a change in ownership, tenancy or management
where the previous nature of the use, line of business, or other function is substantially
unchanged.
“Child” means a person who is under eighteen years of age.
“Child day care facility” means a facility, licensed by the State or County, which provides non-
medical care to children in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for
sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a
twenty-four -hour basis. Child day care facility includes day care centers, employer sponsored
child-care centers and family day care homes.
“Church” means a use providing facilities for organized religious worship and religious
education incidental thereto, but excluding a private educational facility. A property tax
exemption obtained pursuant to Section 3(f) of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of
California and Section 206 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, or
successor legislation, constitutes prima facie evidence that such use is a church as defined in this
section.
“College” or “university” means an educational institution of higher learning which offers a
course of studies designed to culminate in the issuance of a degree or defined by Section 94110
of the Education Code of the State of California, or successor legislation.
“Collocation” means the placement of aerials and other facilities belonging to two or more
communication service providers on a single mast or building.
“Commercial recreation” means a use providing recreation, amusement, or entertainment
services, including theaters, bowling lanes, billiard parlors, skating arenas, and similar services,
operated on a private or for-profit basis, but excluding uses defined as outdoor recreation
services.
“Community center” means a place, structure, area, or other facility used for and providing
religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and
designated to accommodate and serve a significant segment of the community.
“Commercial district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means an area of land designated
for commercial use in the current Cupertino General Plan.
“Common interest development” means the following, all definitions of which are based upon
Civil Code Section 4100 or subsequent amendments:
1. aA condominium project,
CO
R
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1252
- 21 -
2. aA community apartment project, containing two or more rights of exclusive occupancy, or
3. aA stock cooperative, containing two or more separately owned lots, parcels or areas,or
4. A planned development all definitions are based upon Civil Code Section 1351 or
subsequent amendments.
“Community organization” means a nonprofit organization based in the City and whose
activities benefit the City, its residents, employees, or businesses.
“Concession” means a benefit offered by the City to facilitate construction of eligible projects as
defined by the provisions of this chapter. Benefits may include, but are not limited to, priority
processing, fee deferments and waivers, granting of variances, and relaxation of otherwise
applicable permit conditions or other concessions required by law.
“Condominium” means and includes:
1. “Condominium” as defined by Section 783 of the Civil Code;
2. “Community apartment project” as defined by Section 11004 of the Business and
Professions Code;
3. “Stock cooperative” as defined by Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code; and
4. “Planned development” as defined by Section 11003 of the Business and Professions Code.
The term “condominium” specifically includes, but is not limited to, the conversion of any
existing structure for sale pursuant to a method described in this title.
“Condominium conversion” or “Conversion” means a change in the type of ownership of a
parcel (or parcels) of land, together with the existing attached structures, to that defined as a
common interest development, regardless of the present or prior use of such land and
structures and whether substantial improvements have been made or are to be made to such
structure.
“Condominium project” or “project” includes the real property and any structures thereon, or
any structures to be constructed thereon, which are to be divided into condominium ownership.
“Condominium units” or “units” means the individual spaces within a condominium project
owned as individual estates.
“Congregate residence” means any building or portion which contains facilities for living,
sleeping and sanitation, as required by the California Building Code and may include facilities
for eating and cooking for occupancies other than a family. A congregate residence may be a
shelter, convent or monastery but does not include jails, hospitals, nursing homes, hotels or
lodging houses.
“Convalescent facility” means a use other than a residential care home providing inpatient
services for persons requiring medical attention, but not providing surgical or emergency
medical services.
“Convenience market” means a use or activity that includes the retail sale of food, beverages,
and small personal convenience items, including sale of food in disposable containers primarily
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
C
Y
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1253
- 22 -
for off-premises consumption, and typically found in establishments with long or late hours of
operation and in relatively small buildings, but excluding delicatessens and other specialty food
shops and establishments which have a sizable assortment of fresh fruits, vegetables, and fresh-
cut meats.
“Corner triangle” means a triangular-shaped area bounded by the following, unless deemed
otherwise by the City Engineer:
1. The intersection of the tangential extension of front and street side property lines as formed
by the intersection of two public rights-of-way abutting the said property lines; and
2. The third boundary of the triangular-shaped area shall be a line connecting the front and
side property lines at a distance of forty feet from the intersection of the tangential extension
of front and side property lines.
“Corner triangle,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a triangular-shaped area of land
adjacent to an intersection of public rights-of-way, as further defined in Cupertino Standard
Details Drawings Nos. 7-2 and 7-4. (See Appendix A, Cupertino Standard Detail 7-2; Corner
Triangle–Controlled Intersections, and B, Cupertino Standard Detail 7-4; Corner Triangle–
Uncontrolled Intersections for details.)
“Court” means an open, unoccupied space, other than a yard, on the same lot with a building or
buildings and which is bounded on two or more sides by such building or buildings, including
the open space in a house court or court apartment providing access.
“Covered parking” means a carport or garage that provides full overhead protection from the
elements with ordinary roof coverings. Canvas, lath, fiberglass and vegetation are not
ordinarily roof coverings and cannot be used in providing a covered parking space.
D. “D” Definitions:
“Day care center” means any child day care facility, licensed by the State or County, other than
a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, and extended day care
facilities.
Day Care Home, Family. “Family day care home” means a home, licensed by the State or
County, which regularly provides care, protection and supervision for fourteen or fewer
children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than twenty-four hours per day, while
the parents or guardian are away, and includes the following:
1. “Large-family day care home,” which means a home which provides family day care for
seven to fourteen children, inclusive, including children under the age of ten years who
reside at the home, as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.465;
2. “Small-family day care home,” which means a home which provides family day care to
eight or fewer children, including children under the age of ten years who resides at the
home, as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.44.
“Decorative statuary,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any structure or device of any
kind or character placed solely for aesthetic purposes and not to promote any product or
service.
1254
- 23 -
“Demonstrated safety” means a condition requiring protection from the threat of danger, harm,
or loss, including but not limited to the steepness of a roadway or driveway that may create a
hazardous parking situation in front of a gate.
“Demonstrated security” means a condition requiring protection from the potential threat of
danger, harm or loss, including but not limited to a location that is isolated and invisible from
public view or that has experienced documented burglary, theft, vandalism or trespassing
incidences.
“Density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential
density in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.56. an increase in the number of
dwelling units authorized for a particular parcel of land beyond the maximum allowed by the
General Plan range specified on the land use map of the City of Cupertino General Plan as of
the date of the project application, controlled through the Government Code process.
“Developer” means the owner or subdivider with a controlling proprietary interest in the
proposed common interest development, or the person or organization making application, or a
qualified applicant who has entered into a development agreement pursuant to the procedures
specified in Chapter 19.144.
“Development agreement” means a development agreement enacted by legislation between the
City and a qualified applicant pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5.
"Development standard" means a site or construction regulation, including, but not limited to, a
setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that
applies to a development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan,
charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
“District” means a portion of the property within the City within which certain uses of land,
premises and buildings are permitted and certain other uses of land, premises and buildings are
prohibited, and within which certain yards and other open spaces are required and certain
building site areas are established for buildings, all as set forth and specified in this title.
“Drinking establishment” means an activity that is primarily devoted to the selling of alcoholic
beverages for consumption on the premises.
“Drive-through establishment” means an activity where a portion of retailing or the provision
of service can be conducted without requiring the customer to leave his or her car.
“Driveway” means any driveway that provides direct access to a public or private street.
Driveway, Curved. “Curved driveway” means a driveway with access to the front property
line which enters the garage from the side at an angle of sixty degrees or greater to the front
curbline and which contains a functional twenty-foot-deep parking area that does not overhang
the front property line.
“Duplex” means a building, on a lot under one ownership, containing not more than two
kitchens, designed and used to house not more than two families living independently of each
other.
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
MO
V
E
D
F
R
O
M
CH
A
P
T
E
R
1
9
.
2
0
1255
- 24 -
“Dwelling unit” means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating, cooking
and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit, occupied
or intended for occupancy by one family on a nontransient basis and having not more than one
kitchen.
E. “E” Definitions:
“Economically feasible” means when a housing project can be built with a reasonable rate of
return. The housing developer’s financial ability to build the project shall not be a factor.
Emergency Shelter:
“Emergency shelter, rotating” means a facility that provides temporary housing with minimal
supportive services. Shelters shall be limited to a time period of two months in a twelve-month
period at any single location and shall and meets criteria in Section 19.76.030(2)19.64.040(A).
“Emergency shelter, permanent” means a permanently operated facility that provides
temporary housing with minimal supportive services that is limited to occupancy of six months
or less. Shelters may be permanently operated and shall and meets criteria in Section
19.76.030(3)19.64.040(B).
“Employee Housing” means accommodations for employees as defined by Health and Safety
Code 17008, as may be amended.
“Enclosed” means a covered space fully surrounded by walls, including windows, doors and
similar openings or architectural features, or an open space of less than one hundred square feet
fully surrounded by a building or walls exceeding eight feet in height.
“Entry feature” means a structural element, which leads to an entry door.
“Equestrian center” means a facility for the shelter, display, exhibition, keeping, exercise or
riding of horses, ponies or mules, or vehicles drawn by such animals, with related pasture
lands, corrals and trails.
“Equipment yard” means a use providing for maintenance, servicing or storage of motor
vehicles, equipment or supplies; or for the dispatching of service vehicles; or distribution of
supplies or construction materials required in connection with a business activity, public utility
service, transportation service, or similar activity, including but not limited to, a construction
material yard, corporation yard, vehicular service center or similar use.
F. “F” Definitions:
“Facility” means a structure, building or other physical contrivance or object.
1. “Accessory facility” means a facility which is incidental to, and customarily associated with
a specified principal facility and which meets the applicable conditions set forth in Chapter
19.80.
2. “Noncomplying facility” means a facility which is in violation of any of the site
development regulations or other regulations established by this title, but was lawfully
existing on October 10, 1955, or any amendment to this title, or the application of any
district to the property involved by reason of which the adoption or application the facility
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
C
Y
1256
- 25 -
becomes noncomplying. (For the definition for “nonconforming use” see the definition
“use” in this chapter.)
3. “Principal facilities” means a main building or other facility which is designed and
constructed for or occupied by a principal use.
“Family” means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide
single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. “Family” shall not be construed to include a
fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house, or
institution of any kind.
“Fence” means a man-made structure which is designed, intended or used to protect, defend or
obscure the interior property of the owner from the view, trespass or passage of others upon
that property.
“Fence height” means the vertical distance from the highest point of the fence (excluding post
caps) to the finish grade adjoining the fence. In a case where the finish grade is different for each
side of the fence, the grade with the highest elevation shall be utilized in determining the fence
height.
“First floor” means that portion of a structure less than or equal to twenty feet in height,
through which a vertical line extending from the highest point of exterior construction to the
appropriate adjoining grade, passes through one story.
“Flag” means any fabric, banner, or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, or symbols,
used as a symbol of a government, political subdivision, or other entity.
“Floor area” means the total area of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of
exterior walls, and including the following: 1. Halls; 2. Base of stairwells; 3. Base of elevator
shafts; 4. Services and mechanical equipment rooms; 5. Interior building area above fifteen feet
in height between any floor level and the ceiling above; 6. Basements with lightwells that do not
conform to Section 19.28.060I; 7. In all zones except residential, permanently roofed, but either
partially enclosed or unenclosed building features used for sales, service, display, storage or
similar uses.
“Floor area” shall not include the following: 1. Basements with lightwells that conform to
Section 19.28.060I; 2. Lightwells; 3. Attic areas; 4. Parking facilities, other than residential
garages, accessory to a permitted conditional use and located on the same site; 5. Roofed
arcades, plazas, walkways, porches, breezeways, porticos, courts and similar features not
substantially enclosed by exterior walls.
“Floor area ratio” means the maximum ratio of gross floor area on a site to the total site area.
“Foot-lambert” means a unit measurement of the brightness of light transmitted through or
reflected from an object or surface.
“Freeway” means any public roadway so designated by the State of California.
“Front wall” means the wall of a building or other structure nearest the street upon which the
building faces, but excluding certain architectural features as defined in this chapter.
1257
- 26 -
G. “G” Definitions:
“Garage” means an accessory building (completely enclosed) or an attached building used
primarily for the storage of motor vehicles.
“Gasoline service station” means any place of business which offers for sale any motor vehicle
fuel to the public.
“Grade” or “finished grade” means the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation of the
finished surface of the ground paving, or sidewalk, excluding areas where grade has been
raised by means of a berm, planter box, or similar landscaping feature, unless required for
drainage, within the area between the building and the property line, or when the property line
is more than five feet from the building, between the building and a line five feet from the
building.
“Gross lot area” means the horizontal area included within the property lines of a site plus the
street area bounded by the street centerline up to thirty feet distant from the property line, the
street right-of-way line and the extended side yard to the street centerline.
“Group home” means a state-authorized, certified or licensed family care home, foster home, or
group home serving six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or
dependent and neglected children.
“Guest room” means a room which is intended, arranged or designed to be occupied by
occasional visitors or nonpaying guests of the occupants of the dwelling unit in which the room
is located, and which contains no kitchen facilities.
H. “H” Definitions:
“Habitable floor” means the horizontal space between a floor area of at least seventy square feet
and the ceiling height measuring at least seven feet six inches above it, except for a kitchen
which shall have a ceiling height not less than seven feet above the floor.
“Habitable space” means space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms,
toilet compartment, closets, halls, storage or utility space and similar areas are not considered
habitable space.
“Heavy equipment” means any mechanical or motorized device that is not a vehicle or a
commercial vehicle as
defined in 19.08.030(V),
including, but not limited to,
a backhoe, cement mixer,
crane, ditch witch, dozer,
earth mover, generator,
grader, tractor or any similar
device.
“Height” means a vertical
distance measured parallel
to the natural grade to the
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
C
Y
Height Limit for Entry Features
1258
- 27 -
highest point of exterior construction, exclusive of chimneys, antennas or other appurtenances,
except that entry features are measured to the top of the wall plate.
Height restriction shall be established by establishing a line parallel to the natural grade.
“Height”, for purposes of the Accessory Buildings/ Structures, encompasses the entire wall
plane nearest the property line, including roof, eaves, and any portion of the foundation visible
above the adjoining finished grade.
“Home occupation” means a business, profession, occupation or trade activity which is
performed by the resident(s) of a dwelling unit within that dwelling unit, or a yard area or
garage associated with that dwelling unit, or a yard area or garage associated with that unit, for
purposes of generating income, by means of the manufacture, and/or sale of goods and/or
services, but which activity is clearly incidental to the use of the dwelling for residential
purposes.
“Hospital” means a facility for providing medical, psychiatric or surgical services for sick or
injured persons, primarily on an inpatient basis, and including ancillary facilities for outpatient
and emergency treatment, diagnostic services, training, research, administration, and service to
patients, employees or visitors.
“Hotel” means a facility containing rooms or groups of rooms, generally without individual
kitchen facilities, used or intended to be used by temporary overnight occupants, whether on a
transient or residential occupancy basis, and whether or not eating facilities are available on the
premises. Hotel includes motel, motor hotel, tourist court, or similar use, but does not include
mobilehome parks or similar uses.
“Household pets” means small animals commonly found in residential areas such as chickens,
ducks, geese, rabbits, dogs, and cats, but excluding animals such as any bovine or equine
animal, or any goat, sheep or swine. This title does not regulate the keeping of small household
pets, such as fish, birds or hamsters, which is incidental to any permitted use. However, no
animal including household pets may be kept, maintained and/or raised for commercial
purposes except where permitted with required permits.
“Household type” means whether the occupants of the housing units are very low income,
lower income, moderate income, or senior citizens.
“Housing development” means, for the purposes of Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, a
development project for five or more residential units. For the purposes of that chapter,
"housing development" also includes a subdivision or common interest development, approved
by the City that consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project
to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or
the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in Government
Code Section 65863.4(d), where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in
available residential units. one or more groups of projects with residential units constructed in
the planned development of the City.
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1259
- 28 -
I. “I” Definitions:
“Industrial district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means all ML districts and any other
zoning classifications which are consistent with the industrial designation of the Cupertino
general plan.
“Institutional district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means all BQ, PR, FP, and BA
districts and other zoning classifications and uses which are considered institutional in nature
and are consistent with the institutional or quasi-public designation of the general plan.
J. “J” Definitions:
“Junkyard” means the use of more than two hundred square feet of the area of any lot for the
storage or keeping of junk, including scrap metals or other scrap material, and/or for the
dismantling or wrecking of automobiles or other vehicles or machinery.
K. “K” Definitions:
“Kitchen” means an area in habitable space used for the preparation of food and including at
least three of the following: 1. Cooking appliance(s) or provision for a cooking appliance (such
as 220V outlets, gas connections and space for appliances between counters; 2. Counter; 3.
Refrigerator; and 4. Sink.
L. “L” Definitions:
“Landscaping” means an area devoted to or developed and maintained with native or exotic
planting, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials, decorative
outdoor landscape elements, pools, fountains, water features, paved or decorated surfaces of
rock, stone, brick, block or similar material (excluding driveways, parking, loading or storage
areas), and sculptural elements.
“Late evening activities” means an activity which maintains any hours of operation during the
period of eleven p.m. to seven a.m.
“Legal substandard lot” means any parcel of land or lot recorded and legally created by the
County or City prior to March 17, 1980, which lot or parcel is of less area than required in the
zone; or lots or parcels of record which are reduced to a substandard lot size as a result of
required street dedication unless otherwise provided in the City of Cupertino General
Plan. The owner of a legally created, substandard property which is less than six thousand
square feet but equal to or greater than five thousand square feet may utilize such parcel for
residential purposes. The owner of a legally created parcel of less than five thousand square
feet may also develop the site as a single-family residential building site if it can be
demonstrated that the property was not under the same ownership as any contiguous property
on the same street frontage as of or after July 1, 1984.
“Lightwell” means an excavated area required by the Uniform Building Code to provide
emergency egress, light and ventilation for below grade rooms.
“Liquor store” means a use requiring a State of California “off-sale general license” (sale for off-
site consumption of wine, beer and/or hard liquor) and having fifty percent or more of the total
dollar sales accounted for by beverage covered under the off-sale general license.
1260
- 29 -
“Living space” means habitable space and sanitation.
“Loading space” means an area used for loading or unloading of goods from a vehicle in
connection with the use of the site on which such space is located.
“Lodging” means the furnishing of rooms or groups of rooms within a dwelling unit or an
accessory building to persons other than members of the family residence in the dwelling unit,
for overnight occupancy on a residential occupancy basis, whether or not meals are provided to
the person. Lodging shall be subject to the residential density requirements of the district in
which the use is located.
“Lodging unit” means a room or group of rooms not including a kitchen, used or intended for
use by overnight occupants as a single unit, whether located in a hotel or a dwelling unit
providing lodging where designed or used for occupancy by more than two persons; each two-
person capacity shall be deemed a separate lodging unit for the purpose of determining
residential density; each two lodging units shall be considered the equivalent of one dwelling
unit.
“Lot” means a parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels or portions by description,
as on a subdivision or record of survey map, or by metes and bounds, for purpose of sale, lease
or separate use.
1. “Corner lot” means a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets, or bounded on
two or more adjacent sides by street lines.
2. “Flag lot” means a lot having access to a street by means of a private driveway or parcel of
land not otherwise meeting the requirement of this title for lot width.
3. “Interior lot” means a lot other than a corner lot.
4. “Key lot” means the first lot to the rear of a corner lot, the front line of which is a
continuation of the side line of the corner lot, and fronting on the street which intersects or
intercepts the street on which the corner lot fronts.
“Lot area” means the area of a lot measured horizontally between boundary lot lines, but
excluding a portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a front lot line
and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any natural watercourse,
river, stream, creek, waterway, channel or flood control or drainage easement and excluding
any portion of a lot within a street right-of-way whether acquired in fee, easement or otherwise.
“Lot coverage” means the following:
1. “Single-family residential use” means the total land area within a site that is covered by
buildings, including all projections, but excluding ground-level paving, landscape features,
lightwells, and open recreational facilities.
2. “All other uses except single-family residential” means the total land area within a site that
is covered by buildings, excluding all projections, ground-level paving, landscape features,
and open recreational facilities.
1261
- 30 -
“Lot depth” means the horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the
midpoint of the rear lot line, or to the most distant point on any other lot line where there is no
clear rear lot line.
“Lot line” means any boundary of a lot.
1. “Front lot line” means on an interior lot, the lot line abutting a street, or on a corner lot, the
shorter lot line abutting a street, or on a flag lot, the interior lot line most parallel to and
nearest the street from which access is obtained.
2. “Interior lot line” means any lot line not abutting a street.
3. “Rear lot line” means the lot line not intersecting a front lot line which is most distant from
and the most closely parallel to the front lot line. A lot bounded by only three lot lines will
not have a rear lot line.
4. “Side lot line” means any lot line which is not a front or rear lot line.
5. “Street lot line” means any lot line abutting a street.
“Lot of record” means a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the office of the County
Recorder, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds which has been recorded.
“Lot width” means the horizontal distance between side lot lines, measured at the required
front setback line.
“Lower-income household” means a household whose gross income is asdoes not exceed that
established by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5, as may be amended.
M. “M” Definitions:
“Major renovation,” for purposes of Chapter 19.116, Conversions of Apartment Projects to
Common Interest Development, means any renovation for which an expenditure of more than
one thousand dollars was made. “Major repair,” for purposes of Chapter 19.116, Conversions of
Apartment Projects to Common Interest Development, means any repair for which an
expenditure of more than one thousand dollars was made.
“Manufacturing” means a use engaged in the manufacture, predominantly from previously
prepared materials, of finished products or parts, including processing fabrication, assembly,
treatment, packaging of products, but excluding basic industrial processing of extracted or raw
materials, processes utilizing inflammable or explosive material (i.e., materials which ignite
easily under normal manufacturing conditions), and processes which create hazardous or
commonly recognized offensive conditions.
“Massage” means any method of pressure on or friction against or stroking, kneading, rubbing,
tapping, pounding, vibrating or stimulating the external parts of the human body with the
hands or with any mechanical or electrical apparatus or other appliances or devices with or
without such supplementary aides as rubbing alcohol, liniment, antiseptic, oil, powder, cream,
lotion, ointment or other similar preparations.
“Massage parlor” means a building or portion thereof, or a place where massage is
administered for compensation or from which a massage business or service for compensation
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1262
- 31 -
is operated which is not exempted or regulated by the Massage Establishment Ordinance as
contained in Title 9, Health and Sanitation of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 9.06.
“Maximum allowable residential density,” for purposes of Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, means
the maximum density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general
plan. For purposes of that Chapter, if the maximum density allowed under the zoning
ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general
plan, the general plan density shall prevail.
“Minor change” means an alteration or modification of an existing plan, development or project
which is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and
design of the plan, development or project with no change proposed for the use of the land in
question, no change proposed in the character of the structure or structures involved, and no
variance required.
“Mobilehome” means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed or used as semi-
permanent housing, designed for human habitation, for carrying persons and property on its
own structure, and for being drawn by a motor vehicle, and shall include a trailer coach.
“Mobilehome park” means any area or tract of land where lots are sold, rented, or held out for
rent to one or more owners or users of mobilehomes, excluding travel-trailers, for the purpose
of permanent or semi-permanent housing.
“Moderate income household” means a household whose gross income does not exceed that
established by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended.
“Multiple-family use” means the use of a parcel for three or more dwelling units which may be
in the same building or in separate buildings on the same parcel.
N. “N” Definitions:
“Natural grade” means the contour of the land prior to improvements or development, unless
otherwise established by a city approved grading plan that is part of a subdivision map
approval.
“Net lot area” means the total area included within the property lines of a parcel, excluding the
following: 1. Any portion of a parcel within the right-of-way of an existing public street; 2. The
portion of a flag lot constituting the access corridor lying between the front property line and
the frontage line of the corridor at the street; 3. The full width of any legal easement used for
access purposes.
“Nightclub” means an establishment providing alcoholic beverage service and late evening
(past eleven p.m.) entertainment, with or without food service.
O. “O” Definitions:
“Office” means:
1. “Administrative or executive offices” including those pertaining to the management of
office operations or the direction of enterprise but not including merchandising or sales
services.
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
/
CO
N
S
I
S
T
E
N
C
Y
1263
- 32 -
2. “Medical office” means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventative or
corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories,
and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice
by the State of California and including services related to medical research, testing and
analysis.
3. “Professional offices” such as those pertaining to the practice of the professions and arts
including, but not limited to, accounting, architecture, dentistry, design, engineering,
including associated testing and prototype development, but excluding product
manufacturing and/or assembly, law and medicine, but not including sale of drugs or
prescriptions except as incidental to the principal uses and where there is external evidence
of such incidental use.
4. “Office district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means those buildings or groups of
buildings for which the permitted uses are professional offices, is within an OA or OP zone
or which are designated for offices on the general plan.
“Offset” means the indentation or projection of a wall plane.
“Open” means a space on the ground or on the roof of a structure, uncovered and unenclosed.
“Organizational documents” means the declaration of restrictions, articles of incorporation,
bylaws and any contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of all or any part of a
common interest development.
“Outdoor recreation use” means a privately owned or operated use providing facilities for
outdoor recreation activities, including golf, tennis, swimming, riding or other outdoor sport or
recreation, operated predominantly in the open, except for accessory or incidental enclosed
services or facilities.
P. “P” Definitions:
“Park” means any open space, reservation, playground, swimming pool, golf course, recreation
center, or any other area in the City owned or used by the City or County and devoted to active
or passive recreations.
“Parking area” means an unroofed, paved area, delineated by painted or similar markings,
intended and designed to accommodate one or more vehicles.
“Parking facility” means an area on a lot or within a building, or both, including one or more
parking spaces, together with driveways, aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, clearances and
similar features, and meeting the requirements established by this title. Parking facility
includes parking lots, garages and parking structures.
1. “Temporary parking facility” means parking lots which are not required under this title
and which are intended as interim improvements of property subject to removal at a later
date.
“Parking space” means an area on a lot or within a building, used or intended for use for
parking a motor vehicle, having permanent means of access to and from a public street or alley
independently of any other parking space, and located in a parking facility meeting the
1264
- 33 -
requirements established by this title. Parking space is equivalent to the term “parking stall”
and does not include driveways, aisles or other features comprising a parking facility as
previously defined in this chapter.
“Pennant” means any lightweight plastic, fabric, or other material, whether or not containing a
message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire, or string, usually in a series, designed to
move in the wind.
“Permit” means a permit issued by the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review
Committee, Director of Community Development, or any other decision body as empowered by
the Cupertino Municipal Code, approving architecture, site improvements, buildings,
structures, land and/or uses. Permits may include but shall not be limited to Administrative
Approvals, Two-story Permits, Minor Residential Permits, Architectural and Site Approvals,
Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Exceptions, Variances or Subdivision Maps.
“Person” means an individual, group, partnership, firm, association, corporation, trust,
governmental agency, governmental official, administrative body, or tribunal or any other form
of business or legal entity.
“Personal fitness training center” means a facility providing space and equipment, with or
without supervision, for group or individual athletic development, increased skill development
in sports activity, or rehabilitative therapy for athletic injury.
“Perspective drawing” means a rendering of a three-dimensional view depicting the height,
width, depth, and position of a proposed structure in relation to surrounding properties and
structures when viewed from street level.
“Picnic area” means a facility providing tables and cooking devices for preparation and
consumption of meals out of doors or within an unenclosed shelter structure.
“Practice range” means a facility providing controlled access to fixed or movable objects which
are used to test and measure accuracy of discharge from a weapon.
“Private educational facility” means a privately owned school, including schools owned and
operated by religious organizations, offering instruction in the several branches of learning and
study required to be taught in the public schools by the Education Code of the State of
California.
“Project improvements” means all public road improvements, undergrounding utility
improvements, and improvements to the on-site utility networks as required by the City of
Cupertino for a common interest development.
“Projection” means architectural elements, not part of the main building support, that
cantilevers from a single building wall or roof, involving no supports to the ground other than
the one building wall from which the element projects.
“Promotional Device” means any sign, display, fixture, placard, vehicle or structure that uses
color, form, graphic, symbol, illumination or writing to advertise a special event or the opening
of a new business.
1265
- 34 -
“Property” means real property which includes land, that which is affixed to the land, and that
which is incidental or appurtenant to the land as defined in Civil Code Sections 658 through
662.
1. Property, Adjoining. “Adjoining property” means any unit of real property, excluding
lands used as public streets, sharing one or more common points with another property.
“Provider” means a person who operates a child day care home and is licensed by the State of
California.
“Public dancehall” is a building or portion used for dancing purposes to and in which the
general public is admitted and permitted to dance, upon payment of any fee other than
compensation, or upon payment of a charge for admission, or for which tickets or other devices
are sold, or in which a charge is made for the privilege of dancing with any other person
employed for such purpose by the operator of the establishment, including but not limited to
taxi dances, but excluding restaurants, hotel rooms and nightclubs in which the dancing is
incidental only to other entertainment.
Q. “Q” Definitions:
“Qualified applicant” is a person who has a legal or equitable interest in real property which is
the subject of a development agreement, determined pursuant to Section 19.116.070. Qualified
applicant includes an authorized agent.
“Qualifying resident,” for purposes of Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, of this Code, means a
senior citizen or other persons eligible to reside in a senior citizen housing development.
R. “R” Definitions:
“Recreational open space” means open space within a common interest development (exclusive
of required front setback areas) which shall be used exclusively for leisure and recreational
purposes, for the use and enjoyment of occupants (and their visitors) of units on the project and
to which such occupants (and their visitors) have the right of use and enjoyment. Accessory
structures such as swimming pools, recreational buildings and landscaped areas may be
included as open space.
“Recyclable materials” means discards or waste materials that may be separated or mixed,
collected and processed, and used as raw materials for new products. For purposes of this
chapter, recyclable material does not include hazardous materials.
“Recycling center” means a facility for the collection and/or processing of recyclable materials.
Recycling center does not include storage containers or processing activity located on the
premises of a commercial or manufacturing use and use solely for the recycling of material
generated by that business or manufacturer.
1. “Recycling center, Certified” or “Certified Processor” means a recycling facility certified by
the California Department of Conservation as meeting the requirements of the California
Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986.
2. “Recycling center, Mobile” means an automobile, truck, trailer or van licensed by the
Department of Motor Vehicles, which is used for the collection of recyclable material. A
CO
N
F
O
R
M
AN
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
AW
1266
- 35 -
mobile recycling center also means the bins, boxes or containers transported by trucks, vans,
or trailers and used for the collection of recyclable materials. A mobile recycling center may
consist of an enclosed vehicle such as box cab or enclosed semi-trailer or an open vehicle
such as a flatbed trailer with bins or boxes to contain recyclable materials.
“Recycling facilities” may include the following:
1. a. “Collection facility” means a facility for the acceptance (donation, redemption or sale) of
recyclable materials from the public. Such a facility does not use power-driven processing
equipment except as indicated in standards and conditions, in this cChapter 19.108,
Beverage Container Redemption and Recycling Centers. Collection facilities may include
the following:
a. i. Reverse vending machine(s);
b. ii. Small collection facilities which occupy an area of not more than five hundred square
feet, and may include:
i. (A) A mobile recycling unit,
ii. (B) Bulk reverse vending machine or a grouping of reverse vending machines
occupying more than fifty square feet,
iii. (C) Kiosk type units and bulk vending machines,
iv. (D) Unattended containers placed for the donation of recyclable materials;
c. iii. Large collection facilities which may occupy an area of more than five hundred
square feet, or is on a separate property not appurtenant to a host use, and may include
permanent structures.
2. b. “Processing facility” means a building or enclosed space use for the collection and
processing of recyclable materials. Processing means the preparation of material for efficient
shipment or to an end-user’s specifications, by such means as baling, briquetting,
compacting, flattening, grinding, crushing, mechanical sorting, shredding, cleaning, and
remanufacturing. Processing facility includes the following:
a. i. A light processing facility occupies an area of under forty-five thousand square feet of
gross collection, processing and storage area and has up to two outbound truck
shipments per day. Light processing facilities are limited to baling, briquetting,
crushing, compacting, grinding, shredding and sorting of source-separated recyclable
materials and repairing of reusable materials sufficient to qualify as a certified
processing facility. A light processing facility shall not shred, compact, or bale ferrous
metals other than food and beverage containers.
b. ii. A heavy processing facility is any processing facility other than a light processing
facility.
“Religious institution” means a seminary, retreat, monastery, conference center, or similar use
for the conduct of religious activities including accessory housing incidental thereto, but
excluding a private educational facility. Any use for which a property tax exemption has been
obtained pursuant to Section 3(f) of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California and
Section 206 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, or successor legislation,
RE
F
O
R
M
A
T
T
I
N
G
RE
F
O
R
M
A
T
T
I
N
G
1267
- 36 -
or which is used in connection with any church which has received such an exemption, shall be
prima facie presumed to be a religious institution.
“Research and development” means a use engaged in study, design, analysis and experimental
development of products, processes or services, including incidental manufacturing of products
or provisions of services to others.
“Residential care facility” means a building or portion designed or used for the purpose of
providing twenty-four-hour-a-day nonmedical residential living accommodations pursuant to
the Uniform Building, Housing and Fire Codes, in exchange for payment of money or other
consideration, where the duration of tenancy is determined, in whole or in part, by the
individual resident’s participation in group or individual activities such as counseling, recovery
planning, medical or therapeutic assistance. Residential care facility includes, but is not limited
to, health facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 1250 et seq.),
community care facilities (H&SC Section 1500 et seq.), residential care facilities for the elderly
(H&SC Section 1569 et seq.) or facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped
(W&I Code Section 5000 et seq.), and alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities
(H&SC Section 11384.11), and other similar care facilities.
“Residential district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means the R1, RHS, R2, R3, R1C, A,
and A1 zoning classifications which are consistent with the residential designation of the
Cupertino general plan.
Restaurant:
1. Restaurant, Fast-Food. “Fast-food restaurant” means a retail food service establishment in
which prepared foods or beverages are served or sold on or in disposable containers,
including those establishments where a substantial portion of the patrons may serve
themselves and may consume the food and beverages off-site. A separate bar facility for
serving alcoholic beverages is not permitted. Any area, tables or rooms reserved for serving
alcoholic beverages shall be considered a separate bar facility. Specialty food stores, such as
ice cream stores, bakeries or shops, shall not be considered fast-food restaurants.
2. Restaurant, Full Service. “Full-service restaurant” means any restaurant which is not a fast-
food restaurant. Alcoholic beverages may be served with meals at a customer’s dining
table; however, a separate bar facility for serving alcoholic beverages is not permitted
without a use permit.
“Research and development” means a use engaged in study, design, analysis and experimental
development of products, processes or services, including incidental manufacturing of products
or provisions of services to others.
“Residential care home” means the use of a dwelling unit or portion licensed by the State of
California or County of Santa Clara, for care of up to six persons, including overnight
occupancy or care for extended time periods, and including all uses defined in Sections 5115
and 5116 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, or successor legislation.
MO
V
E
D
F
R
O
M
BE
L
O
W
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
MO
V
E
D
F
R
O
M
BE
L
O
W
MOVED UP
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
C
Y
1268
- 37 -
“Residential district,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means the R1, RHS, R2, R3, R1C, A,
and A1 zoning classifications which are consistent with the residential designation of the
Cupertino general plan.
“Reverse vending machine(s)” means an automated mechanical device which accepts one or
more types of empty beverage containers, including, but not limited to aluminum cans, glass
and plastic bottles, and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less
than the containers redemption value, as determined by the State. A reverse vending machine
may sort and process containers mechanically provided that the entire process is enclosed
within the machine. In order to accept and temporarily store all three container types in a
proportion commensurate with their relative redemption rates, and to meet the requirements of
certification as a recycling center, multiple grouping of reverse vending machines may be
necessary.
1. A bulk reverse vending machine is a reverse vending machine that is larger than fifty square
feet; is designed to accept more than one container at a time; and will pay by weight instead
of by container.
“Rotating homeless shelter” means a shelter located in an existing church structure, the shelter
provided not to exceed two months in any twelve-month period at any single location, and the
number of occupants not to exceed twenty-five, hours of operation not to exceed six p.m. to
seven a.m.
S. “S” Definitions:
“Screened” means shielded, concealed, and effectively hidden from view at an elevation of up
to eight feet above ground level on adjoining parcels, or from adjoining parcels, within ten feet
of a lot line, by a fence, wall, hedge, berm, or similar structure, architectural or landscape
feature, or combination thereof.
“Second dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which
provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as
the single-family dwelling is situated.
“Senior citizens” means:
1. Persons at least sixty-two years of age; or
2. Persons at least fifty-five years of age in a senior citizen housing development, in accordance
with State and federal law.
“Senior citizen housing development” means a housing development with at least thirty-five
dwelling units as defined in the Civil Code Section 51.3, or a mobilehome park that limits
residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76
or 799.5 of the Civil Code, as may be amended. :
1. Government subsidized housing units for senior citizens;
2. Housing intended for, and solely occupied by, persons at least sixty-two years of age; or
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
MOVED UP
DU
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
1269
- 38 -
3. Housing consisting of at least one hundred fifty units in which eighty percent of the
units have at least one person aged fifty-five or older and which provide special facilities
and services designed for seniors.
Eligibility for a density bonus or other concession for senior citizen units must be in conformity
with State and federal laws governing senior housing projects.
“Setback line” means a line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the
boundary of any specified front, side or rear yard, or the boundary of any public right-of-way
or private road, whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise, or a line otherwise established
to govern the location of buildings, structures or uses. Where no minimum front, side or rear
yards are specified, the setback line shall be coterminous with the corresponding lot line.
Setback Area, Required. “Required setback area” means open space, unoccupied and
unobstructed from the ground upward, except as provided in this title, between the lot line and
the setback line on the same parcel.
1. Setback Area, Required Front Yard. “Required front-yard setback area” means the setback
area extending across the front of a lot between the front lot line and the setback line. Front
yards shall be measured either by a line at right angles to the front lot line, or by a radial line
in the case of a curved front lot line, except flag lots which is the area extending across the
full extent of the buildable portion of the flag lot measured from the property line which is
parallel to and nearest the street line and at which point the lot width equals a minimum of
sixty feet. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to modify the
provisions of this definition when it improves the design relationship of the proposed
buildings to adjacent buildings or parcels.
2. Setback Area, Required Rear Yard. “Required rear-yard setback area” means the area
extending across the full width of the lot between the rear lot line and the nearest line or
point of the main building.
3. Setback Area, Required Side Yard. “Required side-yard setback area” means the area
between the side lot line and the nearest line of a building, and extending from the front
setback line to the rear setback line.
“Shopping center” means a group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned or
managed as a unit, with off-street parking provided on the parcel.
“Shopping center,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a retail entity encompassing
three or more tenants within a single building or group of buildings, but within which
individual business located in defined tenant spaces are owned and managed separately from
the shopping center management.
“Sidewalk site triangle” is a triangular shaped area described in Cupertino Standard Detail 7-6.
(See Appendix C, Cupertino Standard Detail; Sidewalk Site Triangle (Sidewalk Clearance at
Driveway)
“Sign” means any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form, graphic,
illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, or identify the purpose
of a person or entity, to communicate information of any kind to the public.
MOVED TO CHAPTER 19.56
1270
- 39 -
1. “Animated sign” means any sign which projects action, motion or the illusion thereof,
changes intensity of illumination or changes colors, including the likes of balloons, banners
and flags, and blowing or air-powered attractions, but excluding electronic readerboard
signs and signs that display the current time or temperature.
2. “Blade sign” means a pedestrian oriented sign, adjacent to a pedestrian walkway or
sidewalk, attached to a building wall, marquee, awning or arcade with the exposed face of
the sign in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the building wall.
3. “Development Identification Sign” means a ground sign at the major entry to a residential
development with twenty units or more meant to identify the name and address of the
development.
4. “Directional sign” means any sign which primarily displays directions to a particular area,
location or site.
5. “Directory sign” means any outdoor listing of occupants of a building or group of buildings.
6. “Electronic readerboard sign” means an electronic sign intended for a periodically-changing
advertising message.
7. “Freeway oriented sign” means any sign which is located within six hundred sixty feet and
visible from a freeway right-of-way as defined by Section 5200 of the California Business
and Professions Code.
8. “Garage sale signs” means any sign used for advertising a garage or patio sale as defined in
Chapter 5.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
9. “Ground sign” means any sign permanently affixed to the ground and not supported by a
building structure. The height of thesign shall be measured from the grade of the adjoining
closest sidewalk to the top of the sign including trim.
10. “Identification sign” means any sign whose sole purpose is to display the name of the site
and the names of the occupants, their products or their services.
11. “Illegal sign” means any sign or advertising statuary which was not lawfully erected,
maintained, or was not in conformance with the provisions of this title in effect at the time
of the erection of the sign or advertising statuary or which was not installed with a valid
permit from the City.
12. “Illuminated sign” means any sign utilizing an artificial source of light to enhance its
visibility.
13. “Informational sign” means any sign which promotes no products or services, but displays
service or general information to the public, including the likes of hours of operation, rest
room identifications and hazardous warnings.
14. “Landmark sign” means an existing, legal non-conforming ground sign that has a
distinctive architectural style.
15. “Nonconforming sign” means any sign or advertising statuary that was legally erected and
had obtained a valid permit in conformance with the ordinance in effect at the time of the
erection of the sign but which became nonconforming due to the adoption of the ordinance
codified in this title.
1271
- 40 -
16. “Obsolete sign” means any sign that displays incorrect or misleading information, promotes
products or services no longer available at that site or identifies departed occupants.
17. “Off-site sign” means any sign not located on the premises of the business or entity
indicated or advertised by the sign. This definition shall include billboards, poster panels,
painted bulletins and other similar advertising displays.
18. “On-site sign” means a sign directing attention to a business, commodity, service or
entertainment conducted, sold or offered upon the same premises as those upon which the
sign is maintained.
19. “Political sign” means a temporary sign that encourages a particular vote in a scheduled
election and is posted prior to the scheduled election.
20. “Portable Sign or Display” means any outdoor sign or display not permanently attached to
the ground or a structure on the premises it is intended to occupy and displayed only
during business hours. Portable sign or display includes A-frames, flower carts, statues,
and other similar devices used for advertising as determined by the Director.
21. “Project announcement sign” means any temporary sign that displays information pertinent
to a current or future site of construction, including the likes of the project name,
developers, owners and operators, completion dates, availability and occupants.
22. “Projecting sign” means any sign other than a wall sign that is attached to and projects from
a structure or building face or wall.
23. “Real estate sign” means a temporary sign indicating that a particular premises is for sale,
lease or rent.
24. “Roof sign” means a sign erected between the lowest and highest points of a roof.
25. “Street address sign” means any sign that displays only the street address number(s) of the
site and, at the option of the property owner, the street name.
26. “Temporary Sign” means any sign, display, banner or promotional device which is
designed or intended to be displayed only during the allowable business hours or for short
periods of time as specified by the Director of Community Development.
27. “V-shaped signs” means any sign consisting of two vertical faces, or essentially vertical faces,
with one common edge and which appears as the letter V when viewed directly from above.
28. “Vehicle sign” means a sign painted on or attached to an operable or movable vehicle; in the
case of motor vehicles, “operable” shall be defined as having a valid license plate.
29. “Wall sign” means any sign that is attached, erected or painted on a structure attached to a
building, a canopy structure, or the exterior wall of a building with the exposed face of the
sign parallel to the wall.
30. “Window sign” means any sign that is intended to be read from outside of the structure or
painted on a window facing a public street, parking lot, pedestrian plaza or walkway
accessible to the public. .
“Sign Area” for an individually lettered sign without a background, is measured by enclosing
the sign copy with a continuous perimeter in simple rectilinear forms. (See Appendix D for
examples of sign area calculation)
1272
- 41 -
The sign area for a sign with borders and/or background is measured by enclosing the exterior
limits of the border or background with a single continuous perimeter. The necessary supports,
uprights, and/ or the base on which such sign is placed, shall be excluded from the sign area.
When a sign is separated by thirty-six inches or more, the area of each part may be computed
separately.
“Single-family use” means the use of a parcel for only one dwelling unit.
“Specialty food stores” means uses such as bakeries, donut shops, ice cream stores, produce
markets and meat markets, or similar establishments where food is prepared and/or sold
primarily for consumption off the premises.
“Site,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a piece of land as shown on a subdivision
map, record of survey map or assessor’s parcel map, which constitutes one development site
and which may be composed of a single unit of land or contiguous units under common
ownership, control, or development agreement.
“Special event,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance means a temporary promotional event
including, but not limited to, a special sale on merchandise or services, or grand openings.
“Special Event Banner” means any temporary sign constructed of pliable materials such as
canvas, fabric, vinyl plastic or similar materials which will withstand exposure to wind and rain
without significant deterioration, and which does not require a building permit for its
construction, or installation outside of a building.
“Specified anatomical areas” means:
1. Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttocks and
female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and
2. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
“Specified sexual activities” means:
1. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
2. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or sodomy;
3. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breast.
“Story” means that portion of a building, excluding a basement, between the surface of any
floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the space
between the floor and the ceiling next above it.
“Street” means a public or private thoroughfare the design of which has been approved by the
City which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including avenue, place,
way, drive, lane, boulevard, highway, road, and any other thoroughfare except an alley as
defined in this chapter.
1. Street, Public. “Public street” means all streets, highways, lanes, places, avenues and
portions and including extensions in the length and width, which have been dedicated by
the owners to public use, acquired for public use, or in which a public easement for
roadway purposes exists.
1273
- 42 -
“Street frontage,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means the length of a site along or
fronting on a public or private street, driveway or other principal thoroughfare, but does not
include such length along an alley, watercourse, railroad right-of-way or limited access
roadway or freeway.
“Structure” means that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any
piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner.
1. Structure, Recreational. “Recreational structure” means any affixed accessory structure or
portion, which functions for play, recreation or exercise (e.g., pool slides, playhouses, tree
houses, swings, climbing apparatus, gazebos, decks, patios, hot tubs and pools) but does not
include portable play structures, such as swings or climbing apparatus.
“Structurally attached” means any structure or accessory structure or portion thereof, which is
substantially attached or connected by a roof structure or similar physical attachment.
“Supportive housing” (per CA Health and Safety Code 50675.14(b)(1)Government Code Section
65582(f), as may be amended) means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by
the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive
housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing
his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
T. “T” Definitions:
“Target population” (per CA Health and Safety Code 50675.14(b)(2)Government Code Section
65582(g), as may be amended) means persons with low incomes having one or more disabilities,
including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or
individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities
Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code)
and may, among other populations, emancipated youth, families with children, elderly persons,
young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings,
veterans, or homeless people.
“Transient” means any individual who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by
reason of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for a period of thirty
consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days, and including
any individual who actually physically occupies the premises, by permission of any other
person entitled to occupancy.
“Transitional housing” and “transitional housing development” (per CA Health and Safety
Code 50675.2 (h)Government Code Section 65582(h), as may be amended) means buildings
configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call
for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible
program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six
months from the beginning of assistance.
“Trim” means the molding, battens, cappings, nailing strips, lattice and platforms which are
attached to a sign.
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1274
- 43 -
U. “U” Definitions:
“Use” means the conduct of an activity, or the performance of a function or operation, on a
parcel or in a building or facility.
1. “Accessory use” means a use which is incidental to and customarily associated with a
specified principal use.
2. “Conditional use” me ans a use listed by the regulations of any particular district as a
conditional use within that district, and allowable solely on a discretionary or conditional
basis, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit, and to all other regulations established
by this title.
3. “Nonconforming use” means a use which is not a permitted use or conditional use
authorized within the district in which it is located, but which was lawfully existing on
October 10, 1955; or the date of any amendments thereto, or the application of any district to
the property involved, by reason of which adoption or application the use became
nonconforming. (See “noncomplying facilities” in this chapter for a definition.)
4. “Permitted use” means a use listed by the regulations of any particular district as a
permitted use within that district, and permitted therein as a matter of right when
conducted in accord with the regulations established by this title.
5. “Principal use” means a use which fulfills a primary function of a household, establishment,
institution, or other entity.
“Useable rear yard” means that area bounded by the rear lot line(s) and the rear building line
extended to the side lot lines. The side yard adjacent to a proposed minor addition (e.g.,
addition equaling ten percent or less of the principal structure) may be included in calculation
of usable rear yard area.
V. “V” Definitions:
“Variance application” means an application for which an exception process is not identified in
the Municipal Code.
“Vehicle” means any boat, bus, trailer, motor home, van, camper (whether or not attached to a
pickup truck or other vehicle), mobilehome, motorcycle, automobile, truck, pickup, airplane,
boat trailer, truck tractor, truck trailer, utility trailer or recreational vehicle, or parts, or any
device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a public
street, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power.
1. Vehicle, commercial. “Commercial vehicle” means a vehicle of a type required to be
registered under the California Vehicle Code used or maintained for the transportation of
persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the
transportation of goods.
2. Vehicle, Recreation. “Recreation vehicle” means a vehicle towed or self-propelled on its own
chassis or attached to the chassis of another vehicle and designed or used for temporary
dwelling, recreational or sporting purposes. The term recreation vehicle includes, but is not
1275
- 44 -
limited to, trailers, motor coach homes, converted trucks and buses, and boats and boat
trailers.
“Very low income household” means a household whose gross income is as does not exceed
that established by Health and Safety Code Section 50105, as may be amended.
“Visual privacy intrusion” means uninterrupted visual access from a residential dwelling or
structure into the interior or exterior areas of adjacent residential structures, which area is either
completely or partially private, designed for the sole use of the occupant, and/or which serves
to fulfill the interior and/or exterior privacy needs of the impacted residence or residences.
W. “W” Definitions:
None.
X. “X” Definitions:
None.
Y. “Y” Definitions:
“Yard” means an area within a lot, adjoining a lot line, and measured horizontally, and
perpendicular to the lot line for a specified distance, open and unobstructed except for activities
and facilities allowed therein by this title.
1. “Front yard” means a yard measured into a lot from the front lot line, extending the full
width of the lot between the side lot lines intersecting the front lot line.
2. “Rear yard” means a yard measured into a lot from the rear lot line, extending between the
side yards; provided that for lots having no defined rear lot line, the rear yard shall be
measured into the lot from the rearmost point of the lot depth to a line parallel to the front
lot line.
3. “Side yard” means a yard measured into a lot from a side lot line, extending between the
front yard and rear lot line.
Z. “Z” Definitions:
None.
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1276
- 45 -
CHAPTER 19.12 – ADMINISTRATION
Section
19.12.010 Purpose and intent.
19.12.020 Applicability of Regulations.
19.12.030 Approval Authority
19.12.040 Authority of the Director of Community Development.
19.12.050 Authority of the Design Review Committee.
19.12.060 Authority of the Planning Commission.
19.12.070 Authority of the City Council.
19.12.080 Application Process
19.12.090 Action by Director.
19.12.100 Decision
19.12.110 Noticing.
19.12.120 Action by Director of Community Development — Administrative.
19.12.130 Action by Design Review Committee and Planning Commission.
19.12.140 Action by City Council.
19.12.150 Notice of Decision and Reports.
19.12.160 Effective date.
19.12.170 Appeals
19.12.180 Expiration, Extension and Revocation.
19.12.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the Administration section is to establish procedures for the
discretionary review of development in the city in order to ensure that new development and
changes to existing developments comply with city development requirements and policies. This
chapter establishes the procedures for review of applications before the approval authorities for
each type of project and the process for appeals of any requirement, decision or determination
made by any Approval Body.
19.12.020 Applicability of Regulations.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, Development Review is required for all zoning map
and text amendments, new construction, modifications to building exteriors or site
improvements, and changes in Land Use, including, but not limited to, the following:
A. In the A, A1, R1 and RHS Zones, the following activities:
1277
- 46 -
1. Conditional uses in accord with Chapter 19.20, Chapter 19.24, Chapter 19.28, Chapter,
19.32, Chapter 19.36, Chapter 19.40 and Chapter 19.44;
2. Removal of protected trees identified in Chapter 14.18;
3. Projects in R1 zones identified in Section 19.28.040;
4. Height Exceptions identified in Section 19.24.070(B)(3);
5. Hillside Exceptions identified in Section 19.44.070 and Chapter 19.48;
6. Parking Exceptions identified in Chapter 19.124;
7. Fence Exceptions identified in Chapter 19.48
8. Variance to all other zoning regulations
B. In R2, R3, R1C and all Commercial, Industrial, Office, Planned Community Districts and other
non-residential zoning districts:
1. New structures or property development, including signs and sign programs.
2. Building additions, exterior modifications to existing structures including signs and sign
programs, and site changes (including, but not limited to, new or modified landscaping,
tree removals, fencing, changes to parking lot space striping or circulation);
3. Changes in property or building use that involve exterior modifications;
4. Exceptions or modifications to the development's required and/or existing parking;
5. Conditional uses in accord with Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.64, Chapter 19.68, Chapter
19.72, Chapter 19.76, Chapter 19.80, Chapter 19.84, Chapter 19.88, Chapter 19.92, Chapter
19.96, Chapter 19., Chapter 19.128, Chapter 19.116, Chapter 19.132, Chapter 19.136;
19.12.030 Approval Authority
Table 19.12.030 shows the approval authority, Noticing Radius, Expiration Date and Extension
Dates for different types of Permits.
1278
- 47 -
Table 19.12.030: Approval Authority
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
General Plan Amendment
Major F - - R F PH CA. Govt.
Code 65350-
65362300’
300’
Yes - CA. Govt.
Code
65350-
65362
Minor G
- - R F PH Yes -
Zoning Map Amendments
Major F - - R F PH 300’
CA. Govt.
Code 65853
- 65856
300’
Yes -
19.152.020
Minor G
- - R F PH Yes -
Zoning Text Amendments
- - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65853
- 65856
300’
- - 19.152.030
Specific Plans
- - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65350-
65362
300’
- -
20.04.030
Development Agreements
- - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65867
300’
Yes -
19.144.120
Development Permits
Major F, H - - F/R A1/F PM 19.12.110/ Yes 2 years
1279
- 48 -
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
Minor G F - A1 A2 PM 300’
300’ Yes 2 years 19.156.050
Conditional Use Permits
Major F, H, I F - A1/F/R A1/A2/F PH 300’
300’CA.
Govt. Code
65905
Yes 2 years
19.156.050
Minor G, I
F - A1/F/R A1/A2/F PH Yes 2 years
Temporary F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year None
19.160.030
Density Bonus (Residential) R F Based on concurrent application 19.52
Adult-Oriented Commercial
Activity (CUP) - R F PH
CA. Govt.
Code 65905/
300’
Yes 2 years
19.128.030
&
19.128.040
Architectural and Site Approval
Major J F - A1 A2 PM 19.12.110/
Adjacent
Adjacent
Yes 2 years
19.168.030 Minor K F - A1 A2 PM Yes 2 years
Amendment
Major F, H - - F A1 PM/PH 19.12.110/
300’
300’
Yes 2 years
19.44,
19.156,
19.164
Minor G F - A1 A2 PM/PH Yes 2 years
Minor Modification F - A1 A2 - None No 2 years 19.164
Hillside Exception/ Height - - F A1 PH 19.12.110/ Yes 2 years
1280
- 49 -
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
Exception / Heart of the City
Exception I
300’ 19.40.080,
19.24.070,
19.136.090
Variance
F - A1 A2 PH
CA. Govt.
Code
65905300’
Yes 2 years
19.156.060
Status of non-conforming Use - - F A1 PH 19.12.110/
300’ Yes - 19.140.110
Wireless Antennas I
F - F/ A1 A2 Varies I
Depends on
application
type
300’
Yes 2 years
19.136.090
Signs
Permits F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.104
Neon, Reader board &
Freeway Oriented Signs I - F F A1 L PM 19.12.110/
300’ No 1 year 19.104
Programs F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.104
Exceptions I - F - A1 L PM 19.12.110/
Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.104.290
Parking Exceptions I
F F A1 A1 L /A2 Varies M
19.12.110/
Adjacent/
300’ N
Yes 1 year
19.124.050
Fence Exceptions - F - A1 L PM 19.12.110/
Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.48.060
Front Yard Interpretation F - A1 A2 PM 19.12.110/ Yes 1 year 19.08
1281
- 50 -
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
Adjacent
R1 Ordinance Permits
Two-story I F F F/A1 A1 L /A2 Varies I 19.12.110/
Adjacent
Adjacent
Adjacent
Yes 1 year
19.28.140 Minor Residential F - A1 A2 CP No 1 year
Exceptions I - F - A1 L PM Yes 1 year
Protected Trees
Tree Removal
F - A1 A2 CP
Adjacent/
Depending
on type of
application
Yes 1 year 14.18.180
Heritage Tree Designation &
Removal - - F A1 PM 19.12.110/
300’ Yes -
14.18
Tree Management Plan F - A1 A2 - None No - 14.18
Retroactive Tree Removal F - A1 A2 - None No - 14.18
Reasonable Accommodation F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.52.050
Extensions O
Parking, Fence & Sign
Exceptions & Front Yard
Interpretations
F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year
Neon, Reader board &
Freeway Oriented Signs F A1 A2 - None No 1 year
Two Story Permits, Minor
Residential Permits and
Exceptions
F A1 A2 - None No 1 year
1282
- 51 -
Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative
Review
Design
Review
Committee
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Public
Hearing/
Public
Meeting/
Comment
Period C
Noticing/
Noticing
Radius D
Posted
Site
Notice
Expiration
Date E
Chapter/
Findings
Tree Removals F - A1 A2 - - No 1 year
All other projects F - A1 A2 - 19.12.110/
None No 2 years 19.12
Key:
R—Review and recommendation body F — Final decision-making body unless appealed
A1 —Appeal Body on first appeal A2 — Appeal body on second appeal
PH – Public Hearing PM – Public Meeting
CP – Comment Period
1283
- 52 -
Notes:
A. Permits can be processed concurrently with other applications, at the discretion of the
Director of Community Development.
B. Projects with combined applications shall be processed at the highest level of approval in
conformance with Section 19.04.090.
C. Public Hearing: Projects types that need noticing pursuant to the CA Government Code;
Public Meeting: Project types that need only a mailed notice and no newspaper notices;
Comment Period: Project types that need only a mailed notice and do not need a public
hearing or public meeting.
D. Noticing Radius of an application in a combined application shall correspond to the
maximum noticing radius required for any one of the applications.
E. Expiration date of an application in a combined application shall correspond to the maximum
expiration date allowed for any one of the development applications (not including
Subdivision Map Act applications, General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map or Text
Amendments.)
F. Major General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Permit application -
for more than ten thousand square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or
other non-residential use, or greater than six residential units
G. Minor General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Permit application -
for ten thousand square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other
non-residential use, or six or less residential units.
H. City Council review for applications with new development greater than fifty thousand square
feet of commercial, and/or greater than one hundred thousand square feet of industrial and/or
office and/or other non-residential use, and/or greater than fifty residential units.
Planning Commission review for all other applications.
I. Please see specific zoning district regulations or chapters in this title that apply to the subject
property or project for approval authority.
J. Major Architectural and Site Approval application - architectural and site approval for all
projects that are not a Minor Architectural and Site Approval application.
K. Minor Architectural and Site Approval application - single family home in a planned
development zoning district, minor building architectural modifications, landscaping, signs
and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where
review is required and minor modifications of duplex and multi-family buildings.
L. Appeals of Design Review Committee decisions shall be heard by the City Council.
M. Parking Exceptions approved by the Director of Community Development need a comment
period.
Parking Exceptions approved by the Design Review Committee need a public meeting.
N. Parking Exceptions in Single-family residential (R1) zones and Duplex (R2) zones need
adjacent noticing.
All other Parking Exceptions need notices within three hundred feet of the exterior boundary
of the subject property.
O. Application must be filed prior to expiration date of permit. Permit is extended until decision
of the Approval Body on the one-time extension.
CL
A
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
1284
- 53 -
19.12.040 Authority of the Director of Community Development.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the Director of Community Development is as follows:
A. Grant any permits which are authorized to be issued by the Director pursuant to Section
19.12.030 and any other provisions of this code;
B. Grant parking exceptions for projects that are reviewed in conjunction with permits which
are authorized to be issued by the Director of Community Development pursuant to Section
19.12.030;
C. Grant a variance from site development regulations and parking and loading regulations
(except those handicapped parking regulations mandated by State law) applicable within
any zoning district established by this title;
D. Grant a variance from the special conditions of approval that apply to site development and
parking and loading regulations (including conditions attached to planned developments)
applicable within any zoning district established by this title.
E. Grant a request for reasonable accommodation made by any person with a disability, when
the strict application of the provisions within residential districts acts as a barrier to fair
housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.52.
F. Make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this title, and any
chapter therein, consistent with the legislative intent. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation
of the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in
writing for review of the interpretation.
G. May refer an application to another Approval Body for review, decision or
recommendation.
19.12.050 Authority of the Design Review Committee.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the Design Review Committee is as follows:
A. Grant any permits and exceptions which are authorized to be issued by the Design Review
Committee pursuant to Section 19.12.030 and any other provisions of this code;
B. Grant parking exceptions for projects that are in conjunction with permits which are
authorized to be issued by the Design Review Committee pursuant to Section 19.12.030.
19.12.060 Authority of the Planning Commission.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the Planning Commission is as follows:
A. Grant any permits which are authorized to be issued by the Planning Commission pursuant
to Section 19.12.030 and any other provisions of this code;
B. Grant parking exceptions for projects that are in conjunction with permits which are
authorized to be issued by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 19.12.030;
1285
- 54 -
C. Make recommendations to the City Council on applications in which it is a recommending
body; and
D. Decide on appeals of decisions pursuant to Section 19.12.030.
19.12.070 Authority of the City Council.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the
authority of the City Council is as follows:
A. Grant any permits which are authorized to be issued by the City Council pursuant to
Section 19.12.030 and any other provisions of the code;
B. Decide on appeals of decisions pursuant to Section 19.12.030.
19.12.080 Application Process
The following provisions outline the requirements for the filing of applications for permits,
entitlements, amendments, and approvals. Unless otherwise specified in this title, all
applications for permits, entitlements, amendments and approvals required by this title shall be
filed in compliance with this section.
Applications for permits, permit modifications, amendments and other matters pertaining to
this Chapter shall be filed with the Director of Community Development with the following:
A. An application for permit may be made by the owner of record, his or her agent, lessee(s) of
property, or person(s) who have contracted to purchase or lease property contingent upon
their ability to acquire the necessary permit under this title and who have written
authorization from the property owner to make an application.
B. Application shall be made on a form provided by the City, and shall contain the following,
unless waived by the Director of Community Development based on the scope of the
proposed project:
1. A complete legal description of the subject property and map showing the location of
the property for which the permit is sought;
2. A preliminary title report of the subject property;
3. The proposed site development plan indicating: the location of all buildings and
structures; the location and types of land uses; paved areas, such as roadways,
driveways and walkways; and general landscaping scheme;
4. Architectural drawings of the proposed development, building additions or other
structures. Drawings shall indicate building height, colors, materials, window treatment
and other architectural features;
5. Maps showing the locations of buildings;
6. Renderings showing building heights and square footages;
7. Maps showing the precise location of roads, streets, alleys and access points;
8. A traffic analysis, if required;
1286
- 55 -
9. A construction plan,
10. Any property/development with a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) or Architectural
Review Board (ARB) shall provide a letter of approval from said HOA Board or ARB.
11. The Director of Community Development may reasonably require additional
information which is pertinent and essential to the application.
12. Zoning Map or Text Amendments shall also include information required per Chapter
19.152.
a. Zoning applications for Planned Development Zoning Districts shall also include
information required per Section 19.80.040;
b. Zoning applications for Multi-Family (R3) Residential shall also include information
required per Section 19.36.040; and
c. Zoning applications for Residential Single-family Cluster (R1C) initiated by a
property owner, or his or her designee, shall also include items identified in Section
19.44.050H.
13. Planned Development Permit and Development Permit applications shall also include
information required per Section 19.156.010:
14. Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall also include information required per
Section 19.156.020.
15. Density Bonus Permit applications shall also include information required per Section
19.56.060.
16. Conversion of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments applications shall
also include information required per Section 19.116.050.
17. Sign Permit Applications should also include information required per Section
19.104.040.
C. Application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part
of which shall be returnable to the applicant.
19.12.090 Action by Director.
Upon receipt of an application for a permit, the Director of Community Development shall:
A. Within thirty days determine whether the application is complete or needs additional
information and shall inform the applicant.
B. Not later than a period stipulated in Section 19.12.100, Decision, below:
1. Set a date for a public hearing or public meeting upon the matter at a regular or special
meeting of the approval authority for the project for applications that require a public
hearing or public meeting, or
2. Send notice in accord with the requirements of 19.12.110(D) for applications that do not
need a public hearing or public meeting.
1287
- 56 -
19.12.100 Decision
Unless postponed or continued with the mutual consent of the Director of Community
Development and the applicant and written confirmation from the applicant, a decision shall be
rendered:
A. No later than sixty (60) days following the date the application is deemed complete and
either categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the
adoption of a negative declaration or one hundred and eighty (180) days of certification of
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
B. Notwithstanding the above, no later than one hundred and fifty (150) days upon receipt of a
complete application for a new personal wireless communication facility or ninety (90) days
upon receipt of an application for collocation of a personal wireless communication
facility/antennas.
19.12.110 Noticing.
A. Notice of Public Hearing: Noticing shall be provided in the following manner
forconformance with applicable California Government Code Sections, as may be amended
from time to time, for applications that need a public hearing.:
1. Notice of hearing shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of general
circulation not less than ten days prior to the date of the hearing as provided in Section
65090 of the California Government Code;
2. The City shall mail written notice by first class mail to:
a. Each owner of record of real property within the noticing radius per Section 19.12.030 of
the exterior boundary of the property for which the application is made as the owner of
record is shown in the last tax assessment roll pursuant to Section 65091 of the California
Government Code;
b. Owner(s) of subject site or his or her authorized agent
c. Project applicant(s)
d. Local agencies expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other
essential facilities or services to the proposed project;
e. Any individual or entity that has filed a written request with the City Clerk requesting
notification of public hearings
3. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered pursuant to
subsection A2 above is greater than one thousand, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice,
the Director may provide published notice as provided in Government Code Section
65091(3).
4. The notice shall contain the following:
a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the exact
address is not known;
CO
N
F
O
R
M
T
O
GO
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
CO
D
E
1288
- 57 -
b. The date on which action on the application will be taken;
c. A brief description, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the City, of the
proposed project;
d. Reference to the application on file for particulars;
e. A statement that any interested person, or agent thereof, may contact the city for
additional information and/or plans.
Typographical and/or publishing errors shall not invalidate the notice nor any City action
related to the notice.
B. Notice of Public Hearing for Zoning Text Amendments:
1. For amendments to zoning regulations: Notice of such hearing (publication) shall be
given in the manner prescribed in Section 19.12.110 A(1) of this chapter.
2. For amendments to permitted uses of real property: Notice (mailing or publication)
shall be given pursuant to Sections 19.12.110 A(2) or A(3), as the case may be.
C.B. Notice of Public Meeting: For projects requiring notice of a public meeting, notice shall
be mailed provided in accord with 19.12.110A(2) or A(3)in conformance with California
Government Code Section 65091, as may be amended from time to time, as follows:, as the
case may be, at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting date.
1. Written notice by first class mail to:
a. Each owner of record of real property within the noticing radius per Section
19.12.030 of the exterior boundary of the property for which the application is made
as the owner of record is shown in the last tax assessment roll;
b. Owner(s) of subject site or his or her authorized agent
c. Project applicant(s)
d. Any individual or entity that has filed a written request with the City Clerk
requesting notification of public hearings
e. Local agencies expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other
essential facilities or services to the proposed project;
2. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered pursuant to
subsection C1 above is greater than one thousand, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice,
the Director may provide published notice as provided in Government Code Section
65091 (a)(4).
3. The notice shall contain information pursuant to Government Code Section 65094.
D.C. Notice of Comment Period: For projects requiring notice of a comment period, notice
shall be mailed in accord with 19.12.110A110C(12)(a)-(d) and A(5), fourteen calendar days
prior to the date of action on the application.
1. For permits issued pursuant to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential, the mailed
notice shall include a copy of the site plan and elevation plans of the proposed project.
MO
V
E
D
1289
- 58 -
2. For permits issued pursuant to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, the mailed notice shall
include a copy of the site plan and tree replacement/mitigation plan.
E.D. The City may also give notice of public hearings/public meetings in any other manner it
deems necessary or desirable. If the Director of Community Development believes the
project may have impacts beyond the range of the mailed notice, particularly on nearby
residential areas, the Director, in his or her discretion, may expand noticing beyond the
stated requirements in Section 19.12.030.
Compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall constitute a good-faith effort
to provide notice, and the failure to provide notice, and the failure of any to receive notice,
shall not prevent the City from proceeding with a hearing, meeting or from taking any
action nor affect the validity of any action. Typographical and/or publishing errors shall
not invalidate the notice nor any City action related to the notice.
F.E. Posted Site Notice:
1. Applicants shall install notice(s) on the subject site that is/are clearly visible from the
street in accord with the requirements of Table 19.12.030.
a. Applicants must install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site.
b. For all applications other than Two Story Permits, Residential Design Review and
Tree Removal applications in R1 or R2 zones, if the subject site has more than one
property line abutting a street, the applicant may be required to install more than
one notice.
2. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least 2 feet tall and 3 feet wide, firmly
attached to a 5 foot tall post.
3. The notice shall be placed the same number of days at least 14 days prior to the
decision/public hearing as required for the public hearing or mailed notices per Section
19.12.110 A – C and shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the
application and the appeal period has passed.
4. The notice shall contain the following:
a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the general location of the property,
if the address is not knownby text or diagram;
b. A brief general description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at
the sole discretion of the City;
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
d. A deadline for the submission of public comments;
e. If proposing a physical alteration to an existing building or new buildings, at least
one of the following visual representations of the proposed project:
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
CO
N
S
I
S
T
E
N
C
Y
MO
V
E
D
1290
- 59 -
i. A color perspective drawing or three-dimensional (3-D) photographic simulation
of the proposed project, in a size deemed appropriate by the Director of
Community Development.
ii. For Two Story Permits and Residential Design Review applications, a color or
black and white perspective drawing or three-dimensional (3-D) photographic
simulation of the proposed project, at least 11 inches by 17 inches in size.
iii. Visual Representation is not required for applications that do not have a material
change in the physical appearance of the property.
19.12.120 Action by Director of Community Development — Administrative.
A. For applications requiring Administrative approval with a public meeting, public hearing or
comment period, the Director of Community Development or his or her designee may,
subject to the requirements of Section 19.12.100, Decision:
1. Issue his or her decision at the conclusion of the public meeting, public hearing or
comment period;
2. Continue the item for additional public hearings, public meetings or comment period; or
3. Defer action by taking the item under advisement and issuing the decision no later than
thirty (30) days following the public meeting, public hearing or comment period.
B. No additional noticing is required if a project is continued.
C. For applications where a public meeting or public hearing is required to be held before the
Director of Community Development, the meeting shall be held in the same manner as a
Design Review Committee meeting.
19.12.130 Action by Design Review Committee and Planning Commission.
A. For applications where the Design Review Committee or Planning Commission is the
Approval Body, it shall render a decision, which is supported by the evidence contained in
the application or presented at the meeting, at the meeting, or at a subsequent meeting after
conclusion of the public hearing or public meeting, subject to the requirements of Section
19.12.100, Decision.
B. For zoning map amendments, on the basis of evidence and testimony presented to the
Planning Commission at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may determine that
the public interest will be served, either by revising the area being considered for
reclassification to include properties not originally part of the application, or by giving
consideration to district classifications not originally requested by the application. The
Planning Commission may, solely at its option, consider additional properties or district
classifications, or both.
C. For applications requiring City Council approval, the reviewing body shall forward its
written findings, determinations and recommendation to the City Council for final action,
subject to the requirements of Section 19.12.100, Decision.
1291
- 60 -
19.12.140 Action by City Council.
A. Upon receipt of a recommendation of the reviewing body, the City Council may by
resolution approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the reviewing body,
subject to the requirements of Section 19.12.100, Decision.
B. Upon final approval of a zoning or prezoning application, the City Council shall enact an
ordinance zoning or prezoning the subject property or properties, incorporating within the
ordinance:
1. A Conceptual development plan, if required, and
2. Conditions of approval.
C. For a Development Agreement, the City Council shall enact an ordinance that shall refer to
and incorporate the text of the Development Agreement by reference.
D. For applications requiring City Council approval, the City Council shall issue its decision at
the conclusion of the public hearing or public meeting.
19.12.150 Notice of Decision and Reports.
A. Notice of decision:
1. The decision for applications approved with a public meeting or public hearing shall be
mailed to the property owner and applicant at the address shown on the application.
2. The decision for applications approved with a notice period shall be mailed to the
property owner and the applicant at the address shown on the application and any
person who has commented on the proposed project within the notice period.
3. The decision shall contain the following:
a. Applicable findings;
b. Any reasonable conditions or restrictions deemed necessary to secure the purpose of
this title and to assure operation of the development and/or use in a manner
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the
general vicinity; and
c. Reporting/monitoring requirements deemed necessary to mitigate any impacts and
protect the health, safety and welfare of the city.
4. The decision of the Director of Community Development, Design Review Committee or
Planning Commission shall be final unless appealed in accord with Section 19.12.170,
Appeals. A decision of the City Council shall be final.
B. Reports: The Director of Community Development shall endeavor to forward reports,
within five calendar days from the date of the decision, to the:
1. Planning Commission and the City Council of a decision by the Director of Community
Development
1292
- 61 -
2. Planning Commission and the City Council of a decision by the Design Review
Committee.
3. City Council of a decision by the Planning Commission.
19.12.160 Effective date.
A. A permit approved by the City Council shall take effect ten days following the date that the
findings are adopted.
B. Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance/Map Amendments, and
Development Agreements shall become effective thirty (30) days following the final date of
action (e.g., adoption) by the City Council.
C. All other permits shall take effect fourteen calendar days following the date that the
findings are adopted by the appropriate Approval Body, unless an appeal is filed as
provided in Section 19.12.170.
19.12.170 Appeals
A. An appeal may be filed by any person, firm or corporation aggrieved or affected by any
grant, denial, modification or revocation of any permit, or any determination or
interpretation related to any provision of this title.
B. Filing:
1. An appeal shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the City and shall be filed during
regular office hours with the City Clerk within fourteen calendar days after the City
decision or if a notice of decision is not required, from the date of the decision or
determination, under this title. An appeal not filed within such time shall be barred. The
appeal shall state the grounds and basis thereof.
2. Appeals under this chapter are subject to an appeal fee as prescribed by resolution of the
City Council.
C. Noticing: Notice of hearing shall be given in the same manner in which the original notice
was given. If a project with no noticing is appealed, appropriate noticing shall be
determined by the Director of Community Development.
D. Appeal hearing body shall be determined in accord with Section 19.12.030, Approval
Authority.
E. Decision of the appeal hearing body: The decision or determination of the appeal hearing
body on any appeal shall be final and effective immediately.
F. Notice of Decision: Notice of the appeal hearing body’s decision shall be mailed to the
original applicant, to the person filing the appeal, and to any other person who has filed a
written request with the City Clerk.
19.12.180 Expiration, Extension and Revocation.
A. Expiration.
1293
- 62 -
1. Approval on a permit or variance shall become null and void and of no effect, within the
time frame specified in Section 19.12.030 following its issuance, unless a shorter or
longer time period is specifically prescribed in the conditions of permit or variance,
unless:
a. A building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number
issued.) In the event that a building permit expires for any reason, the permit shall
become null and void.
b. The permit or variance has been used A permit or variance shall be deemed to be
"used" when actual substantial and continuous activity has taken place upon the
land subject to the permit or variance or, in the event of the erection or modification
of a structure or structures, when sufficient building activity has occurred and
continues to occur in a diligent manner.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, if the use for which a conditional use
permit was granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more,
the permit becomes null and void.
3. Unless a variance or exception has expired pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, it
shall continue to exist for the life of the existing structure or such structure as may be
constructed pursuant to the approval unless a different time period is specified in its
issuance. A variance or exception from the parking and loading regulations, and a sign
exception shall be valid only during the period of continuous operations of the use
and/or structure for which the variance or exception was issued.
B. Extensions. A permit or variance may, in accord with Section 19.12.030, Approval Authority,
be extended, one-time only, for the time frame specified in Section 19.12.030, upon timely
submittal of an application with the Director of Community Development prior to
expiration.
C. Revocation
1. Revocation. Process. In any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial
evidence indicates that the conditions of a permit or variance have not been
implemented, or where the permit or variance is being conducted in a manner
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Director shall set a date for a
public hearing before the decision maker granting the original permit or variance, and
notice a public hearing in accordance with Section 19.12.110, Noticing, of this code.
2. Findings: A permit may be revoked or modified if any one of the following findings can
be made:
i. That the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud;
ii. That the improvement, use or activity authorized in compliance with the permit had
ceased or was suspended for one year or more;
iii. That one or more of the conditions of the permit have not been met; or
iv. That the owner or occupant of the property is conducting the use or any associated
or other use of the property in violation of the law.
CLA
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
1294
- 63 -
v. In the case of revocation of a sign permit, the sign was abandoned for a period of
thirty days.
1295
- 64 -
CHAPTER 19.20 - PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND EXCLUDED USES IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Section
19.20.010 Applicability of Regulations
19.20.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones
19.20.010 Applicability of Regulations
No building or structure or land shall be used in an A, A-1, R-1, RHS, R1C, R-2, or R-3 zoning district, otherwise than in
conformance with the provisions of this chapter.
19.20.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones
Table 19.20.020 sets forth the Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential zones
Table 19.20.020 – Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
1. Agriculture, horticulture, viticulture and forestry, including the
following and similar uses: P P - - - - -
a. Field and truck crops, including drying and storage, P P - - - - -
b. Orchards and vineyards, including bottling and storage, P P - - - - -
c. Tree farms, botanical conservatories and arboreta, P P - - - - -
d. Barns and sheds, P P - - - - -
e. Keeping of draft animals, animals providing products used on
the property, and household pets, P P - - - - -
f. Livestock ranches and dairy farms depending mainly on
grazing on the property, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
g. Processing of dairy products produced on the property, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
h. Poultry raising and hatcheries, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
i. Apiaries, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
j. Nurseries, greenhouses and landscaping gardens, P CUP -
PC - - - - -
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
C
Y
1296
- 65 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
k. Boarding kennels, CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC - - - - -
l. Animal breeding; P CUP –
Admin. - - - - -
2. Fur farms - CUP -
PC - - - - -
3. Retail sale of wine, fruit or berries produced on the property; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
4. Single-family dwelling unit with not more than one dwelling
unit per lot/defined air space for condominiums; P P P P P - -
5. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story
limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter,
provided that the Planning Commission determines that the
structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts,
shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to
the surrounding area;
- - CUP -
PC - - -
-
6. Employee housing:
a. For six or fewer employees in each dwelling unit on each lot P P P P P P P
b. With no more than 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units/ spaces
designed for use by a single family or household on each lot
P P - CUP-
Admin. - - -
6. Residences of farm workers and their families whose primary
employment is incidental and necessary to agricultural
operations conducted on the same parcel of land on which such
residences are located;
P P - - - - -
7. Two-family use under one ownership; - - - - - P -
8.7. A second dwelling unit which conforms to the procedures,
standards and requirements of Chapter 19.64 except for a second
dwelling unit requiring a conditional use permit;
P P P P - - -
a. Which conforms to the requirements of Chapter 19.112; P P P P - - -
b. Which requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter
19.112;
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. - - -
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
MOVED TO
DEFINITIONS
READABILITY/ INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY 1297
- 66 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
9. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use
permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; - - CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. - - -
10.8. Multiple-family residential dwellings - - - - - - P
11.9. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to
permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of
Chapter 19.80 100 of this title;
P P P P -P P P
12.10. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the
neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards;
-P -P P -P -P P CUP –
CC
13.11. Temporary buildings for construction purposes (including
trailers) for a period not to exceed the duration of such
construction;
- - - - - - P
14. Riding academies, commercial stables, and the boarding of
horses;
CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
15. Noncommercial stables, and the keeping of riding horses; the
number of horses on each lot at any time shall be limited to three
except that additional foals may be retained for a period of six
months;
P P - - - - -
16. Noncommercial stables for riding horses in excess of the
number permitted by #16 above of this chapter;
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC - - - - -
17.12. Home occupations, when accessory to permitted use and
otherwise conforming to the provisions of Chapter 19.120 of this
title and subject to any conditional use permit requirements of
that chapter;
P P P P P P
P
a. When accessory to permitted use and otherwise conforming to
the provisions of Chapter 19.120 of this title; P P P P P P P
b. Requiring a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 19.120
of this title;
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
18. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit
pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title;
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. - CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
19.13. Small-family day care home per dwelling unit; P P P P P P P
CO
R
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
/
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
L
CO
N
S
I
S
T
E
N
C
Y
MO
V
E
D
B
E
L
O
W
RE
A
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
/
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
L
CO
N
S
I
S
T
E
N
C
Y
1298
- 67 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
20.14. Large-family day care home per dwelling unit, which meets
the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.124, and which is at
least three hundred feet from any other large-family day care
home. The Director of Community Development or his or her
designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to
ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements;
- P P P - P -
a. Which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.124,
and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large-
family day care home.
The Director of Community Development or his or her designee
shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure
compliance with the parking and proximity requirements;
P P P P P P
CUP –
Admin.
b. Which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use.
The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by
CA Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46 (3);
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
21. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet
the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be
processed as provided by Section 1597.46 (3) of the State of
California Health and Safety Code;
- CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. - CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
22. Child day care facilities - - - - - - - CUP –
PC
23.15. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate
State, County agency or department with six or less fewer
residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff ,
provided that the facility obtains any license, if required, issued
by appropriate State and/or County agencies and/or
departments;
P P P P P P
P
24. Residential care facility, in each dwelling unit, that is not
required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or
department and has six or less residents, not including the
provider, provider family or staff;
CUP -–
PC
CUP -–
PC
CUP -–
PC
CUP -–
PC
CUP –
PC *
CUP -–
PC
CUP –
PC
RE
A
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
/
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
L
C
O
N
S
I
S
T
E
N
C
Y
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
W
L
A
W
1299
- 68 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
25.16. Residential care facility, in each dwelling unit, that has the
appropriate State, County agency or department license and
with seven or greater residents, not including the provider,
provider family or staff, and is a minimum distance of five
hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential
care facility, provided that the facility obtains any license, if
required, issued by appropriate State and/or County agencies
and/or departments;
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP –
PC *
CUP -
PC
CUP –
PC
26. Residential care facility, in each dwelling unit, that is not
required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or
department and has seven or greater residents, not including the
provider, provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five
hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care
facility;
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -–
PC
CUP -–
PC
CUP –
PC *
CUP -–
PC
CUP –
PC
27. Residential care homes in each dwelling unit - - - - - CUP –
PC -
28.17. Congregate residence, in each dwelling unit, with ten or less
residents; P P P P P P P
a. With ten six or less fewer residents P P P P P P P
b. With eleven seven or more greater residents which is a
minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of
another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-
five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC *
CUP –
PC
CUP –
PC
29. Congregate residence, in each dwelling unit, with eleven or
more residents which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet
from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a
minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per
occupant.
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP –
PC *
CUP -
PC
CUP –
PC
30. Group home with six or fewer persons with continuous
twenty four hour care P P P P P P P
31. Group home with greater than six persons; - - CUP -–
PC - - - -
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
RE
A
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
/
C
O
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
RE
A
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
1300
- 69 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
32.18. Transitional and supportive housing located in housing of a
type permitted in the zone; P P P P P P P
33.19. Supportive housing located in housing of a type permitted in
the zone; P P P P P P P
34.20. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products: - - P - - - -
a. Recreational for personal use; P P P P P P -
b. Limited to maximum of ten percent of the lot area and for
consumption by occupants of the site; - - - - - - P
c. Produce grown on site may be sold if the business activity is
conducted in a manner consistent with Chapter 19.120, Home
Occupations;
- - - P - - -
d. Commercial purposes; See #1 See #1 - CUP –
Admin.
- - -
35. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for
consumption by occupants of the site and limited to a maximum of
ten percent of the lot area.
- - - - - - P
36. Crop, tree or horticultural farming for personal use. Produce
grown on the site may be sold if the business activity is conducted in
a manner consistent with the home occupation ordinance;
- - - P - - -
37. Crop, tree or horticultural farming for commercial purposes; - - - CUP –
Admin.
- - -
38.21. Limited commercial recreation uses, such as riding clubs and
related stables and trails, golf courses, swimming and picnic
grounds,
- - - CUP -
PC
- - -
39.22. Golf courses and driving ranges; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
40.23. Commercial swimming pools and picnic areas; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
41.24. Temporary uses subject to regulations established by Chapter
19.156
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin.
-CUP –
Admin
CUP –
Admin. CUP –
Admin.
RE
A
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
/
C
L
A
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
CL
A
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
CLARIFICATION
1301
- 70 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
42.25. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design
features that require variation from setbacks upon a
determination by the Director that the design feature, or features,
will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise,
odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area.
CUP –
Admin.
CUP –
Admin. - CUP –
Admin.
- - -
43.26. Transmission lines, transformer stations, television and radio
towers, and other public utility and communication structures;
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC - - - - -
44.27. The keeping of a maximum of four a Adult (over 4 months of
age) household pets per dwelling unit, limited as follows: ,
provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept
on the site;:
- - P - - P P
a. No specified number P P - - - - -
b. Maximum of four, provided no more than two adult dogs or
cats may be kept on the site - - P - P P P
c. Limited to one per three thousand square feet of lot area, except:
- - - P † - - -
1. Dogs are limited to a maximum of two on lots less than one
acre and four for lots greater than one acre,
2. The number of geese, ducks, chickens, rabbits and other farm
animals are not limited on a site greater than one acre
45.28. The keeping of one l Litter of dogs or cats up to four months
of age:. - - P - P P P
a. No specified number P P - P - - -
b. Maximum of one - - P - P P P
46. Household pets limited to one animal per three thousand
square feet of lot area, except: - - - P † - - -
a. Adult dogs are limited to a maximum of two for lots less than
one acre and four for lots greater than one acre, b. The number of geese, ducks, chickens, rabbits and other farm
animals are not limited on a site greater than one acre,
47. Small household pets - - - P † - - -
RE
A
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
/
C
L
A
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
REDUNDANT
1302
- 71 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
48.29. Large animals, such as horses, cows, sheep, and goats,
limited as follows, provided no animals are kept, maintained
and raised for commercial purposes, limited as follows:
-See #1 -See #1 - P † - -
- a.
Two large animals for the first 40,000 square feet of land area,
except mules and donkeys which require 80,000 square feet for
the first animal,
b. One additional large animal for each additional 20,000 square
feet of land area,
c.
One additional large animal if said animal is raised for a 4H
project, a project sponsored by a recognized agricultural
organization or a school project,
49.30. The keeping of any animal not otherwise permitted above: in
#27, 28, 45, 46 and 4729; - - - CUP –
Admin. - - -
50.31. Riding academies, commercial stables, and the boarding of
horses;
CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
51.32. Noncommercial stables, and the keeping of riding horses:
a. Limited to three horses on each lot at any time except that
additional foals may be retained for a period of six months; P P - - - - -
b. In excess of the number permitted in 32(a) CUP –
CC
CUP –
CC - - - - -
52.33. Cemeteries, crematoriums, mausolea, and columbariums CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
53.34. Mines, quarries and gravel pits; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
54.35. Guest ranches; CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
55.36. Public and quasi-public buildings and uses. CUP -
CC
CUP -
CC - - - - -
56.37. Hog farms; Ex Ex - - - - -
57.38. Cattle farms mainly depending upon feed brought onto the
property; Ex Ex - - - - -
CL
A
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
RE
A
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
/
M
O
V
E
D
FR
O
M
A
B
O
V
E
1303
- 72 -
Zoning Districts A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 Uses
58.39. Slaughterhouses, fertilizer yards, feed yards, boneyards or
plants for the reduction of animal matter; Ex Ex - - - - -
59.40. Commercial feed sales; Ex Ex - - - - -
60.41. Other semiagricultural uses mainly depending upon raw
materials, semifinished products, or feed brought on to the
property;
Ex Ex - - - - -
61.42. Other agricultural uses which, in the opinion of the Director
of Community Development, create a private or public nuisance. Ex Ex - - - - -
Key:
P – Permitted Use
- – Not Allowed
CUP – Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development
CUP – PC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission
CUP – CC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council
* May be permitted in locations where the use is compatible with existing and planned uses within the development area
in the opinion of the Director of Community Development,
† The required lot area for a large animal shall not be included in the required lot area for a household pet or vice versa,
except that a maximum of two household pets may be kept with large animals,
All animals must be kept and maintained in accordance with other Cupertino or Santa Clara County codes and
ordinances,
Ex - Excluded Uses
1304
- 73 -
CHAPTER 19.56: DENSITY BONUS
Section
19.56.010 Purpose.
19.56.020 Applicability of Regulations.
19.56.030 ConcessionsDensity Bonus.
19.56.040 General RequirementsIncentives/Concessions.
19.56.050 General Requirements for Projects with Affordable Units.
19.56.060 Application Requirements.
19.56.070 Findings.
19.56.010 Purpose.
The density bonus ordinance codified in this chapter is intended to comply with the State
Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, which provides that a local agency shall
adopt an ordinance specifying how the agency will comply with that section. government shall
grant a density bonus and an additional concession, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to a
developer of a housing development agreeing to construct a specified percentage of housing for
lower income households, very low income households or senior citizens.
19.56.020 Applicability of Regulations.
A. All hHousing developments greater thanresulting in a net increase of at least five units
(excluding density bonus units) are eligible for one a density bonus of at least twenty-five
percent, and an additional concession as provided in this chapter, when the applicant for the
housing development, to developers agreesing or proposes to construct at least one of the
following:
1. Construct:
1.a. Twenty Ten percent of the total units affordable tofor lower income households
at affordable rent or affordable housing cost; or
2.b. Ten Five percent of the total units affordable tofor very low income households
at affordable rent or affordable housing cost; or
c. Ten percent of the total units proposed in a common interest development for sale to
moderate income households, provided that all units in the development are offered to
the public for purchase; or
d. Fifty percent of the units for sA senior citizens housing development, unless
prohibited by State and/or Federal law.
2. Donate land in accordance with Section 19.56.030C;
3. Provide affordable housing in a condominium conversion project in accordance with
Section 19.56.030E.
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1305
- 74 -
B. In addition to meeting the requirements of 19.56.020A, housing developments which
include a child care facility in accordance with Section 19.56.030D, is entitle to an additional
density bonus;
C. An applicant may also submit a proposal for specific incentives or concessions to be granted
in conjunction with the density bonus, as provided in Section 19.56.040;
D. The granting of a density bonus, incentive or concession, in and of itself, shall not require a
general plan amendment, zone change, or other discretionary approval and shall be
reviewed concurrently with the review of the housing development.
If a development agrees to construct both twenty percent of the total units for lower-income
households and ten percent of the total units for very low-income households, the developer
remains entitled to only one density bonus and an additional concession. However, in such
circumstance, the City, at its discretion, may grant more than one density bonus.
C. Projects with affordable units which meet the requirements set forth in this chapter are
entitled to a density bonus and additional concession, unless:
1. The City Council adopts a written finding that the additional concession is not required to
make the units affordable.
D. Nothing in this chapter limits the City’s right to deny an affordable housing project if the
City Council finds, based on substantial evidence, any one of the following:
1. The City has adopted an adequate housing element, and the project is not needed for the
City to meet its share of the regional housing need of lower income housing.
2. The project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or
safety which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated without rendering it unaffordable to lower-
income households.
3. The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with
State or Federal law and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the
development unaffordable to lower-income households.
4. Approval of the development project would increase the concentration of lower-income
households in a neighborhood that already has a disproportionately high number of lower -
income households.
5. The development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation
which is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource
preservation purposes, and which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to
serve the project.
6. The development project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan land use
designation as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the City has
adopted a housing element pursuant to State law.
E. Nothing in this chapter limits the City’s right to deny a senior citizen housing project if the
City finds, based on substantial evidence, that the project would have a specific, adverse
1306
- 75 -
impact upon the public health or safety; and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified.
19.56.030 Density Bonus
A. Housing developments that meet the criteria in Section 19.56.020A(1) are eligible for a
maximum density bonus as set forth in Table 19.56.030.
Table 19.56.030: Density Bonus Calculations
Percentage of Affordable Units
Provided in Income Category
Very Low Income
Units
Low Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
5% 20% - -
6% 22.5% - -
7% 25% - -
8% 27.5% - -
9% 30% - -
10% 32.5% 20% 5%
11% 35% 22% 6%
12% 35% 23% 7%
13% 35% 25% 8%
14% 35% 26% 9%
15% 35% 28% 10%
16% 35% 29% 11%
17% 35% 31% 12%
18% 35% 32% 13%
19% 35% 34% 14%
20% 35% 35% 15%
21% 35% 35% 16%
22% 35% 35% 17%
23% 35% 35% 18%
24% 35% 35% 19%
25% 35% 35% 20%
26% 35% 35% 21%
27% 35% 35% 22%
28% 35% 35% 23%
29% 35% 35% 24%
30% 35% 35% 25%
31% 35% 35% 26%
32% 35% 35% 27%
33% 35% 35% 28%
34% 35% 35% 29%
35% 35% 35% 30%
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1307
- 76 -
Percentage of Affordable Units
Provided in Income Category
Very Low Income
Units
Low Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
36% 35% 35% 31%
37% 35% 35% 32%
38% 35% 35% 33%
39% 35% 35% 34%
40% 35% 35% 35%
B. Senior housing developments are entitled to a maximum density bonus of 20 percent
provided the development comprises of at least 35 units, conforms with Civil Code Section
51.3 and the units are reserved for qualifying residents. The development does not have to
provide affordable units.
C. Donation of Land:
1. When an applicant donates land to the City in accordance with the requirements of
Section 19.56.020C(2), the development shall be entitled to a 15 percent density bonus.
The development is entitled to an additional one percent density bonus for the donation
of land that would allow the development of an additional one percent of affordable
units above the minimum requirements in Section 19.56.020C(2), up to a maximum of 35
percent.
2. The donation of land must meet the following requirements:
a. The land shall be donated and transferred no later than the date of approval of the
application.
b. The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are
sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households in
an amount not less than 10 percent of the number of residential units of the proposed
development.
c. The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit
development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate General Plan designation, is
appropriately zoned with appropriate development standards for development at the
density described in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3), and is or will be served
by adequate public facilities and infrastructure.
d. The transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building
permits, necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the
transferred land not later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map,
parcel map, or residential development application, except that the City may subject
the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by
Government Code Section 65583.2(i) if the design is not reviewed by the City prior to
the time of transfer.
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1308
- 77 -
e. The land shall be transferred to the City or to a housing developer approved by the
City. The City may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the
developer.
f. The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if
the City agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed
development.
g. A proposed source of funding for the very low income units shall be identified not
later than the date of approval of the proposed development.
h. The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction
ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with Government Code
Section 65915(c)(1) or (2), as applicable.
D. Provision of Child Day Care Facilities
1. When a housing development is proposed that contains affordable housing as provided
in Section 19.56.030A and includes a child day care facility that will be located on the
premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the City shall grant either of the
following, except as specifically stated elsewhere:
a. An additional density bonus in residential square footage that is equal to or greater
than the square footage of the child day care facility.
b. An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic
feasibility of the construction of the child day care facility in accordance with Section
19.56.040.
2. The City shall also require that as a condition of approving the housing development:
a. The child day care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long
as or longer than the period of time during which the affordable units are required to
remain affordable.
b. Of the children who attend the child day care facility, the children of very low income
households, lower income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a
percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are
required for very low income households, lower income households, or families of
moderate income.
3. Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, the City shall not be required to
provide a density bonus or concession for a child day care facility if the City finds, based
upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child day care facilities.
E. Condominium Conversions
1. When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees
to provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to
low or moderate income households, or 15 percent of the total units of the proposed
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1309
- 78 -
condominium project to lower income households, and agrees to pay for the reasonably
necessary administrative costs incurred by the City, the City shall either:
a. Grant a density bonus of 25 percent over the number of apartments to be provided
within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion; or
b. Provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. This shall not require the City
to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation but may include
the reduction or waiver of requirements which the City might otherwise apply as
conditions of conversion approval.
2. The City may place such reasonable conditions on the granting of a density bonus or
other incentives of equivalent financial value as the City finds appropriate, including but
not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to subsequent
purchasers who are persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income
households.
3. An application shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives under this
section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for
which a density bonus or other incentives were previously provided under Government
Code Section 65915.
4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the City to approve a proposal to
convert apartments to condominiums.
F. Density Bonus Calculations:
1. A density bonus may be selected from only one income or development category listed
above, except that density bonuses for land donation may be combined with others, up to
a maximum of 35 percent, and an additional square-foot bonus may be granted for a
child day care facility as provided in Section 19.56.030C.
2. In determining the number of density bonus units to be granted, any fractions of density
bonus units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
3. Density bonus units authorized by this section shall not be included when determining
the number of affordable units, required to qualify for the density bonus. In determining
the number of affordable units, any fractions of affordable units shall be rounded up to
the next whole number.
4. An applicant may request a lower density bonus than the housing development is
entitled to, but no reduction will be permitted in the percentage of required affordable
units as shown in Section 19.56.020.
5. Regardless of the affordable units, no housing development will be entitled to a density
bonus of more than 35 percent unless approved by the City pursuant to Section
19.56.030F(7).
6. The City, at its discretion, may grant additional density bonuses. While the maximum
density bonus, the City is required to provide pursuant to State Law, is thirty-five (35)
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1310
- 79 -
percent; this is not the maximum amount that an applicant may obtain. An applicant may
negotiate with the City to obtain a density bonus higher than the maximum set forth in
Table 19.56.030 in exchange for including even more affordable units than are provided
in the table and/or the provision of other amenities or considerations.
A.7. For purposes of calculating a density bonus, the residential units do not have to be based
upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in
geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the affor dable
units are located.
19.56.030040 Incentives and Concessions.
The State-mandated concession will be selected from the following list:
A. A housing development is eligible for Incentives and Concessions as shown in Table
19.56.040A. Incentives and Concessions must be selected from only one category (very low,
low, or moderate). No incentives are available for land donation or for a senior citizen
housing development that is not affordable. Condominium conversions and day care
centers may have one incentive or a density bonus, at the City's option, but not both.
Table 19.56.040A: Incentives and Concessions Calculations:
Unit Type Percent of
Affordable Units
Number of
Incentives/Concessions
Very Low Income
Units
5% or greater 1
10% or greater 2
15% or greater 3
Low Income Units
10% or greater 1
20% or greater 2
30% or greater 3
Moderate Income
Units
10% or greater 1
20% or greater 2
30% or greater 3
B. For purposes of this chapter, permissible concessions and incentives include, but are not
limited to:
A.1. A reduction in of site development standards or a modification of the zoning
code requirements or of the Zoning Ordinancearchitectural design requirements that
exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards
Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of
the Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to, a reduction in setback
requirements, square footage or parking requirements, such that the reduction or
modification results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. For
applications involving the modification of zoning or development standards, the housing
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
MO
V
E
D
F
R
O
M
BE
L
O
W
1311
- 80 -
developer shall show that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing
units economically feasible. Permissible incentives include, but are not limited to:
1. Reduction of parking requirements,
2. Reduction of open space requirements,
3. Reduction of setback requirements,
2. Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial,
office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development, and
if the commercial, office, industrial or other land uses are compatible with the housing
project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing
project will be located;
B. 3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the
City, which result in identifiable financially sufficient and actual cost reductions.
Permissible concessions include, but are not limited to:
1. Reduction of park dedication fees,
2. Reduction of application or construction permit fees,
3. Provision of tax-exempt financing or other financial assistance as approved by the City
Council;
C. Nothing in this section requires the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing
development, including but not limited to the provision of financial subsidies, publicly
owned land by the City or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. The City, at its sole
discretion, may choose to provide such direct financial incentives;
D. An applicant may submit to the City a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development
standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a
development meeting the criteria outlined in Section 19.56.020 at the densities or with the
concessions or incentives permitted under this chapter. A proposal for the waiver or
reduction of development standards shall neither reduce nor increase the number of
incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled. The applicant shall bear the
burden of demonstrating that the development standards that are requested to be waived
will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development
with the density bonuses and incentives.
E. If the housing development is eligible for density bonus as provided in Section 19.56.020,
upon request of the applicant, the maximum off-street parking standards that can be
applied, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking are indicated in Table 19.56.040B.
These may include tandem and uncovered parking spaces.
Table 19.56.040B: Off-street parking standards with
Number of bedrooms Maximum number of off-street parking spaces
0 – 1 One (1)
2 – 3 Two (2)
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1312
- 81 -
4 + Two and one-half (2.5)
C.F. A housing development which provides affordable unitsrequests incentives or
concessions must show that the requested concessions directly affect the economic
feasibility of including the affordable units in the projectare required to provide for
affordable rents or affordable housing costs, as applicable.
19.56.040050 General Requirements.
B.A. Affordable for-sale and rental low and very low income units must remain affordable to
low or very low income households, as applicable, for thirty years if both a density bonus
and an additional concession are granted. These units shall remain affordable or for a longer
period of time if required by the a construction or mortgage financing assistance program,
mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. If only a density bonus is granted,
the affordable units shall remain affordable for ten years. Affordable for-sale moderate
income units must remain affordable to moderate-income households for the duration
required by the City’s Residential Housing Mitigation Program or for a longer period of
time if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage
insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Sales price for for-sale affordable very low,
low, and moderate income units shall be set at affordable housing cost. Rents for affordable
low and very low income rental units shall be set at an affordable rent.
B. The affordable dwelling units and land dedication that qualify a housing development for a
density bonus may also be used to meet the below-market-rate housing provisions of the
City’s Residential Housing Mitigation Program, provided that the affordable units and land
dedication comply with the requirements of both Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, and the
Residential Housing Mitigation Program regarding the required number of affordable units,
required level of affordability, and term of affordability so as to provide the greatest
affordability to the most households for the longest term.
C. Unless otherwise governed by other funding sources, Ffirst priority for the affordable units
will be given to individuals who reside, work, go to school, or have family in the City of
Cupertino.
D. A master regulatory agreement shall be made between the developer and the City which
indicates the household type, number, location, size and construction scheduling of all
affordable units, and such information as shall be required by the City for the purpose of
determining the developer's compliance with this chapter. The regulatory agreement shall
be recorded against the housing development prior to final or parcel map approval or,
where a map is not being processed, prior to issuance of any building permits, and shall be
binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
E. Affordable units in a project and phases of a project shall be constructed concurrently with
or prior to the construction of market-rate units.
F. Affordable units shall be provided as follows:
1. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the project;
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1313
- 82 -
2. Affordable units shall be identical with the design of any market rate rental units in the
project with the following exception: that a
a.2. Rreduction of interior amenities for affordable units will be permitted upon prior
approval by the City Council as necessary to retain project afford-ability.
G. For purposes of calculating a density bonus, the residential units do not have to be based
upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in
geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the affordable
units are located.
H. The developer shall submit a project financial report (pro forma) to allow the City to
evaluate the financial need for the State-mandated additional incentivesdemonstrating that
the requested incentives or concessions are required to provide for affordable rents or
affordable housing costs, as applicable. The City may retain a consultant to review the
financial report. The cost of the consultant shall be borne by the developer with the
following exception:
1. If the applicant is a nonprofit organization, the cost of the consultant may be paid by the
City upon prior approval of the City Council.
19.56.050 Requirements for Projects with Affordable Units.
A.I. All affordable units shall be occupied by the household type specified in the written
agreement required under Section 19.52.020C050C. The developer’s obligation to maintain
these units as affordable housing shall be evidenced by the master regulatory agreement
which shall be recorded as deed restriction running with the land.
B. Those units targeted for lower-income households shall be affordable at a rent that does not
exceed thirty percent of the HUD income limits for lower-income households for Santa
Clara County adjusted for household size.
C. Those units targeted for very low-income households shall be affordable at a rent that does
not exceed twenty-five percent of the HUD income limits for very low-income households
for Santa Clara County adjusted for household size.
J. Prior to the rental or sale of any affordable unit, the City or its designee, shall verify the
eligibility of the prospective tenant or buyer.
I.K. The City may establish fees associated with the setting up and monitoring of affordable
units.
L. For rental affordable very low and low income units:
D.1. The owner shall obtain and maintain on file certifications by each household.
Certification shall be obtained immediately prior to initial occupancy by each household
and annually thereafter, in the form provided by the City or its designee. The owner
shall obtain updated forms for each household on request by the City, but in no event
less frequently than once a year. The owner shall maintain complete, accurate and
current records pertaining to the housing development, and will permit any duly
READABILITY
MO
V
E
D
U
P
CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW
MO
V
E
D
U
P
MO
V
E
D
F
R
O
M
BE
L
O
W
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1314
- 83 -
authorized representative of the City to inspect the records pertaining to the affordable
units and occupants of these units.
E. The City may establish fees associated with the setting up and monitoring of affordable
units.
F.2. The owner shall submit an annual report to the City, on a form provided by the City.
The report shall include for each affordable unit the rent, income, and family size of the
household occupying the unit.
3. The owner shall provide to the City any additional information required by the City to
insure the long-term affordability of the affordable units by eligible households.
19.56.060 Application Requirements.
A. An applicant developer may submit to the Planning Department a preliminary proposal for
the development of housing development pursuant to this chapter prior to the submittal of
any formal application. The City shall, within ninety days of receipt of a written proposal,
notify the housing developer in writing of its local density procedures. The City shall
establish procedures for waiving or modifying development and zoning standards which
would otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on a particular site. These
procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such items as minimum lot size, side-yard
setbacks, and placement of public works improvements. The housing developer shall show
that the requested waiver or modification is necessary to make the affordable units
economically feasible.
B. All requests pursuant to this Chapter shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the
application for the first discretionary permit or other permit required for the housing
development and shall be process concurrently with the discretionary Formal application
shall following the review process as set forth for permits in Chapter 19.12, Administration
of the Cupertino Municipal Code established by the City. and The applicant shall provide
additional information as specified in this chapter, specifically:
1. Provide a written statement specifying the desired density increase, incentives and any
waivers requested, proposed rent schedules and/or sales prices, and the type, location,
size and construction scheduling of all dwelling units;
2. Submit a project financial report (pro forma) demonstrating that the requested
incentives will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to
the housing development and they are required to provide for affordable rents or
affordable housing costs, as applicable. The pro forma shall include the capital costs,
operating expenses, return on investment, loan-to-value ratio and the debt coverage
ratio including the contribution(s) provided by any applicable subsidy program(s), as
required;
3. An appraisal report indicating the value of the density bonus and of the
incentive(s)/concession(s);
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1315
- 84 -
4. A use of funds statement identifying the financial gaps for the housing development
with the affordable housing units. The analysis shall show how the funding gap relates
to the incentive(s)/concession(s);
5. For any requested waiver of a development standard, evidence that the development
standard for which the waiver is requested will have the effect of physically precluding
the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives
requested.
6. If a mixed use building or project is proposed as an incentive, evidence that non-
residential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and that the non-
residential land uses are compatible with the development and the existing or planned
development in the area.
7. If a density bonus is requested for a land donation, the location of the land to be
dedicated, proof of site control, and evidence that each of the requirements included in
Section 19.56.030C can be met.
8. If a density bonus or incentive is requested for a child care facility, evidence that all of
the requirements in Section 19.56.030D can be met.
2.9. If a density bonus or incentive is requested for a condominium conversion, evidence that
all of the requirements in Section 19.56.030E can be met.
3.10. Any other information requested by the Director of Community Development to
determine if the required findings can be made.
19.56.070 Findings.
A. Before approving an application that includes a request for a density bonus, incentive,
parking reduction and/or waiver pursuant this chapter, the decision-making body shall
make the following findings, as applicable:
1. A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives,
parking reductions or waivers requested.
2. A finding that any requested incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient,
and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and documentation
provided.
3. If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all the
requirements included in Section 19.56.030C have been met.
4. If the density bonus or incentive is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care
facility, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030D have been
met.
5. If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that
all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030E have been met.
6. If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all the requirements
included in Section 19.56.040B(2) have been met.
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1316
- 85 -
7. If a waiver is requested, a finding that the development standards for which the waiver
is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the
housing development with the density bonus and incentives permitted.
B. If the findings required by subsection (A) of this section can be made, the decision-making
body may deny an application for an incentive or waiver requested pursuant to Section
19.56.040 only if it makes one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of
application, supported by substantial evidence:
1. That the incentive is not required to provide for affordable rents or affordable sales
prices; or
2. That the incentive or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the
California Register of Historic Resources; or
3. That the incentive or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health
or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the residential project
unaffordable to low and moderate income households. For the purpose of this
subsection, "specific adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the
residential project was deemed complete; or
4. That the incentive or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.
C. If the findings required by subsection (A) of this section can be made, the decision-making
body may deny an application for a density bonus or incentive that is based on the
provision of child care only if it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that
the city already has adequate child care facilities.
CONFORMANCE WITH
STATE LAW
1317
- 86 -
CHAPTER 19.76: PUBLIC BUILDING (BA), QUASI PUBLIC BUILDING (BQ)
ANDTRANSPORTATION (T) ZONES
Section
19.76.020 Applicability of Regulations.
19.76.030 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in BA, BQ and T Zones.
19.76.040 Permits Required for Development.
19.64.050 Application Requirements.
19.64.060 Site Development Regulations.
19.76.010 Purpose.
The BA, BQ and T zoning districts are designed to accommodate governmental, public utility,
educational, religious, community service, transportation, or recreational facilities in the City.
19.76.020 Applicability of Regulations.
The specific regulations of this chapter shall apply to all BA, BQ and T zoning districts.
19.76.030 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in BA, BQ and T Zones.
Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses that may be conducted from property zoned Public
Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ), and Transportation (T) are identified in Table
19.76.030, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Public, Quasi-Public and
Transportation Zoning Districts.
Table 19.76.030 – Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in BA, BQ and T Zones
Zoning Districts BA BQ T Uses
1. Buildings and other uses on land owned or utilized by a federal,
state, county, or city government or authority, or by a special
district created for public purposes under the laws of the State of
California are permitted in a BA zone.
P -
-
2. Rotating homeless emergency shelter provided that the following
conditions are met:
a. Shelter is located within an existing church structure;
b. The number of occupants does not exceed twenty-five;
c. The hours of operation do not exceed six p.m. to seven a.m.;
d. Adequate supervision is provided;
e. Fire safety regulations are met; and
f. Operation period does not exceed two months in any twelve-
month period at any single location.
- P
-
3. Permanent emergency shelter provided the following conditions
are met:
a. Section 19.76.030(2)(ab),-(d), (e);
- P -
CO
N
F
R
O
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1318
- 87 -
Zoning Districts BA BQ T Uses
b. A management plan is provided which includes a detailed
operation plan;
a.c. Shelter is available to any individual or household regardless
of their ability to pay; and
b.d. Occupancy is limited to six months or less.
4. Public utility companies regulated by the Public Utility
Commission for uses restricted to administrative and office
buildings, communication equipment buildings, including
parking, landscaping and maintenance within an enclosed area or
storage yard;
- CUP -
PC
-
5. Religious, civic, and comparable organizations, for uses restricted
to church buildings, community halls, administrative buildings,
schoolrooms, recreational facilities, and athletic fields, convents,
seminaries, and similar uses customarily associated with churches,
including parking and landscaping areas;
- CUP
– PC
-
6. Child care facility, residential care facilities, congregate residence,
hospitals, vocational and specialized schools; - CUP
– PC
-
7. Lodges, clubs, country clubs, including accessory uses such as
swimming pools, picnic areas, golf courses, driving tees or ranges,
miniature golf courses (all uses to be restricted to members of the
above organizations and their guests);
- CUP
– PC
-
8. Large-family daycare home; - CUP
– PC
-
9. Airports, airfields and helicopter terminals, including
administration and service buildings, maintenance and storage
yards
- -
CUP
– PC
10. Railroads, including terminals and stations, freight yards,
marshaling yards, storage yards, administrative and service
buildings
- -
CUP
– PC
11. Bus terminals and stations, including administration and service
buildings, maintenance and storage yards - - CUP
– PC
12. Freeways, expressways, and other roads with limited or controlled
access, including administrative buildings and maintenance yards - - CUP
– PC
Key:
P – Permitted Use
- – Not Allowed
CUP – Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development
CUP – PC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission
CUP – CC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council
Ex - Excluded Uses
CO
N
F
R
O
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1319
- 88 -
19.76.040 Permits Required for Development.
Prior to the erection of a new building or structure or enlargement or modification of an existing
building, structure, or site (including landscaping and lighting) in a BA. BQ or T zoning district,
the applicant for a building permit must obtain permits in accord with Chapter 19.12.
19.64.050 Application Requirements.
Prior to the issuance of development permits, or any amendment thereto, an application shall
be made that, in addition to the requirements in Chapter 19.12, shall include a development
plan. The plan shall include:
A. Types and heights of buildings/structures and location of areas where buildings are to be
placed;
B. A proposed system of public and private streets, including cross-sections for all types of
streets;
C. Landscape plans;
D. Parking and loading plans as required by this title;
E. Any other information, which the Director of Community Development requires in order to
evaluate the effects of the proposed facilities on the surrounding areas.
19.64.060 Site Development Regulations.
A. Maximum Height of Buildings and Structures. The height of buildings in BA, BQ and T
zone districts is regulated by the development plan.
B. Setbacks and Screening.
1. There are no minimum setbacks in BA, BQ or T zoning districts; provided, however, that
the Planning Commission may establish minimum setbacks with respect to each
individual application for a development permit or a conditional use permit in order to
provide adequate light, air and visibility at intersections, and to provide general
conformity with adjacent and nearby zones and lots, or to promote the general
excellence of the development;
2. Adequate screening to limit noise, to reduce glare of lights, and to prevent obnoxious
emissions shall be provided when deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
1320
- 89 -
CHAPTER 19.84: PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND EXCLUDED USES IN OPEN SPACE, PARK AND RECREATION AND
PRIVATE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICTS
Section
19.84.010 Applicability of Regulations19.84.010 Applicability of Regulations
19.84.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation Zones
19.84.010 Applicability of Regulations
No building or structure or land shall be used in an OS, PR and FP zoning district, otherwise than in conformance with the
provisions of this chapter.
19.84.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation Zones
Table 19.84.020 sets forth the Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation
zones.
Table 19.84.020 – Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Open Space, Park and Recreation and Private Recreation Zones
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
A. Low-intensity recreational uses such as hiking, birdwatching, walking, picnicking and other
similar activities P -P -
B. Minor maintenance of vegetation such as mowing or trimming P -P -P
C. Incidental gardening P -P -P
D. The erection or maintenance of minor structures, such as fences, gates, culverts and drainage
ditches. P -P -P
E. Any legal nonconforming use as provided for in Chapter 19.140 of the City’s Ordinance Code P -P -P
F. Temporary uses subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.160 CUP –
Admin
-P -CUP-
Admin
G. Noncommercial stables for riding horses CUP –
Admin
- -
CL
A
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
RE
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
1321
- 90 -
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
H. Artificial or constructed pools, ponds, lakes or streams CUP -
Admin
-P -CUP –
PC
I. Playgrounds CUP -
Admin
-P -CUP -
PC
J. Any other use which is compatible with open space or park and recreation and otherwise is in
conformance with the purposes of the OS or PR zoning districts
CUP -
Admin
-P -
K. Parks, playgrounds, and recreation facilities, as regulated by Title 13 of this code - P -
L. Agricultural activities for educational and recreational purposes, such as community
gardens and hobby farms uses such as crop and tree farming, and the keeping of domestic
barnyard animals
-
P -
M. Single-family residences for the purpose of housing a caretaker for the park. The residence may
take the form of a mobilehome as well as a permanent residential structure. - P -
N. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming
with the provisions of Chapter 19.92 of this title -P
P -P
O. Parking facilities as necessary for park usage - P -
P. Outdoor Uses:
1. Equestrian center including riding academies, stables and horse rental,
2. Practice range for archery or firearms,
3. Golf course with or without driving range,
4. Swim and racquet club,
5. Swimming, diving or related sports center,
6. Picnic areas,
7. Racquet sports center for tennis, racquetball, badminton and similar activities,
8. Specialty outdoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses:
a. Roller skating,
b. Skateboarding,
c. Lawn bowling, bocce ball,
d. Miniature golf,
-
-
CUP –
PC
CL
A
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
WI
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
L
A
W
1322
- 91 -
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
e. Waterslide,
9. Commercial athletic field for one or more of the following or similar uses:
a. Baseball, softball or batting cage training,
b. Football
c. Soccer,
d. Volleyball,
e. Field hockey,
f. Basketball,
10. Amusement parks with or without rides or live entertainment,
11. Bicycle motocross course/go-cart track or similar specialty raceway, but excluding facilities
for racing of automobiles or motorcycles,
12. Air sports field for hang gliding, ultralight aircraft or ballooning, but excluding common
carrier passenger aircraft service,
13. Other outdoor recreation uses which are found by the Director of Community Development
to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subdivision;
-
-
-
-
CUP –
PC
CUP -
PC
Q. Indoor Uses:
1. Museums and galleries,
2. Theaters for film, stage or music entertainment,
3. Specialty indoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses:
a. Bowling,
b. Video games,
c. Pool, billiards,
d. Martial arts,
e. Ice or roller skating rink,
4. Personal fitness or sports training center with primary location of facilities and equipment
enclosed within a structure,
5. Dancehall or facility for dance instruction,
6. Other indoor recreation uses which are found by the City Council or Planning Commission
to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subsection.
- - CUP -
PC
1323
- 92 -
Zoning Districts OS PR FP Uses
R. Subsidiary Uses:
1. Competition and tournament facilities, including stadium seating, concession stands and box
office/ticket sales for on-premises events only,
2. Restaurant without separate bar facility,
3. Repair shop, servicing equipment associated with the activities authorized under the
principal use permit,
4. Retail sales of equipment and supplies customarily associated with the activities authorized
under the principal use permit,
5. Caretaker’s or security officer’s residence
6. Other uses deemed by the Planning Commission or City Council to be subsidiary to the
principal use authorized on the site.
- - CUP -
PC
S. Card Clubs and similar businesses operating games of chance - - Ex
T. Nightclubs - - Ex
U. Other uses which are found by the Director of Community Development to be in conflict with
the objective of the FP zoning district - - Ex
Key:
P – Permitted Use
- – Not Allowed
CUP – Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development
CUP – PC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission
CUP – CC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council
Ex - Excluded Uses
1324
- 93 -
CHAPTER 19.144: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Section
19.144.020 Purpose of Development Agreement.
19.144.030 Authority for Adoption.
19.144.040 Application Requirements.
19.144.050 Qualification as an Applicant.
19.144.060 Proposed Form of Development Agreement.
19.144.070 Contents of a Development Agreement.
19.144.080 Consistency with General and Specific Plans.
19.144.090 Public Hearing and Ordinance Required.
19.144.110 Findings.
19.144.120 Irregularity in Proceeding.
19.144.140 Time for and Initiation of Review.
19.144.150 Finding of Compliance–Appeal.
19.144.160 Finding of Noncompliance–Appeal.
19.144.170 Appeal of Determination.
19.144.190 Cancellation or Modification by Mutual Consent.
19.144.200 Cancellation by the City.
19.144.210 Rights of the Parties after Cancellation or Termination.
19.144.220 Rules Affecting Development Agreement.
19.144.230 Separate Procedure.
19.144.240 Effect of Development Agreement.
19.144.250 Construction.
19.144.260 Execution and Recordation of Development Agreement, Amendment or
Cancellation.
19.144.270 Judicial Review–Time Limitation.
19.144.010 Findings and Declaration of Intent.
A. The California Legislature in Section 65864 of the Government Code has found that the lack
of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources,
escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage
investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum
efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. The City Council
finds and determines that under appropriate circumstances, development agreements will
1325
- 94 -
strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive
planning by providing a greater degree of certainty in that process, reduce the economic
costs of development, allow for the orderly planning of public improvements and services
and the allocation of costs therefor in order to achieve the maximum utilization of public
and private resources in the development process, and assure, to the extent feasible, that
appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment of the City are achieved. .
The City Council further finds that the lack of public facilities, including, but not limited to,
streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, is a serious
impediment to the development of new housing.
B. The City Council further finds and determines that the public safety, health, convenience,
comfort, prosperity and general welfare will be furthered by the adoption of this chapter in
order to provide a mechanism for the enactment of development agreements to accomplish
the foregoing purposes and aims and the realization of the benefits.
19.144.020 Purpose of Development Agreement.
Development agreements enacted pursuant to this chapter are to ensure to the applicant for a
development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the
project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to specified
conditions of approval, in order to implement the intent of the City Council in enacting this
title. Development agreements will also ensure that all conditions of approval, including the
construction of off-site improvements made necessary by such land developments, will proceed
in an orderly and economical fashion to the benefit of the City.
19.144.030 Authority for Adoption.
This chapter is adopted under the authority of Government Code Sections 65864 through
65869.5.
19.144.040 Application Requirements.
An application for a development agreement shall include, in addition to the requirements of
Chapter 19.12, Administration, a development agreement proposal as described in 19.144.060,
Proposed Form of Development Agreement.
19.144.050 Qualification as an Applicant.
A. Only a qualified applicant may file an application to enter into a development agreement.
The Director of Community Development shall require an applicant to submit proof of his or
her interest in the real property and of the authority of the agent to act for the applicant. This
proof may include a title report, policy or guarantee, issued by a title company licensed to do
business in the State evidencing the requisite interest of the applicant in the real property. B.
Other Parties. In addition to the City and developer, any federal, State or local governmental
agency or body may be included as a party to any development agreement. Any additional
party shall be made a party to the development agreement pursuant to the provisions of the
Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code Section 6500, et seq.) providing for joint powers
agreements, or provisions of other applicable federal, State or local law, in order to create a
legally binding agreement between such parties.
1326
- 95 -
19.144.060 Proposed Form of Development Agreement.
Each application shall be accompanied by the form of development agreement proposed by the
City. This requirement may be met by designating the City’s then standard form of
development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney and including specific proposals for
changes in or additions to the language of the standard form. The City’s Proposed Form of
Development Agreement shall include the following:
A. The parties to the development agreement;
B. The nature of the applicant’s legal or equitable interest in the real property constituting such
applicant as a qualified applicant under this chapter;
C. A description of the development project sufficient to permit the development agreement to
be reviewed under the applicable criteria of this chapter. Such description may include, but
is not limited to, references to site and building plans, elevations, relationships to adjacent
properties and operational data. Where appropriate, such description may distinguish
between elements of the development project which are proposed to be fixed under the
development agreement, those which may vary and the standards and criteria pursuant to
which the same may be reviewed;
D. An identification of the approvals and permits for the development project enacted to the
date of or contemplated by the development agreement;
E. The duration of the development agreement;
F. The permitted uses of the property;
G. The maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for dedications of
land for public purposes;
H. A program and criteria for periodic review under this chapter;
I. Appropriate provisions guaranteeing or securing performance of the development
agreement on the part of the developer;
J. Specific standards for periodic review of a development agreement;
K. Specific standards to insure compliance by the parties to a development agreement;
L. The Development Agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a
specified time and that the project or any phase shall be commenced within a specified time
and that the project and any phase be completed within a specified time.
M. Information required in accord with Section 19.140.070, Content of a Development
Agreement;
N. Any other relevant information which may be deemed necessary by the Director of
Community Development pursuant to this chapter.
1327
- 96 -
19.144.070 Contents of a Development Agreement.
A. A development agreement shall specify its duration, the permitted uses of the property , the
density and/or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
B. A development agreement shall attach and incorporate by reference all conditions of
approval imposed by the City with respect to the development project.
C. All development agreements shall contain an indemnity and insurance clause in form and
substance acceptable to the City Attorney, requiring the developer to indemnify the City
against claims arising out of the development process and limiting the developer’s sole
remedy to specific performance and thereby eliminating any potential damages to be paid
by the City under the development agreement; provided, that, these provisions do not
violate applicable law or constitute a joint venture, partnership or other participation in
business affairs of developer by the City.
D. All development agreements, or any part of development agreements, may be subject to
subsequent condemnation proceedings by the City.
E. Community Benefits: At the discretion of the City Council, additional heights over the base
height standard in gateways and nodes identified in the Special Areas Map (Fig. X of the
General Plan) may be approved as shown in the Community Form Map (Fig. Y of the
General Plan). In order to obtain additional height, a development should include the
following community benefits.
1. Ground floor retail component; and
2. One or more of the following benefits equivalent to at least 15% of the increase in value
of the site attributed to the increase in height, based on a pro-forma, prepared by the
developer and peer-reviewed by the City. The cost to the City of the peer-review shall be
paid for by the developer:
a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements
i. New or expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
ii. Transit improvements and/or amenities including adaptive traffic signal
management systems;
iii. Participation in a community shuttle program (to provide connections to major
employment and community nodes, including community facilities and
shopping).
b. Public Entity or Facilities: Provide land or space for public entities, such as the City
or schools.
c. Senior Housing. Provide at least 15% of housing for seniors, if the proposed project
includes a residential component and is not already targeted towards seniors.
d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities
i. Construction of a new, or expansion to, a community facility (e.g. recreation
center, teen facility, etc.)
CONFORMANCE WITH
GENERAL PLAN
1328
- 97 -
ii. Construction of a new, or expansion of, a community gathering space (e.g.
meeting/conference space, cultural center or museum).
e. Parks and Open Space
i. New publicly accessible park and/or open space within a project in excess of
park dedication requirements.
ii. Dedication of land for a new or expanded park outside the project boundary in
excess of park dedication requirements.
f. Cash-in-Lieu Contribution. A Cash-in-Lieu contribution is a contribution made to
the City by a developer or applicant and is equivalent to at least 15% of the increase
in value of the site attributed to the increase in height achieved through the
Community Benefits Program. The funds are allocated exclusively for purchase of
land, capital improvements or operations related to items a, b, d, e, and towards the
construction of affordable housing. All Cash-in-Lieu Contributions shall be made to
the City.
D.
19.144.080 Consistency with General and Specific Plans.
Before the City Council may approve the development agreement, it must find that its
provisions are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans of the City. If
the City Council approves the development agreement in the form recommended by the
Planning Commission, without further findings, then it shall be deemed to have also adopted
the findings of the Planning Commission.
19.144.090 Public Hearing and Ordinance Required.
A development agreement is a legislative act and shall be enacted by ordinance only after a
public hearing before the City Council. The ordinance shall refer to and incorporate by
reference the text of the development agreement.
19.144.110 Findings.
A. Development Agreement shall be enacted by ordinance by the City Council upon making
the following findings:
B. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the
General plan and any applicable specific plan;
C. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use
district in which the real property is or will be located;
D. Is in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare and good land
use practice;
E. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare;
F. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of
property values; and
1329
- 98 -
G. Will promote and encourage the development of the proposed project by providing a
greater degree of requisite certainty.
19.144.120 Irregularity in Proceeding.
Formal rules of evidence or procedure which must be followed in a court of law shall not be
applied in the consideration of a proposed development agreement under this chapter and the
provisions of Chapter 19.12, Administration, shall provide the procedure for such
consideration. No action, inaction or recommendation regarding the proposed development
agreement shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by a court on the ground of the improper
admission or rejection of evidence or by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or
omission (“error”) as to any matter pertaining to the application, notice, finding, record,
hearing, report, recommendation, or any matters of procedure whatever unless after an
examination of the entire case, including the evidence, the court finds that the error complained
of was prejudicial and that by reason of the error the complaining party sustained and suffered
substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if the error has not
occurred or existed. There is no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury resulted if
error is shown.
19.144.140 Time for and Initiation of Review.
The Director of Community Development shall review the development agreement annually in
order to ascertain the good faith compliance by the developer with its terms. The Developer
shall submit documentation as required by the Director of Community Development to
demonstrate good faith compliance by the developer of the terms of the development
agreement. The time for review may be modified by the City Council at any time upon
reasonable notice to the developer, and the development agreement may prescribe a procedure
and standards and different times for review of compliance with its terms; provided, however,
that a development agreement shall in any event be reviewed for compliance at least once every
twelve months.
19.144.150 Finding of Compliance–Appeal.
If the Director of Community Development finds good faith compliance by the developer with
the terms of the development agreement, he or she may issue a certificate of compliance, which
shall be in recordable form and may be recorded by the developer in the official records. The
issuance of a certificate of compliance by the Planning Director and the expiration of the appeal
period hereinafter specified without appeal, or the confirmation by the City Council of the
issuance of the certificate on such appeal, shall conclude the review for the applicable period
and such determination shall be final.
19.144.160 Finding of Noncompliance–Appeal.
If the Planning Director, on basis of substantial evidence, finds the developer has not complied
in good faith with the terms of the development agreement, he or she may specify in writing to
the developer the respects, in which developer has failed to comply. The Director of
Community Development shall also specify a reasonable time for the developer to meet the
terms of compliance. If such areas of noncompliance are not perfected within the reasonable
1330
- 99 -
time limits as prescribed, the development agreement shall be subject to modification or
cancellation by the City Council.
19.144.170 Appeal of Determination.
Any interested person may file an appeal of the issuance of a certificate of compliance to the
City Council within ten days after the certificate’s issuance. The developer may also file an
appeal to the City Council of the finding of the Director of Community Development of
noncompliance within ten days after the giving of notice of such determination. All appeals
before the City Council shall be conducted pursuant to a noticed hearing in the same manner as
any other appeal before the City Council, at which evidence shall be taken and findings made.
19.144.190 Cancellation or Modification by Mutual Consent.
Any development agreement may be canceled or amended by mutual consent of the parties, but
only in the manner provided in California Government Code Section 65868. Any proposal to
cancel or amend a development agreement shall be heard and determined in accordance with
the same procedures specified by this chapter for approval of a development agreement.
19.144.200 Cancellation by the City.
A. The City Council shall conduct a noticed hearing on the recommendations of the Director of
Community Development at which the developer and any other interested person shall be
entitled to submit evidence and testimony as may be germane to the issue of the developer’s
good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the City Council
finds, based on substantial evidence, noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the
development agreement, it may either cancel the development agreement upon giving sixty
days’ notice to the developer, or in its discretion, may allow the development agreement to
be continued by imposition of new terms and conditions intended to remedy
noncompliance. The City Council may impose conditions to the action it takes as it
considers necessary to protect the interests of the City. The decision of the City Council shall
be final.
B. Any cancellation or imposition of new terms and conditions pursuant to this section shall be
noticed in accordance with the procedures specified in Chapter 19.12, Administration of this
code.
19.144.210 Rights of the Parties after Cancellation or Termination.
In the event that a development agreement should be canceled, or otherwise terminated, unless
otherwise agreed, all rights of the developer, property owner or successors in interest under the
development agreement shall terminate. Any and all benefits, including money or land,
received by the City shall be retained by the City. Notwithstanding the above provision, any
termination of the development agreement shall not prevent the developer from completing
and occupying a building or other improvements authorized pursuant to a valid building
permit previously approved by the City or under construction at the time of termination, but
the City may take any action permitted by law to prevent, stop, or correct any violation of law
occurring during and after construction, and the developer or any tenant shall not occupy any
portion of the project or any building not authorized by a previously issued building permit. As
1331
- 100 -
used herein, “construction” means work under a valid building permit, and “completing”
means completion for beneficial occupancy for developer's use, or if a portion of the project is
intended for use by a lessee or tenant, then for such portion “completion” means completion
except for interior improvements such as partitions, duct and electrical runouts, floor coverings,
wall coverings, lighting, furniture, trade fixtures, finished ceilings, and other improvements
typically constructed by or for tenants of similar buildings. All such uses shall, to the extent
applicable, be deemed nonconforming uses and shall be subject to the nonconforming use
provisions of the planning code.
19.144.220 Rules Affecting Development Agreement.
All development agreements shall be subject to the regulation and requirements of the laws of
the State, the Constitution of the United States and any codes, statutes or executive mandates
and any court decisions, State or federal. In the event that any such law, code, statute, mandate
or decision made or enacted after a development agreement has been entered into prevents or
precludes compliance with one or more provisions of the development agreement, then such
provisions of the development agreement shall be modified or suspended in the manner and
pursuant to the procedures specified in the development agreement, as may be necessary to
comply with such law, code, statute, mandate or decision.
19.144.230 Separate Procedure.
All development agreements entail and consist of a separate procedure from other land use
planning procedures and shall not take the place of the zoning ordinances, the General Plan,
planned development permits, development permits, conditional use permits, subdivision
approvals, building permits or any other City planning functions. If so specified in the
development agreement, it shall constitute an approval pursuant to such planning procedures
as if separately enacted under other City planning ordinances. To the extent practicable, public
hearings on a proposed development agreement shall be held concurrently with the public
hearings on all related land use approvals and all such approvals shall be made concurrently
with the approval of the development agreement.
19.144.240 Effect of Development Agreement.
When approved, the development agreement and any development control maps and all
notations, references and regulations which are a part of the development agreement shall be
part of the development agreement ordinance. Development control maps include, but are not
limited to, regulations intended to carry out any plan respecting location or type of activities;
height, bulk, siding or design of structures; location or design of open areas; and landscaping
and other comparable regulations.
19.144.250 Construction.
This chapter and any subsequent development agreement shall be read together. With respect
to any development agreement enacted under this chapter, any provision of such a
development agreement which is in conflict with this chapter shall be void. Unless otherwise
provided by the development agreement, the City’s rules, regulations and official policies
governing permitted uses of the land, governing density and governing design, improvement
1332
- 101 -
and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the property subject
to a development agreement shall be those City rules, regulations and official policies in force at
the time of the approval of the development agreement by the City Council; provided, however,
that the developer is subject to all increases in City imposed fees and charges with respect to
subsequent applications for development and construction within the property subject to a
development agreement.
19.144.260 Execution and Recordation of Development Agreement, Amendment or
Cancellation.
A. Within ten days after the ordinance approving the development agreement takes effect, the
City Council shall execute the development agreement, and the City Council Clerk shall have
the development agreement recorded with the County Recorder.
B. If the parties to the development agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel
the development agreement as provided in Government Code Section 65868, and this chapter,
or if the City Council terminates or modifies the development agreement as provided in
Government Code Section 65865.1 and this chapter for failure of the developer to comply in
good faith with the terms or conditions of the development agreement, the City Council Clerk
shall, after such action takes effect, have notice of such action recorded with the County
Recorder.
19.144.270 Judicial Review–Time Limitation.
Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set, set aside, void or annul, any decision of the City
pursuant to this chapter shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding
is commenced within ninety days after the date of decision as provided in Section 1094.6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, State of California.
1333
- 102 -
CHAPTER 19.172: BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM
Section
19.172.030 BMR Program Administration
19.172.010 Purpose
19.172.020 Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program Requirements
19.172.030 BMR Program Administration
19.172.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of
households with varying income levels within the city as mandated by State Law, California
Government Code Sections 65580 and the City of Cupertino’s General Plan, including its
Housing Element.
B. Promote the city's goal to add affordable housing units to the city's housing stock in
proportion to the overall increase in new jobs and market rate housing units.
C. Mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate housing development
and ensure that market-rate housing development does not utilize all land available in the
city for affordable housing.
D. Mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new residential and commercial
development by protecting the economic diversity of the city's housing stock, with the goal
of reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, promoting jobs/housing balance
and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region.
E. Increase the supply of for-sale and rental housing for families and individuals employed in
Cupertino whose incomes are insufficient to afford market rate housing. Since the historical
rate of production of affordable housing in the city, by private developers is very low, the
BMR program is essential to meet the city's need for affordable housing.
19.172.020 Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program Requirements
A. Developers of housing development projects must comply with the requirements set forth
in Residential Housing Mitigation Program of the City of Cupertino’s Housing Element of
the General Plan.
B. To the extent permitted by law, the City’s objective is to obtain actual affordable housing
units within each development rather than off-site units or mitigation fee payments.
Provision of off-site units, land donation, or payment of Housing Mitigation Fees may only
be permitted as specified in the Residential Housing Mitigation Program rules and
regulations.
CONFORMANCE WITH
GENERAL PLAN
1334
- 103 -
19.172.030 BMR Program Administration
A. The City Council shall adopt rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this
chapter and the Housing Element for the purpose of carrying out the administration of the
Residential Housing Mitigation Program. Such rules and regulations shall address, but are
not limited to, program eligibility requirements, affordable housing cost, income limits,
preferences for housing applicants, minimum occupancy limits, waiting list procedures,
buyer selection procedures, methodology for the calculation of affordable housing cost and
affordable rent, resale restrictions and reasonable accommodations for disable applicants.
The rules and regulations shall also address Residential Housing Mitigation Program
components such as the provision of rental BMR units in for-sale housing developments or
off-site BMR units. A copy of such policies, rules and regulations shall be on file and
available for public examination in the office of the city clerk.
B. Failure or refusal to comply with any such rules, regulations or agreements promulgated
under this section shall be deemed a violation of this chapter.
CONFORMANCE WITH
GENERAL PLAN
1335
&,7<2)&83(57,12+($572)7+(&,7<63(&,),&3/$1
/$1'86(0$3
*S
o
u
t
h
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
A
r
e
a
–
A
l
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
o
n
S
o
u
t
h
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
H
e
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
y
ar
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
.
LE
G
E
N
D
He
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
So
u
t
h
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
So
u
t
h
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
A
r
e
a
*
Ci
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
u
b
-
A
r
e
a
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
)LJXUH +HDUWRIWKH&LW\$UHDDQG6SHFLDO&HQWHUV0DS
*P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
o
n
S
o
u
t
h
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
n
o
r
t
h
)
ar
e
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
H
e
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
F
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
sh
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
l
a
n
.
UPDATE MAP FOR CONFORMANCE WITH
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
1336
&,7<2)&83(57,12+($572)7+(&,7<63(&,),&3/$1
2
%)12/.4GU
)LJXUH +HDUWRIWKH&LW\$UHD
DQG6SHFLDO&HQWHUV=RQLQJ0DS
:HVWHUO\3RUWLRQ
)LJXUH +HDUWRIWKH&LW\$UHD
DQG6SHFLDO&HQWHUV=RQLQJ0DS
(DVWHUO\3RUWLRQ
67
(
/
/
,
1
*
5
2
$
'
'($1=$
&2//(*(
67(9(16&5((.%/9'
UPDATE MAP
FOR CONFORMANCE
WITH DRAFT GENERAL
PLAN AND HOUSING
ELEMENT
1337
&,7<2)&83(57,12+($572)7+(&,7<63(&,),&3/$1
'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6$1''(6,*1*8,'(/,1(6
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Background
7KH'HYHORSPHQW6WDQGDUGVDQG'HVLJQ
*XLGHOLQHVFRQWDLQHGLQWKLV(OHPHQWSURYLGH
UHJXODWRU\VXSSRUWIRUWKH6SHFLILF3ODQ¶VODQG
XVHSROLFLHV7KH\DUHLQWHQGHGWRSURPRWHKLJK
TXDOLW\SULYDWHVHFWRUGHYHORSPHQWHQKDQFH
SURSHUW\YDOXHVDQGHQVXUHWKDWERWKSULYDWH
LQYHVWPHQWDQGSXEOLFDFWLYLW\FRQWLQXHVWR
EHDWWUDFWHGWRWKH6WHYHQV&UHHN%RXOHYDUG
FRUULGRU
Development Standards
1.01.010
Description
$YDULHW\RIGLIIHUHQWW\SHVRIFRPPHUFLDO
GHYHORSPHQWIURPVWDQGDORQHVLQJOHWHQDQW
EXLOGLQJVWRVPDOOFRQYHQLHQFHFHQWHUVRIILFH
EXLOGLQJVDQGODUJHVKRSSLQJFHQWHUVPD\EH
SURSRVHG
3URSHUWLHVZLWKIURQWDJHH[FOXVLYHO\RQ6RXWK
'H$Q]D%RXOHYDUGLQWKH+HDUWRI&LW\6SHFLILF
3ODQDUHDDUHUHTXLUHGWRFRQIRUPWRWKHDUFKL
WHFWXUDODQGVLWHGHVLJQJXLGHOLQHVRIWKH6SHFLILF
3ODQ
1.01.020
Land Use and Zoning – Permitted and
Conditional Uses
7KH]RQLQJDQGODQGXVHVIRUSURSHUWLHVVKDOO
FRPSO\ZLWKWKHODQGXVHDQG]RQLQJPDSVLQ
)LJXUHVDQG'HYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQVIRU
SURSHUWLHVZLOOEHDVIROORZV
$&RPPHUFLDO±$OO3HUPLWWHGDQG
&RQGLWLRQDO8VHVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH
=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFHUHJXODWLRQVRIWKH&LW\¶V
*HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO &* ]RQLQJGLVWULFW
8VHVVXFKDVSURIHVVLRQDOJHQHUDO
DGPLQLVWUDWLYHEXVLQHVVRIILFHVEXVLQHVV
VHUYLFHVVXFKDVDGYHUWLVLQJEXUHDXV
FUHGLWUHSRUWLQJDFFRXQWLQJDQGVLPLODU
FRQVXOWLQJDJHQFLHVVWHQRJUDSKLF
VHUYLFHVDQGFRPPXQLFDWLRQHTXLSPHQW
EXLOGLQJVYRFDWLRQDODQGVSHFLDOL]HG
VFKRROVGDQFHDQGPXVLFVWXGLRV
J\PQDVLXPVDQGKHDOWKFOXEVDQGFKLOG
FDUHFHQWHUVDQGRWKHUXVHVWKDWGRQRW
LQYROYHWKHGLUHFWUHWDLOLQJRIJRRGVRU
VHUYLFHVWRWKHJHQHUDOSXEOLFVKDOOEH
OLPLWHGWRRFFXS\QRPRUHWKDQRI
WKHWRWDOEXLOGLQJIURQWDJHDORQJ6WHYHQV
&UHHN%RXOHYDUGDQGRURIWKH
UHDURIWKHEXLOGLQJ
%5HVLGHQWLDO±DWDPD[LPXPGHQVLW\RI
WZHQW\ILYH XQLWVSHUDFUHH[FHSW
ZKHUHRWKHUZLVHLQGLFDWHGRQWKHODQGXVH
DQG]RQLQJPDSVDQGLQWKH*HQHUDO3ODQ
)RUPL[HGUHVLGHQWLDODQGFRPPHUFLDO
GHYHORSPHQWVUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW
VKDOOEHEDVHGRQQHWGHQVLW\H[FOXGLQJ
SDUNLQJDQGRUODQGDUHDVGHYRWHGWRWKH
FRPPHUFLDOSRUWLRQRIWKHGHYHORSPHQW
INSERTTEXT:
“Residential density shall be per the General Plan Land Use
and zoning maps.
On sites with a mixed-use residential designation, residential
is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites.
Conditional use permits will be required for residential units
on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units
above the estimates in the Housing Element, and on Non-
Housing Element mixed-use sites.”
CONFORMANCE
WITHDRAFT
GENERALPLAN
1338
&,7<2)&83(57,12+($572)7+(&,7<63(&,),&3/$1
'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6$1''(6,*1*8,'(/,1(6
7KHIROORZLQJLVDQLOOXVWUDWLRQRIKRZQHW
GHQVLW\LVFDOFXODWHG
*URVVORW DFUH VTIW
&RPPHUFLDOEXLOGLQJDUHD VTIW
6XUIDFHSDUNLQJDUHDIRU
FRPPHUFLDODUHD VTIW
XQLVL]HVSDFHV#VTIW
$OORZDQFHIRURXWGRRURSHQODQGVFDSLQJ
DUHD RIFRPPHUFLDOEXLOGLQJDQG
SDUNLQJDUHD VTIW
7RWDODUHDIRUFRPPHUFLDOSRUWLRQRI
GHYHORSPHQW VTIW
5HPDLQGHUDUHD VTIW
DFUHV
8QLWVDOORZDEOHRQUHPDLQGHUDUHD
XQLWV
,QPL[HGUHVLGHQWLDODQGFRPPHUFLDO
GHYHORSPHQWVWKHSUHIHUUHGORFDWLRQIRU
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVVKDOOEHEHKLQGSULPDU\VWUHHW
IURQWLQJUHWDLOFRPPHUFLDOXVHV6HFRQGDULO\
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVPD\EHORFDWHGDERYHWKHJURXQG
OHYHORQPXOWLVWRU\EXLOGLQJV7KHDPRXQWRI
EXLOGLQJVSDFHGHYRWHGWRUHWDLOFRPPHUFLDO
XVHVVKDOOEHVXFKWKDWWKHUHWDLOFRPPHUFLDO
XVHVVKDOOKDYHDYLDEOHDQGVXEVWDQWLDOUHWDLO
FRPSRQHQW
&([LVWLQJFKXUFKXVHVDSSURYHGE\WKH&LW\
ZLWKDFRQGLWLRQDOXVHSHUPLWLQH[LVWHQFH
SULRUWR$SULO
''HYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQVIRUDOORWKHU]RQHV
VKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHVSHFLILF]RQLQJGLVWULFWV
LQWKH=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFH
1.01.030
Building Height, Setbacks
and Orientation
$+HLJKW±DVPHDVXUHGIURPVLGHZDONWRWRS
RIFRUQLFHSDUDSHWRUHDYHOLQHRIDSHDNHG
URRIVKDOOEHDVIROORZV
0D[LPXP±)RUW\ILYH IHHWH[FHSW
ZKHUHUHJXODWHGE\WKH&XSHUWLQR*HQHUDO
3ODQ0D[LPXP%XLOGLQJ+HLJKWV
7KHSULPDU\EXONRIEXLOGLQJVKDOOEHPDLQ
WDLQHGEHORZD VORSHOLQHGUDZQIURP
WKHDUWHULDOVWUHHWFXUEOLQHRUOLQHVLQDOO
DUHDVVXEMHFWWRWKH+HDUWRIWKH&LW\VWDQ
GDUGVH[FHSWIRUWKH&URVVURDGVDUHDDQGWKH
9DOOFRDUHD6HHWKH&URVVURDGV6WUHHWVFDSH
3ODQDQGWKH0D[LPXP%XLOGLQJ
+HLJKWVGLDJUDPLQWKH&XSHUWLQR
*HQHUDO3ODQIRUGHWDLOV
0HFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWDQGXWLOLW\
VWUXFWXUHV
D5RRIWRSPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWPD\
H[FHHGKHLJKWOLPLWDWLRQVLIWKH\DUH
HQFORVHGFHQWUDOO\ORFDWHGRQWKH
URRIDQGQRWYLVLEOHIURPDGMDFHQW
VWUHHWV
E6KDOOEHVFUHHQHGIURPSXEOLFYLHZ
F6KDOOEHSURYLGHGZLWKPHDVXUHV
ZKHUHSRVVLEOHZLWKUHDVRQDEOH
HIIRUWVWREXIIHUQRLVHIURPDGMDFHQW
UHVLGHQWLDOXVHV
%)URQW6HWEDFNV
0LQLPXP6HWEDFN±IRUQHZGHYHORS
PHQWVKDOOEHIHHWIURPWKHHGJHRI
FXUE QLQH IHHWIURPWKHUHTXLUHG
%RXOHYDUG/DQGVFDSH(DVHPHQW 6HHVHF
WLRQ ' 1HZGHYHORSPHQWVKDOO
EHGHILQHGDVDWZHQW\ILYHSHUFHQW
RUJUHDWHULQFUHDVHLQIORRUDUHDRUD
RUJUHDWHUFKDQJHLQIORRUDUHDUHVXOWLQJ
IURPXVHSHUPLWRUDUFKLWHFWXUDODQGVLWH
DSSURYDOZLWKLQWZHOYH PRQWKV
3URSHUWLHVZLWKIURQWDJHH[FOXVLYHO\RQ
6RXWK'H$Q]D%RXOHYDUG QRWLQFOXGLQJ
&LW\&HQWHUQRUWK DUHQRWUHTXLUHG
WRLQVWDOO+HDUWRIWKH&LW\VWUHHWVFDSH
IHDWXUHV)RUWKHVHSURSHUWLHVWKHVHWEDFN
VKDOOEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH6RXWK'H
$Q]D%RXOHYDUG&RQFHSWXDO3ODQ6HHWKH
QRWHLQWKHODQGXVHPDSIRUWKH6RXWK'H
$Q]D%RXOHYDUG&RQFHSWXDO3ODQ$UHD
HOUSINGELEMENT
CONFORMANCE
CHANGE
CONFORMANCE
WITHDRAFTGP
1339
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORREAVENUE •CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT 1 N Q 408)777-3308• FAX(408}777-3333
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No.1 Agenda Date: September 9,2014
Application:GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013-03)
Applicant:City o.f.Cupertino
Property Location:City-wide
SUBJECT
Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project.
IZECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Comrnission receive this report andcommentson the Final
EIR. The Final EIR consists of the Response to Comments (RTC) Document, published in
August 2014(Attachment 1), and the Draft EIR published in June 2014 (Attachment 2).
This is a study session andnoaction is required at this time.
DISCUSSION
Background.
On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to evaluate reple.nishing citywide office,
commercial, and hoteldevelopment allocation. During the same time frame, several property
owners, including some owners within the Vallco Shopping District, approached the City about
poten#ial General Plan amendments to allowfuture development of their properties. In order to
comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, in early 2013, the City Council
directed staff to combine these individual requests into one comprehensive General Plan
Amendment.
In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated a process to update the State-mandated
Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of
the GeneralPlan, identifies appropriate locations and policies forfuture housing in Cupertino.
1340
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 2
The City Council decided tocombine the Housing Element Update process with the General
Plan Amendment process so the City and co.mmunity could fully evaluate and discuss mobility,
urban design, economic development, and housingoptions in one comprehensiveoutreach and
planning process.
The General Plan Amendment process has involved extensive community discussionsand
input provided during several public meetings, workshops, study sessions, and through online
comment forms and surveys. The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design,
mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City's 2000-
2020 General Plan.
Environmental Impact Re ort
The California Environrnental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and localgovernments
consider the phys.ical changes that result asa consequence of projects over which they have
discretionary authority. A Final EIR f.or the Project has been prepared in acco.rdance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Qual.ity Act (CEQA). The purpose of theEIR is
not to recommend approvalor denial of a project but to provide information to be used in the
planning and decision-making process. CEQA requires decision makersto balance the benefits
of a proposedproject against the environmental effects, along with other factors.
The EIR for the proposed Projectevaluates three land use alternatives (Alternative A, B and C)
for a focused GeneralPlan Amendment. Proposed alternatives consist of options for city-wide
development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights
anddensities forMajor Mixed-Use Special Areas, seven Study Areas, and Other Special Areas.
The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the General Plan goals, policies and
strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 GeneralPlan adopted
by the City Council on November 15, 2005.
CEQA Project
Alternative C includes the maximum development intensity considered; therefore, for purposes
of studying the significantenvironmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Housing Element Update, Alternative C is the proposed Project for purposes of the EIR. In
this Alternative, the new growth for the 2040 horizon year studied is 4,040,231 square feet of
office space, 1,343,679 square feet of commercial space, 1,339 hotel rooms, and 4,421 residential
units. T'he proposed Project could result in up to 12,9981 new residents and 16,855 new jobs.z
Population is calculated by multiplying the number of residential units times 2.94 persons per household,which is
the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate.
z Jobs are calculated applying the City's generation rates as follows;
C4040231.sq. ft. 1 ( 1343679 sq.ft. 1 ( 1.339 rooms
300 sq.ft./employee)+\450sq.ft./employeeJ+\0.3 employeeJroom `
13,467+2,986+402=16,855Jobs
1341
GeneralPlan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 3
Under the proposed Project, the total 2040 build.out (existing conditio.ns p.lus proposed Project)
would be as follows:
Office: 12,970,005 square feet
Commercial: 5,073,248 square feet
Hotel: 2,429 rooms
Reside.ntial: 25,820 units
Population: 71,300
jobs:44,242
Table 1 provides a summary of the total developmentallocation projections in Alternative C.
TABLE 1 ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED PROJECT) SUMMARY—ALL PROJECT
COMPONENTSDEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS
Remaining Proposed
Allocation Project Difference
SpecialAreas including Gateways/Nodes along major transportation corridors,Study
Areas and Housing Element Sitesa
Office 17,113 sf 3,290,000 sf 3,272,887 sf
Cornmercial 695,629 sf 1,250,000 sf 554,371 sf
Hotel 339 room 1,339 rooms 1,000 rooms
Residential 1,416 units 3,900 units 2,84 units
Other Special Areas inclnding Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special
Areas and Housing Element Sitesb
Office 523,118 sf 750,231 sf 227,113 sf
Commercial 5,784 sf 93,679 sf 87,895 sf
Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms
Residential 479 units 521 units 42 units
Total
Built/
AP roved
f..fice 8,929,774 sf. 540,231. sf 4,040,231 sf 3,500,000 sf
Commercial 3,729,569 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf 642,266 sf
Hotel 1,090 rooms 339 rooms 1,339 rooms 1,000 rooms
Residential 21,399 units 1,895 units 4,421 units 2,526 units
Note:sf=square feet
a. Includes Homestead,North Vallco Park,Heart of the City,North De Anza,and South De Anza
MajorMixed-Use Special Areas.
b. Includes Bubb Road Mixed-Use Special Area,Monta Vista Village,OtherCommercial/Mixed-Use
Special Areas,Othe.r Neighborhoods,Major Employers Catego.ry,and Housing Element Sites.
c. Net new commercial is not proposed.This number assumes that the existingVallco Shopping Mall
square footage(1,267,601.s will be demolished and will go back into the City-wide camrnercial
allocation pool.A total of 625,335 sf would be reserved for a future projectin the Vallco district.
Source:City of Cupertino,2014.
1342
GeneralPlan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 4
The EIR al.so studies an update to the Gene.ral Plan's Housing El.ement to accommodate the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 planning period and meet the
City's fair-share housing obligationof 1,064 units. As part of this process, the following zoning
amendments would be made:
Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) will be arnended to be consistent with the 2007-2014
Housing Element Pr.ogram 12 (Density Bo.nus Program);
Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential
Zones), Chapter 19.76 (Public Building(BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ) and Transportation
T) Zones), and Chapter 19.92 (Park andRecreation Zones) will be amendedto ensure
conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining to the permanent emergency shelters;
Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential
Zones) will also be amended to be consistent with the State Employee HousingAct with
respect to farmworker housing and employee housing.
Changes proposed to the GeneralPlan Land Use Map, Zoning text and Zoning map are
proposed to achieve internal consistency as a result of changes to the following:
Housing Elementpoliciesthat are (1) required by State Law or (2) adopted by the City
Council as a result the Project,
Changes toGeneral Plan Policy to address changes requ.ired as a result of recently adopted
State Law (such as Assembly Bi111358, Complete Streets)
As a result of bringing non-conforming land use into conformance with theGeneral Plan
and Zoning Ordinance or for formatting or reorganizing the text.
Alternatives
In addition to the CEQA-required No Project alternative, the EIR also includes an analysis of
two land use alternatives to the Proposed Project described abnve. These alternatives analyze
the significantenvironmental impacts for lesser. developmentintensities than theProposed
Project.
The No Project alternative envisions no change to the current General Planandno changes
to the remaining development alloc tion. No changes to the residentialdensity would be
allowed on any property.
In Alternative A, the proposed development intensity includes an increase in the office and
hotel allocations but no increase in residentialallocation. No increase in commercial
allocation is proposed inAlternative A. In Alternative A, it is expected that some portionsof
the VallcoShopping Mall may be re-tenantedor re-purposed. Inaddition, no maximum
height increases are proposed under this Alternative. Residential density would be
increased in the South De Anza Specific Plan area (south of Highway 85.)
In Alternative B, increases in office, hotel and residential development allocations are
proposed more than those studied in Alternative A. It is expected that the existingVallco
1343
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,andassociated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 5
Shopping Mall would be demolished and returned to the commercial allocation pool. No
increase in cornmercial allocation is proposed in this alternative. Under this Alternative, the
proposed maximum height limits are less than those of the proposed Project. Residential
density would be increased in certain areas of the City but to densities less than those
proposed in the Project.
The proposed development intensity in the alternatives to the proposed Project are presented in
Table 2 below.
TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON SUMMARY BY PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT
ALLOCATIONS
Proposed Project No Land Use Land Use
Category Alternative C) Projecta Alternative A Alternative B
Office 4,040,231 sf 54U,231 sf 1,040,231 sf 2,540,231 sf
Commercial 1,343,679 sf 701,413 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf
Hotel 1,339 rooms 339 rooms 600 rooms 839 rooms
Residential 4,421 units 1,895 units 1,895 units 3,316 units
Populationh 12,998 5,571 5,571 9,749
Jobs 16,855 3,461d 5,206 11,705f
Notes:sf—square feet __
a.No Projectrepresents remaining development allocation under the existing 2000-2020 General Plan.
b.Population iscalculated by multiplying the number of residential units studied in each alternative by 2.94
persons perhousehold,which is the ABAG 20 0 estimated generation rate.
c.Jobs are calculated.applying the City's employeegeneration ra#es for each.category as follows;
C4040231 sq.ft. 1 ( 1343679 sq.ft. 1 r 1339 rooms
300 sq.ft./employee/+\450 sq.ft./employeeJ+\0.3 employee/room —
13,467+2,986+402=16,855 Jobs
d.Jobs are calculated applying khe City's employeegeneration rates.for each category as follows;
C540231 sc.ft. 1 ( 701413 sq.ft. 1 ( 339 rooms
300 sq.ft./employeeJ+\450 sq.ft./employee/+\0.3 employee/room —
1 8 1+1,559+101=3,461 Jobs
e.Jobs are calculated appl.ying the City's employee generation xates for each category as follows;
C1040231 sq.ft. 1 ( 701413 sc.ft. 1 ( 600 rooms
300 sq.ft./employee/+\450 sq.ft./employeeJ+\0.3 ernployee/room —
3,467+1,559+180=5,206 Jobs
f.Jobs are calculated applying the City's employeegeneration rates for each category as follows;
C2540231 sq.ft. 1 ( 1343670sq.ft. 1 ( 839 rooms 1
300 sq.ft./employee/+\450 sq.ft./employee/+\0.3 employee/roomJ—
g'467+2,986+252=11,705 aobs
Source:City ofCupertino,2014.
Pro ram EIR
As described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, program EIRs are appropriate when a
project consists of a series of actions relatedto the issuance of rules, regulations, and other
plan.ning criteria. In this case, this proposed Project consists of long-te.rm pla.ns that will be
implemented over time as policy documents guiding future developm.ent activities and City
1344
GeneralPlan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 6
actions. No specific development pr.ojects are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this EIR
is a progra.m-level EIR that analyzesthe potential sig.nif.icant environme.ntal effects of adoption
of the proposed Projeet.
As a program EIR, the EIR prepared is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of
individual projects thatmay be proposed under the GeneralPlan. However, if future, proposed
activities are within scope of the effects examined in the program EIR, then additional
environmentalreview rnay not be required for those future projects. (See CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168[c] and CEQA streamlining provisions.)
If a subsequent activity,which is not exempt from CEQA,would have effects that are not within
the scope of the program EIR, then the City will prepare an environmental checklist or Initial
Study to determine what form ofenvironmental review is required by CEQA, which could be a
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or. a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or.
an Addendum, to secure the necessary development permits. For these subsequent
environmental review documents, thisProgram EIR wi11 serve as the first-tier. environmental
analysis. The program EIR can also serve to streamline future environmental review of
subsequent projects. Therefore, while subsequent environmentalreview may be tiered from this
EIR, this EIR is not intended to address project-specific impacts of individual projects.
The growth and developmentstudied under the proposed Project would be gradual over the
26-year buildout horizonof theGeneral Plan. Therefore, while the impacts identified as a result
of implementation of the proposed Project may be significant and unavoidable in the
cumulative scenario (2040), even if noaction is taken or no additional growth is contemplated,
regional growth, growth permitted under the provisions of the current 2000-2020 GeneralPlan,
and theassociated environmental effects linked to this growth, would continue to occur
resulting in sigr ificant and u.navoidable impacts. Future growth under all of the land use
altematives studied in this program EIR would occur incre.mentally over approximately 26
years a.nd wou.ld be guided by a policyframework that is generally consistent with many of the
principal goals and objectivesestablished in regional planning initiatives Ior the Bay Area,
which concentrates new development within infill sites and near major transportationcorridors.
The EIR created as a result of reviewunder CEQA must disclose the significant environmental
impacts of the project and,in addition, identify the following:
Significant cumulative impacts of the project in combination with past, presentand
reasonably foreseeable f.uture projects;
Mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce these effects;
Significant impacts that cannot be avoided;
Growth-inducing impacts;and
Effects found not to be significant.
Prior to approving the proposed Project, the Planning Commission must decide whether to
recommendthat the City Council certify that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with
1345
GeneralPlan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 7
CEQAand whethe.r to recommend that the City Council approve the GeneralPlan Amendment,
Housing Element Update, and associated Rezo.ning. The Commissi.on's recommendations will
be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Since this is a study session, an action is not
required at this time.
The City Council will review the Final EIR for adequacy and will exercise its independent
judgment regardingcertification. If the Council certifies the Final EIR, it will then consider
whether to approve theGeneral Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated
Rezoning. As part of this approval, findings on the feasibility of reducing or avoiding
significantenvironmental effects will be made, including a Statement of Overriding
Considerationsbalancing the benefits of the project against is unavoidable environntental risks.
EIR Process and PublicOutreach
The EIRprocess started with the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the
proposed Project to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Cl.earinghouse, interested
agencies and persons on March 5, 2014 for a 30-day review period. A public Scoping Meeting
was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. atthe Cupertino Community Hall. The NOP
and scoping process solicited comments from responsible and trustee agencies, as well as
interestedparties regarding the scope of the Draft EIR. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation
Comment Letters, of the Draft EIR containsthe NOP as well as the commentsreceived by the
City in response to the NOP. The City also established a website for the Project in early 2013
where all project-related documents including the Draft EIR and commentson the Project and
the EIR were posted for public review.
Following the preparation of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Availability (NOA) wasissued to the
OPR State Clearinghouse, interested agencies and persons, as well as the Santa Clara County
C1erk-Recor.der for a .45-day review period f.rom Wednesday, June 18, 2014 throughFriday,
August 1, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for review to interestedparties at:
10 public libraries in Cupertino and the surrounding area,
Cupertino City Hall at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, and
Project's website at:http://www.cu.ertino a.or/
Postcards were mailed to all postal customers in the City of Cupertino and a notice was also
published in the Cupertino Courier. A public meeting was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at
5:00 p.m. at the Cupertino Community Hall to receivecomrnents on the adequacy of the Draft
EIR. The public was encouraged to provide writteninput regarding the adequacy of the Draft
EIR.
Several comrnent letters were received during the 45-day review period of the Draft EIR.
Responses to the written commentsreceived during that period regarding theadequacy of the
Draft EIR have been prepared and compiled in the RTC document along with minor text
revisions, corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. The RTC document together with the
Dra.ft EIR is co.nsidered to be the Final EIR for the proposed Project.
1346
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 8
The RTC document was posted on the Project website on August 29, 2014. T'he NOA for the
Fina1 EIR has been made available at the City Hall, sent to 10 local libraries and to the agencies
that commented on the Draft EIR.A notice was also published in the CupertinoCourier and an
email was sent to all interested persons who had signed up through the website.
Ke gnificance Findin;s And Mitigations
Revised. Table 2-2, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the RTC docurnent,
along with Table 2-2 of. the Draft EIR summarize all significant Project .impacts and mitigation.
measures. The list of mitigation measures does not include existing requirements (such as
compliance with mandatory regulation (e.g. General Plan policies, zoningregulations) that are
routinely applied to newdevelopment.Thisstaff report highlights key findings only.
The EIR has identifiedmitigation measures for all significant impacts. However, even with
mitigation, some significant impacts would remain significant and have been determined to be
significant and unavoidable. In some cases, the significant impacts have been determined to be
significant and unavoidable because the mitigation measures requireapproval from a public
agency other than the City of Cupertino (e.g. the Cityof Santa Clara, Caltrans, etc.) and are not
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. If approval is not granted by that agency
forimplementation of the mitigation measure, the significant impact would remain and would,
ther.efore, be considered significant and unavoidable. In other cases, a significant impact is
unavoidable because the significant impact would not be fully mitigated even though.
mitigation measures have been identified to minimize/reducethe impact. A detailed discussion
of the significantenvironmental impacts of the Proposed Project, as well as significant and
unavoidable impacts, and mitigaHon measures and alternatives identified to lessen or avoid
these impactswhere feasible is provided in the Draft EIR(Attachment 2).
This section highlights key findings for cumulative impacts of the development proposed.
Details are provided in theEIR.
1. Aesthetics
The land use or intensity changes proposed under the Project do not represent a substantial
reimagining of the character of the Project Componen# lacations including those within the I-
280 viewshed. This is primarily because the existing conditions at these locations are largely
urbanized and built out. The potential future development under the proposed Project would
primarily involve gradual changes in development intensity similar to existing buildings, albeit
with increased building heightpotential in limited locations. New and/or intensified uses as a
result of the proposed Project would be dispersed within theProject Component locationsand
would occur gradually throughout the 26-year buildout horizon of the General Plan. The
General Plan policies are an integral, inseparable component of the proposed Project, and
amended policies under the proposed Project would not cause adverse physical changes that
could create aesthetic i.mpacts in Cupertino. Individual d.evelopments would continue to be
subject to General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions.
1347
GeneralPlan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 9
Additionally, the increases in heights are proposed in Planned Development areas where
individual projects would also be subject to the Architectural and Site Review process as well as
the Design Standards outlinedin the Heart of the City SpecificPlan, the South Vallco Specific
Plan, and other applicableConceptual Plans to ensure that the development is aesthetically
pleasing and compatible with adjoining land uses with appropriate setbacks. With the
development review mechanisms in place, approved future development under the proposed
Project is not anticipatedto create substantial impacts to visual resources. Moreover, certain
policy changes would serve to reduce aesthetic impacts from new and existing developments.
Therefore, theGeneral Plan policy amendments under the proposed Project were determined to
result in less-than-significant irnpacts to aesthetics.
2. Air Quality
Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to air quality irnpacts.
The proposed Project would support the prirnary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan;
however, the buildout of the proposed Project would conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) Bay Area Clean Air Plan goal for ommunity-wide vehicles
miles traveled (VMT) to increase at a slower rate compared to population and employrnent
growth. The rate of growth in VMT would exceed the rate of population and employment
growth, resulting in a substantial increase in regional criteria air pollutant emissi.ons in
Cupertino. ThePlan Bay Area aims to improve transportation efficiency and .reduce regional
infrastructure costs in the region. Policiesand development standards in the proposed Project
would facilitate continued City participation/cooperation with BAAQMD and the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to achieve regional air quality improvement goals,
prornote energyconservation designand development techniques, encourage alternative
transportation modes, and implement transportation demand management strategies.
In addition, future projects under the proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions
during operation and construction phases that could exceed BAAQMD's significance criteria.
a. Operational Emissions:
Future development under the proposed Project would result in a substantial long-term
increase in criteria air. pollutants over the 26-year Gen.e.ral Plan horizon. Criteria air pollutant
emissions would. be generated from on-site area sources (e.g. fuel used for landscaping
equipment, consumer produ.cts), vehi.cle trips generated by the Project, and energy use (e.g.
natural gas used for cooking and heating). While the General Plan includespolicies and
strategies that once adopted would reduce operational emissions from development under the
proposed Project to the maximum extent practicable, there are no additional measures available
to mitigate this impact due to the level of growth forecast in the city.
In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-4a, for new sources ofToxic Air Contaminants (TACs),
would also reduce criteria air pollutants associated with light industrial land uses within the
1348
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 10
city. Operational emissions from future development would be determined during project-level
CEQA review for futuxe projects. The total cr.iteria air pollutant emissions from operation of
future development projects under the proposed Project would be substantial and would
contribute to increases in concentrations of air pollutants, which couldcontribute to ongoing
violationsof air quality standards. Therefore, the impact would be significant andunavoidable.
b. Construction Emissions:
Futureconstruction emissions associated with individual development projects under the
proposed Project would generate an inerease in criteriaair pollutants and TACs. Existing
federal, State, and local regulations, and policiesand strategies of the proposed Project
described in the Draft EIR, protect localand regional air quality. Continued compliance with
these regulations and implementation of General Plan policies and strategies, would reduce
construction-related impacts to the extent feasible. However, if.uncontrolled, fugitive dust(PM o
and PMzs) levels downwind of activelydisturbed areas during construction or overlapping
construction activitiescould violate air quality standards or contributesubstantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation and expose sensitive receptors to elevated
concentrations of pollutants during constructionactivities.
While Mitigation Measure AQ-2a would require adherence to the current Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM o, and
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b would require adherence to BAAQMD's basic control measures for
fugitive dust control and would ensure impacts from fugitive dust generated during
construction activities are less than significant, applicants for future development in Cupertino
could generate construction exhaust emissions in excess of the BAAQMD significance
thresholds. An analysis of emissions generated from the construction of specific future projects
under the Genera]. Plan would be required toevaluate emissions compared to BAAQMD's
project-level significance threshol.ds during individual envi.r.onmental review.
It should be notedthat the identificatio.n of these program-level impact does not preclude the
finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequentprojects that comply with BAAQMD
screening criteria or meet applicable thresholds of significance. However, due to the dueto the
level of growth forecast in the city and the programmatic nature oF the proposed Project, no
additionalrnitigation measures are available and air quality impacts are considered significant
and unavoidable.
3. Cultural Resources
There are 22 recorded cultural resources within the City of Cupertino and its Sphere of
Influence (SOI} that are documentedon the California Office ofHistoric Preservation's (OHP)
recording forms. As of March 2011, there were 13 properties listed in the OHP's Directory of
Historic Properties. Additionally, the City has identified 37 locally important cultural resources
in the current General Plan. Although, most of the 37 sites have not been evaluated forlisting
on the National Register or State Register, they are still recognized as sites to be protected under
1349
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 11
thecu.rrent Gen.eralPlan. The properties considered Iocally important are unique to the lists
wherethey appear, which include Commemo.rative Sites, Community Landmarks, and Sites of
Historic Mention. T'he sites of HistoricMention are sites outside of the City's jurisdiction, but
still recognized as locallyimportant to Cupertino. As part of the GeneralPlan Amendment, the
Seven Springs Ranch, built in 1866 andlocated at 11801 Dorothy Anne Way in Cupertino, and
listed onthe Office of Historic Preservation Directory Listings, would be added to the City's list
of Historically Significant Resources. This sitehas been nominated for inclusion in the National
Register; however, it is not currently listed in either the National Register of Historic Places or
the California Register of Historical Resources.
As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, several of the identified historical resources are
within the boundaries of some Project Componentlocations. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Project could have the potential to directly impact cultural resources, by increasing
commercial, office, hotel, and residential development allocations and providing for potential
new develnp.ment. However, theGeneral Plan includespolicies and strategies that, once
adopted, would minimize potential impacts to historic resources. Implementation of these
General Plan policies and strategies, as well as compliance with federal and State laws, would
ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property with cultural
resources or improvements in the vicinity of property with cultural resources, and impacts were
found to be less than signi cant.
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As explained in Chapter 4.6 of the EIR, the effects of greenhouse gas emissionson global climate
change are evaluated on a cumulative basis, because no single project is large enough to result
in a measurable increase in global concentrations of greenhouse gases. The EIR uses the
methodology recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for evaluatng
the impacts of plan-level projects like the General Plan Amendment and Housing Elernent
Update.
TheGeneral Plan includes polices and strategies that encourage use of alternative modes of
transportation and focus new growth in mixed-use areas. The proposed Project is consistent
with theobjectives of Plan Bay Area for growth within the Priority Development Areas (PDAs).
Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the r.egional Sustainable Communities Plan -
Plan Bay Area.
In addition, a General Plan is a regulatory docu.ment and does not directly result in
development without further approvals. Any development in the city is required to be analyzed
for conformance with theGeneralPlan, zoning requirements, and otherapplicable local and
state requirements; comply with the requirements ofCEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances
and permits. Cornpliance with these regulations and implementation of GeneralPlan policies
would ensure that the City is on a trajectorythat is consistent with statewide greenhouse gas
reduction goals. Accordingly,impacts were found to be less than significant.
1350
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 12
5. Noise
As a result ofimplementation of the proposed Project and ongoing regional growth, it is
anticipated that there would be substantial permanent increasesto the ambient noise levels
throughout Cupertino, and that these increases would primarily result from increases to
transportation-related noise, especially that of automobile traffic. The impact analysis found
that there would be multiple m.ajor road segments that would experience substantialpermanent
increases in ambient noise levels, including at sensitive lan.d uses.
While theGeneral Plan contains numerous policies to address excessive .roadway noiseat
existing sensitive land uses, whi+ch could in certain cases reduce or prevent significant increases
in ambient noise at sensitive land uses due to the proposed Project, the measures described in
these policies would not be necessarily be feasible in all locations or contexts. Forexample,
some of the most effective naise-attenuation measures, including sound walls andberms, are
inappropriate along streets with commercial or residential street frontage (due to financial and
aesthetic considerations, and negative impacts to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity), and
therefore would be infeasible or inappropriate in a majority of locations where sensitive land
uses already exist.
For these reasons, there is no feasible mitigation that would substantially reduce or avoid
significant increases in arnbient noise levels, because in most cases all identified mitigations
would be economically impractical, scientifically unachievable, outside the City's jurisdiction,
and/or inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives. Therefo.re, the noise impacts of the
Proposed Project would rernain significant andunavoidable impact.
6. Population and Housing
The proposed Project would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been
adequatelyplanned for orrequire the construction of replacernent housing elsewhere. Growth.
under the proposed Project would occvr incrementally over a period of approximately 26 years
and would be guided by the policy framework in the proposed Project that is generally
consistent with most of the principal goals and objectives established in regional planning
initiativesfor the Bay Area. One of the key concepts of Plan Bay Area isthe idea of focusing
future growth into transit-oriented, infill development oppartunity areas within existing
communitiesthat are expected to host the rnajority of future development. These areas are
called Priority Development Areas (PDA).
The PDAs in Cupertino are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and
the Cityof Santa Clara, and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and
the City of Sunnyvale. These coincide with the Heart of the City and North De Anza Special
Areas, portions of the Homesteadand South De Anza Special Areas, and include three S#udy
Areas and eleven poten#ial Housing Element sites.
Accor.dingly, irnplementatio.n of the proposed Project would facilitate infill growth and support
r.egional planning efforts. Growth due to the proposed Project together with cumulative growth
1351
GeneralPlan Amendment,Housing Element Update,andassociated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 13
would be consistent with regional planning efforts, and would not exceed regional growth
projections, displace substantialnumbers of people or housing, or exceed planned levels of
growth. Therefore, the impact would be less thari significant.
7. Transportation and Traffic
a. Intersection Analysis
The EIR included an analysis of forty-one (4lstudy intersectioris, all ofwhich are signalized.
Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, describes the traffic conditions that would result with
the addition of the trips generated by the development under the proposed Project on the local
roadway network, cornparedto traffic conditions with the 2040 No Project scenario. The
roadway network is assumed to be the same as under the 2040 No Project scenario.
The results of the Level of Service (LOS) analysis show that, of the forty-one (41) study
intersections, twenty-five (25) intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service
under th.e proposed P.r.oject and sixteen (16) intersections would operate at an unacceptable
levelof service during the AM peak hour (7:00 a.m. — 10:00 a.m.), the PMpeak hour (4:00 p.m.—
7:00 p.m.), or both peak hours. Eleven(11) of the sixteen(16) intersections expected to operate at
unacceptable LOS are included in Santa Clara County's Congestion ManagementProgram
CMP). Five (5) of the sixteen (16) intersections (shown with an asterisk[*]) that would operate
at an unacceptable level of service for at least one peak hour under the proposed Project were
also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service under the No Project scenario.
The following is a list of thesixteen (16) intersections that would result in a significant impact
during at least one of the peak hours:
Intersection(#) LOS Peak Hour
1. SR 85 Northbound Ramps&Stevens Creek Blvd(#2) (CMP) E AM
2. Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd (#3) (CMP) F PM
3. *Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd/De Anza Blvd &Homestead Rd(#5) (CNIl') F AM and PM
4. *De Anza Blvd &I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6) (CMP) F AM and PM
5. De Anza Blvd &I-280 Southbound Ramp (#7) (CMP) F AM and PM
6. *De Anza Blvd&Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8) (CMP) F PM
7. De Anza Blvd&McClel.lan Rd/Pacifica Dr(#9) F PM
8. Wolfe Rd&Homestead Rd(#16) F PM
9. *Wolfe Rd&I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18)(CMP) F AM
10. Wolfe Rd&I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19) (CMP) F AM and PM
11. *Stevens Creek Bl.vd&Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave(#21) (CMP) E+ AM
12. North Tantau Ave/Quail Ave&Homestead Rd(#24) E(E+) AM(PM)
13. Stevens Creek Blvd&Tantau Ave (#27) F PM
14. Agilent Tech Drive Way&Stevens Creek Blvd(#30)F AM
15. Lawrence Expy Southbou.nd Ramp &Stevens Creek Bl.vd (#31) (CMP)F AM
16. Stevens Creek Blvd&Lawrence Expy Northbound Ramp (#32) (CMP)F AM
1352
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 14
b. Freeway Segment Analysis
Ten (10) freeway segments were analyzed for impacts due to implementationof the Project. If
the existing level of service isLOS F andthe number of net new trips added by the project is
more than 1 percent of freeway capacity in that segment, there would be a significantimpact.
Under the proposed Project, one(1) of the high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane segments and the
following five(5) mixed-lane freeway segments would have significant impacts:
1. SR85 Southbound between I-280 and Stevens Creek Blvd (+2.7%).
2. I-280 Southbound betweenLawrence Exwy and Saratoga Ave(+2.2%)
3. I-280 Northbound between Saratoga Ave and Lawrence Exwy (+1.3%)
4. I-280 Northbound between Wolfe Rd and De Anza Blvd (+1.7%)
5. I-280 Northbound between De Anza Blvd and SR85 (mixed-flow lanes&HOV lane) (+1.2%)
A mitigation measure has been identified toreduce impacts at these intersecdons and freeway
segments. The mitigation measure requires the City to prepare and implement a Transportation
Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee fundingfor roadway and infrastructure improvements
that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City
standards. As part of the preparation of the Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City
shall also commit to preparing a "nexus" study toestablish nexus between the improvements
identified and the fee established. The EIR identifies examples of transportation improvements
and facilities that would reduceimpacts to acceptabie level of service standards and these,
among other improvements, includingmultimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips
and relieve congestion that could be included in the development impact fees nexus study.
SR85 Northbound Rampsand Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): An exclusive left-turri lane for
the northbound leg of the intersection (freeway off-ramp) at the intersection of SR 85 and
Stevens Creek Boulevard would result in one left-turn lane, one all-movement lane, and one
right turn lane.The additional lane could be added within the existing Caltrans right-of-way.
Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): The addition of a second exclusive left-turn
lane for the eastbound leg of the intersection from Stevens Creek Boulevard to northbound
Stelling Road, which could be accomplished by reworking the median. Right turns would
share the bike lane.
Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De AnzaBoulevard andHomestead Road (#5): Widen De Anza
Boulevazd to four lanes in each direction or the installation of triple left-turn lanes.
De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in
the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehiclesto be separated from
throughtraffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would
occur from the bike lane. The right tuxns would continue to be controlled by the signal and
would need to yield to pedestrians.
De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): Restripe westbound Stevens Creek
Boulevard to provide room for right tum vehicles to be separated from through vehicles may
1353
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 15
be required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and will still be controlledby the
traffic signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a placeto wait at red
lights.The pedestrian crossings will not be affected may enhance the bicycling experience.
De AnzaBoulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): Realign the intersection that is
currently offset resulting ininefficient signal timing such that the McClellan Road and
Pacifica Drive legsare across from each othermay be required. In addition, double leftturn
lanes may be required to be addedto De AnzaBoulevard with sections of double lanes on
McClellan Road and Pacifica Drive to receivethe double left turn lanes. These improvements
will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolitionof existing commercial buildings.
However, some existing right-of-way could be abandoned, which would reduce the net
right-of-way take.
Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16): The addition of a third southbound through lane to
the southbound approach of the intersection of Wolfe Road andHomestead Road may be
required, as well as the addition of a southbound exclusive right-tum lane. Three
southbound receiving lanes on the south side of the intersection currently exist. An
additional westbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an
additional receiving lane on Homestead westbound to receive the additional through lane, as
well as the addition of a westbound exclusive right-turn lane may be required. This will
require widening Homestead Road. An additional eastbound through lane for a total of three
through-movement lanes, an additional receiving laneon Homestead eastbound to receive
the additionalthrough lane, as well as the addition of an eastbound exclusive left-turn lane
for a total of two left-turn lanes may be required. These improvements will require the
acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of parking areas.
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18):The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a
third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need
to be extended farther southto effectively serve the additional northbound traffic dueto the
General Plan development. This could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. Right-
of-way acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study
Report (PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement
options, which may include widening the overcrossing and may include redesign of the
interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This couldhelp with
heavy volumes in the right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp {#19): An additional through lane for a total of
three through-movement lanes for the northbound leg of the intersection at the Wolfe Road
and I-280 Southbound Ramp may be required. This additional northbound through lane
would require widening to the freeway overcrossing. In addition to widening the
overcrossing, the City may wish to pursue a redesign of theinterchange to go from a partial
cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with the problem of heavy volume in
the right lane, which contributes to the Ievel of service deficiency.
Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#21): The restripingof the
westbound leg of the intersectionto provide room so that right turn vehicles canbe
1354
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 16
separated from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike
lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings
would not be affected. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait
atred Iightsmay enhance the bicycling experience.
North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue andHomestead Road (#24): Restriping of the
southbound leg of the intersection(Quail Avenue) to provide a separate left tum lane may be
required. This will require the removal of on-street parking near the intersection. The level-
of-service calculationsshow that with implementation of these improvements, the
intersection would operate at an acceptableLOS D.
Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2: The addition of a separate left-turn lane
to northbound Tantau Avenue may be required. Right-of-way acquisition and demolitionof
existing commercial buildings would be required.
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30): The restriping of the
westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that righttum vehicles can be
separated from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike
lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings
would not be affected.Paint a bike box atthe front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait
at red lights may enhancethe bicycling experience.
Lawrence Expressway Southbound Rampand Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMI', County)
31): The addition of a second right-turn lane for the southbound leg of the intersection at
the Lawrence Expressway Southbound Rampand Stevens Creek Boulevard may be required.
Both lanes would need to be controlled by the signal, and disallow right tums on red. Right-
of-way acquisition may be required.
LawrenceExpressway Northbound Rampand Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County)
32): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway
Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one through-movement lane,
and one exclusive right-turn lane may be required. Right-of-way acquisition would be
required.
The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an
existing building, or the conversion of existing square footageto a moreintensive use. The fees
collected shall be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The
City shall use the transportation mitigation fees to fund construction (or torecoup fees
advancedto fund construction) of the transportationimprovements identified above, among
otherthings that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate
transportation impacts.
While implementation of Mitigation MeasureTRAF-1 would secure a funding mechanism for
future roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from
future projects based on then current standards, impacts would remain signiftcant and
unavoidable, because the City cannot guarantee improvements at these intersections at this time.
1355
GeneralPlan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 17
The exact type and timing of requiredtransportation improvements are pending the timing and
phasing of future development projects in Cupertino.
8. Utilities and ServiceSystems
a. Water Su lv
A Water SupplyEvaluation prepared for the proposed Project on May 20, 2014 concluded that
there would be adequate water within the water utility service areas of Cal Water and San Jose
Water Company for the proposedproject during a single-dry year and multiple-dry years with
theproposedand existing water canservation regulations and measures in place. Thus, water
supply impactswere found to be less than significant.
b. VYastewater Treatment
While the current General Plan recognizes existing system deficiencies in both the Cupertino
Sanitary District (CSD) and City of Sunnyvale wastewater service areas and includes policies to
address this issue, potential future development under the proposed Project would exceed the
currentcontractually available treatment capacity at San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP) by 0.85 million gallonsper day. Mitigallon Measures UTIL-6a
through UTIL-6bhave been identified to ensure that CSD has adequate capacity to serve the
Project's projected demand inaddition to the provider's existingcommitments. Implementation
of these mitigation measures requires the City to work with the CSD to increase the available
citywide treatment and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser
threshold if studies justifying reduced wastewatergeneration rates are completed and accepted.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, wastewater treatrnent impacts were found
to be less than significant.
c. Solid Waste
Anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-than-significant impact on the
achievement of the City's targetdisposal rates, and the City would continue its current
recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies. Nevertheless, the 2023 termination of the
agreement between the Newby Island Landfill facility, as well as the facility's estimated closure
date in 2025 would result in insufficient solid waste disposal capacity at buildout of the
proposed Project. Implernentation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, which requires the City to
continueits current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies in an effort to further increase
its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate, monitor solid waste generation volumes
in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that sufficient capacity existsto
accommodate future growth, and seek new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby
Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed, would result in less-than-significant
impactsto solid waste disposal capacity.
d. Ener
Future new development would be constructed using energy efficientmodern building
materials and construction practices, use newmodern appliances and equipment, and would
comply with the current CALGreen Building Code, which requires the use of recycled
1356
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 18
construction materials, environmentally sustainable building materials, building designs that
reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to
conventionally built structures, and landscaping that incorporates water efficient irrigation
systems. In addition, there are several General Plan policies and strategies that once adopted
would ensure energy conservation is practiced in Cupertino. Buildout of the proposed Project
would notsignificantly increase energy demands in the context of the 70,000-square-mile PG&E
service territory for electricity and natural gas generation, transmission and distribution. As a
result, new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure, or capacity-enhancing
alterationsto existingfacilities, would not be required and impacts would be less than significant.
Pro ect Alternatives
In addition to the proposed Project, the Draft EIR evaluated three Project alternatives, including
the CEQA-mandated No Project Alternative as previously discussed. The alternatives were
intended to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project while avoiding or lessening
any of the significant effects of theProject. Each of the Alternatives was analyzed at the same
level of detail, independent of the proposed Project. Recommended mitigation measures in the
EIR would apply to all alternatives. Furthermore, compliance with mandatory federal, State and
local regulations, including both existing and proposed General Plan policies, designedto
reduce environmental impacts would also apply to allfuture development in Cupertino.
The Table 3 shows a comparison of impacts from the Project Alternatives in each of the areas of
study in the EIR. Within eacharea of study, specific impacts have been studied. Even if one
impact has been identified as significant and unavoidable, Table 3 identifies the impact in this
entire area of study as significant and unavoidable.
TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS FROM PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Project No Land Use Land Use
T P..i._.________....._._..._..........__.... Alternative C) Proj.ect_._.._..Alternative_A___Alternadve B_
Aesthetics LT5 LTS LTS LTS
Air Quality SU SU SU SU
Biological Resources LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Cultural Resources LTS LTS LT5 LTS
Geology,Soils,And Mineral Resources LTS I.TS LTS LTS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS LTS L'I5 LTS
Hazards And Hazardous Materials LT5/M LT5/M LTS/M LTS/M
Hydrology And Water Quality LT5 LT5 LTS LTS
Land Use And Planning LTS LTS LTS LTS
Noise SU SU SU SU
Population And Housing LTS LTS LT5 LTS
Public Services And Recreation LTS LTS LT5 LTS
Transportation And Traffic SU SU SU SU
Utilities And Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
SNoteSU=Significant and Unavoidable,LTS=Less Than Sigiuficant,LTS/M Less Than Si 'ficant with mih at on
1357
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 19
A comparison table of the specific impacts within each area of study is provided in Attachment
2(Draft EIR Volume II Chapter 5.0 Page 5.7—5.15.)
Table 5.3 in the Draft EIR indicates thatfuture development under Land Use Alternative B
would result in a less-than-significant conclusion under Impact AQ-1 (Air Quality), whereas
under the other three alternatives were found to be significant and unavoidable. This is because
development anticipated under Land Use Alternative B would be consistent with the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan based on the
outcome of thevehicles milestraveled (VM'I analysis 3 The VMT estimates in the VTA model
are sensitive to changes in land use. Generally, land uses that reflect a more balanced jobs-
housing ratio in the VTA model result in lower per capita VMT. The BAAQMD's 2010 Bay Area
Clean Air Plan requires that the VMT increase be less than or equaltothe projected population
increase and of the proposed Project.
The analysis indicates that dailyVMT in the Project Study Area would increase at a slower rate
22.3 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study
Area (25.0 percent). Whereas in the ProposedProject, the No Project Alternative, and in
Alternative B, daily VMTwould increase at a slightly greaterrate between 2013 and 2040 than
would the service populaHon of the Project Study Area.
The potential impacts of future development under the No Project Alternative would be
substantially less than the proposed Project (Alternative C) followed by Alternative A and then
Alternative B. This is because AltemativesA and B would reduce development allocations,
population and jobs when compared to the ProposedProject, which would reduce consumption
of non-renewable resources, production of wasteand pollutants, and decreasing the demand
for public facilities and infrastructure compared to the ProposedProject in proportion to the
reduction in development proposed forAlternative A and Alternative B. However, the Draft
EIR indicates that Significant and Unavoidable Impacts would occur even under the No Project
Alternative with the growth assumptions in the runent 2000-2020 General Plan.
The EIR identifies Land Use Alternative A as the environmentally superioraltemative,+because
less development would occur compared to both the proposed Project and Land Use
Alternative B. Under Land Use Alternative A, no new office, commercial space or residential
units would be permitted beyond what is approved in the current GeneralPlan. Therefore,
Altemative A is considered the environmentally superioralternative. Subsequently, less
development would result in the reduction of the consumption of renewable and nonrenewable
resources, and would place fewer demandson public service providers which could require
new facilities, requirefewer road, sewer, water, and energy infrastructure improvements, and
generate less waste.
3 The vehicles miles traveled(VMT)refers to Cupertino trips multiplied by the trip distances.See Section 4.13.4.9
in Chapter 4.13,Transportation and Traffic,of this Draft EIR.
CEQA requires that an altemative otherthan the No Project Alternative be identified as the environmentally
superior alternative. CEQAGuidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2).
1358
General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014
Page 20
Res onse to Comments andTextRevisions
Six comment letters were received from public agencies and 19 comment letters were received
from members of thegeneral public during the 45-day review period of the Draft EIR. A
majority of thecomments were either in support of or opposition to the Project or concemed the
merits of the Project itself, and did not address a significantenvironmental issue implicating the
adequacy of the EIR. Comments received included commentson traffic, aestheHcs and the
impacts on utilities and public services (sanitary/sewer facilities and schools.)
All comments received during the public review period and that raised a significant
environmental issue have been addressed in the RTC document. Text revisions to clarify text in
the Draft EIR andupdates in response tocomments have also been made. The revisions do not
affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. The RTC
document and the Draft EIR together are considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed
Project.Because no neworsubstantially more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation
measures or alternatives that would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project were
identified after circulationof the Draft EIIZ, recirculation of the EIR is not required.
Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period. While CEQA dces
not require that the City respondto the commentsreceived after the close of the public review
period, staff will continue to provide responses to these comments. As of August 31, 2014, two
comment letters were received. The comment lettersreceived after the close of the comment
period did not concern newor substantially more severe significant impacts, mitigation
measures, or projectalternatives, or change the findingsof the Draft EIR(see Attachment 3.)
Next Ste s
Staff will present the Final EIR to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for review and
recommendation on October 2, 2014. The Final EIR and General Plan Amendment, Housing
Element Update, and associated RezoningProject will be presented to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation on October 14,2014. The City Council's review on
the certification of the EIR, GeneralPlan Amendment, Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element, and
associated rezoning is expected to be on November 3, 2014.
Pre ar_e_Piu Ghosh,Senior Planner
Reviewed bv: Gary Chao,Assistant Directorof Community Development
Avvroved for Submission bv: Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1 -General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Response to
Comments Document,August 29, 2014
2-General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Draft
Environmental Impact Report,june 18, 2014
3—Late Comments Memo from P1aceWorks dated Sept. 4,2014
1359
PAPER COPIESOF ATTACHMENTS 1 &2 WERE DELIVERED ON JUNE 18,2014 AND
AUGUST 29,2014 RESPECTIVELY.
THESE ARE ALSO AVAILABLEONLINEAT:
www.cu ertinogpa_org and www.cu ertino.or/records.
ATTACHMENT 1:
Response To Comments (RTC)Document: Click here.
Appendix A To RTC Document Click here.
ATTACHMENT 2:
Draft EIR Volume I: Click here.
Draft EIR Volume II:Click here.
Draft EIR Appendices: Click here.
1360
CITYCOUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 7, 2014
Application: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01, Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013-
03); Applicant: City of Cupertino; Property Location: City-wide
Subject
Study Session on the Final EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report and comments on the Final EIR. The
Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR published in June 2014 (Attachment A), the Response to
Comments (RTC) Document, published in August 2014 (Attachment B), and the Erratamemo
No. 1 (Attachment C).
This is a study session and no action is required at this time.
Background
On August 21, 2012, the City Council directedstaff to evaluate replenishing citywide office,
commercial, andhotel development allocation. During the same time frame, several property
owners, including some owners within the Vallco Shopping District, approachedthe City about
potential General Plan amendments to allow future development of their properties. In order to
comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, in early 2013, the City Council
directedstaff to combine these individual requests into one comprehensive General Plan
Amendment.
In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated a process to update the State-mandated
Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of
the General Plan, identifies appropriate locations and policies for future housing in Cupertino.
The City Council decided to combinethe Housing Element Update process with the General
Plan Amendment process so the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss mobility,
urban design, economic development, andhousingoptions in one comprehensiveoutreach and
planning process.
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
91361
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014
Page 2
The General Plan Amendment process has involved extensive community discussions and
input provided during several public meetings, workshops, study sessions, and through online
comment formsand surveys. The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design,
mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-
2020 General Plan.
EnvironmentalImpact Report
The California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments
considerthe physical changes that result as aconsequence of projects over which they have
discretionary authority. A Final EIR for the Project hasbeen prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the EIRis
not to recommend approval or denial of a project but toprovide information to be used in the
planning and decision making process. CEQA requires decisionmakers to balance the benefits
of a proposed project against the environmental effects, along with other factors.
The Planning Commission had a study session on September 9, 2014. The attached staff report
Attachment D) provides additional details on the EIR and the land use alternatives studied.
The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the General Plan goals, policiesand
strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 GeneralPlan adopted
by the City Council on November 15, 2005.
Discussion
Planning Commission Study Session
At the Planning Commission Study Session, commissioners and members of the public asked
questions and requested clarification as follows:
Planning Commission
Number of alternatives studied in the EIR and which alternative wasthe Environmentally Superior
Alternative: It was clarified that the EIR provided an analysis of four alternatives; 1)
Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C, which wasthe proposed Project under CEQA,
and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative. The EIR identified the No Project
Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative; however, as required by CEQA
when the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, another
alternative must be selected. Accordingly, Alternative A, which would consume the fewest
resources and result in the least amount of development when compared to Alternatives B
and C, was chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Alternative C vs. “Preferred Project”: Clarification was requested on the difference between
Alternative C and “Preferred Project.” It was clarified that Alternative C was not to be the
preferred project” of the City, but rather it was the alternative that was selected to be
studied in the EIR as the proposed Project because it represented the mostintensive
development. It was clarified that the term “preferred project” is a term-of-art when
preparingprogram-level EIR’s and only means it is the project studied in the EIR; it does
not mean it has been pre-determined to be the approved plan. WhentheCommissionand
101362
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014
Page 3
the Council consider which alternative to select, the EIR only represents one factor to
consider. Other potential factors that may determine which alternative to select include
economic impacts, social and community benefits, jobs and housing etc.
RHNA vs. recommended housing units: Clarification was requested on the number of housing
units required by the RHNA (i.e. 1,064 units) versus the number of housing units
recommended for inclusion in the Draft Housing Element. It was clarified that the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) typically recommends 40
percent over the required RHNAfor the current planning period. Since there have been
entitlements for 62 units in this planning period, the City’s remaining RHNA is 1002.
Therefore, it is being recommended that the City select sites with a total capacity of
approximately 1,400 units.
Mitigation: Staff clarified the term “mitigation” meaning that the impact would be reduced
to the acceptable threshold for thatparticular impact. Where the impact is not brought
below the acceptable threshold, the term “significant and unavoidable” is used to show the
impact will remain even when mitigation is applied.
Plan Bay Area: Clarification requested on whether Plan Bay Area is a controlling document.
The Plan Bay Area is the long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing
strategy through 2040 for the San FranciscoBay Area pursuant to Senate Bill 375, the
Sustainable Communitiesand Climate Protection Act. Staff clarified that the RHNA is the
only regulatory portion of thePlan Bay Area.
Number of Housing Units by Alternative: Clarification onthe number of housing units
considered in each of the alternatives was requested. Staff clarified that both the No Project
Alternative and Alternative A represent no change to the existinghousing units
developmentallocation in the current 2020 General Plan. Alternatives B and C respond to
thePlan Bay Area. The selection of housing sites in each alternative represent gradations of
what is ultimately required by 2040, which spans a time-period comprised of three Housing
Element cycles. Alternative B represents 75 percent (or a totalof 3,601 units) and Alternative
C represents 100 percent (or a total of 4,421 units) of the Housing Element sites required
through 2040,
Traffic Analysis: Clarification on the traffic study prepared for the EIR, what would happen if
there are errors in the traffic study, whether the TIA considered the longer commute
patterns from regionally generated traffic volumes and whether the VTA model extends to
2040. Staff clarified that the traffic study has been prepared to forecast traffic impacts
accurately using the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines for how
to prepare traffic studies. Staff clarified that the traffic model applied is the VTA standard
model that includes regional traffic in the communities that contribute to traffic in
Cupertino and extends to 2040. The VTA approvedmethodology is the standard for all
projects in Cupertino and the surrounding communities, which ensures consistency in
assessing traffic impacts in the region.
111363
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014
Page 4
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): A questions regarding the status of the BRT project was posed. Staff
clarified the BRT project is not considered in the EIR and when proposed by the VTA, any
changes to the City’s right-of-way would need the City’s approval. At this time, no proposal
has been brought to the City to consider. However, a separate memo hasbeen prepared
reviewing the impacts of a dedicated bus lane for BRT (see Attachment E).
Sewer Capacity: Information was requested on the sewer capacity. It was clarified that sewer
capacity is not a physical impact, but the contractual limit on what has been purchased from
the San Jose/Santa Clara Treatment Plant. The contractual limit could be reached many
years into the buildout of the proposed Project and in the meantime it is quite possible that
ongoing measures, including water conservation and green building practices would
continue reducing the sewer generation rates studied in the EIR.
Air Quality: Clarification was requested on whether the long-termhorizon analyzed in the
traffic impact analysis (TIA) considered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) trends
and mandates with regard tofuel economy is factored into the TIA. Staff clarified the EPA
standards are factored into the air quality modeland not the traffic model. Assumptions
regarding cleaner fuel-burning cars and more cars are considered in the long-term air
quality emissions projections.
HCD Review Timelines: Clarification on thedeadlines and timelines for the Project regarding
HCD review was requested. The deadline for the Housing Element is January 31, 2015 and
there is a 120-day grace period; therefore, the City must have an adopted Housing Element
byMay 31, 2015. HCD is allowed a 60-day reviewperiod to review the Housing Element.
Forthe City to have adequate time, the draft Housing Element must be sent to HCD by
November.
Adequate Sites for the Housing Element: Clarification was requested on what would happen if
HCD determines that the sitesselected do not meet HCD criteria. It was explained that the
list of potential housing element sites has been selected usingboth HCD and City criteria.
The importance of submitting the draft Housing Element to HCD early was stressed, since
the dialogue regarding adequate housing sites will commence between the City and HCD
during the 60-day reviewperiod. More sites than necessary to accommodate the RHNA
have been identified, which will help facilitate the dialogue with HCD.
Schools: Clarification on why the EIR concludes that overcrowding in schools can be
alleviated through the construction of additional floors (building up), and how impact fees
can be used by the school. It was also notedthe schools are currently at capacity and the
student generation is based on high-density housing. Staff clarified that the school districts
are going to prepare a facilities plan for ongoing long-range planning. Schools constantly
work on plans to alleviate overcrowding such as moving studentsbetween schools and
consolidating programs as short term solutions and to avoid redistricting. The school impact
fees, which areset by the schools and the state, can be applied to new facilities, but not to
operations. Staff clarified that the data used to preparethe school impact analysis is from
the school’s demographer and the housing sites and unit types are in synch with the
district’s projections. However, the City cannot dictate how the impact fees are used or
121364
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014
Page 5
make land use decisions based onimpacts to schools since the impact fee is intended to
mitigate school impacts (See Attachment F).
Public Comment: The role of public comment in thedecision making process for the project
was discussed. Staff clarified that the study session was about the EIR. All comments on the
environmental impacts have been addressed in the Response to Comments document and
late comments memo dated 3 September, 2014 (Attachment G) and late comments memo
update dated 30 September, 2014 (Attachment H). Comments on the merits of proposed
Project will be addressed separately prior to public hearings on the project.
Baseline: Clarification on the baseline for the buildout numbers described in the proposed
Project with respect to development that is currently underway was sought. It was clarified
that thedevelopment that is currently underway is partofwhat has already been analyzed
in the 2020 General Plan and the buildout projections of the proposed Project are set at the
time the Notice of Preparation for the proposed Project was issued (i.e. March 5, 2014). Staff
maintains a current list of developmentallocation which tracks what is approvedand what
has been developed.
Impact Analysis: It was noted that all of the environmentalimpact conclusions are the same,
but theimpacts vary by degrees based on the level of development analyzed in each
alternative. Staff confirmed this is correct.
Errors and Omissions: A missing footnote was identified. This has been included in the
SupplementalText Revisions of the Final EIR memo (see Attachment C).
Buildout Projections: Clarification on the differing build out numbers in Chapter 4.14,
Utilities and ServiceSystems of the Draft EIR was sought. Staff clarifiedthat persons per
household rate used in ABAG projections varies in 5 year increments, which is different
than the single 2040 rate used in the EIR.
Members of the Public
Traffic – Concerns were expressed by a speaker about existing traffic and increased traffic
anticipated as part of the Alternativesstudied in the EIR. The speakerexpressed a
preference for the No Project alternative or Alternative A.
Heart of the City – One speaker requested that the Heart of the City be maintained and
respected. Another speakerexpressedconcerns about development on the eastern partof
the city and recommended that there should bea citywidedistribution to reduce impacts.
Staff clarified that sites brought forward by applicantsand during the community process
were all reviewed; however, the sites on the western side of the city alone either did not
meet the criteria or would not be able to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) required by the State.
Schools - There was also a comment made that school sites should be identified. Staff
clarified that developments will be required to pay a school impact fee set by each school
district. However, sites would have to be acquired by school districts through their facility
planning process.
131365
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014
Page 6
North Vallco - A representative from Apple Inc., requested that future development adjacent
to Apple Campus be considerate of their needs related to security, privacy, and traffic. He
clarified that they are working closely with the Irvine Companyregarding the adjacent
Hamptons site. A representative from the Irvine Company stated they are cooperating with
Apple on the redevelopment of the Hamptons site and would not be opposed to reduced
heights directly adjacent to the Apple campus. She clarified students generated from any
potential project on their site would be in the Santa Clara Unified School District and they
are working with the District on possible mitigations.
Regional Plans – concerns were expressed aboutthe Plan Bay Area, the regional Bay Area
documentprepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). A resident felt that it was not a good fit
for Cupertino and that the document lookedtoo far into the future. In addition, a resident
noted that she did not support the Bus Rapid Transit dedicated lanes because they would
cause more delays in traffic. Staff would like to note that the General Plan and Housing
Element updates do not include dedicated Bus Rapid Transit lanes since the project has not
been approved. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is working on this as a potential
future project but has not presented any plans to the City. The project is not being reviewed
at thistime by the City and would require the participation and consent of the City.
Response to Comments and Text Revisions
Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period on August 1, 2014.
While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of
the public review period, staff will continue toprovide responses to these comments. As of
September 30, 2014, eleven commentletters were received. The comment letters received after
the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially more severe significant
impacts, mitigation measures, or projectalternatives, or change the findingsof the Draft EIR
see Attachments G & H.)
Supplemental Text Revisions
Following the publication of the RTC document on August 28, 2014, supplemental text revisions
to clarify text in the Draft EIR have been made. These supplemental revisions are provided in
the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Final
EnvironmentalImpact Report Errata No. 1. (See Attachment C)
These revisions do not result in new significantenvironmental impacts, do not constitute new
information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. The Draft EIR, the
RTC documentand Errata No. 1 together are considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed
Project. Because no new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation
measures or alternatives that would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project were
identified after circulation of the Draft EIR, recirculation of the EIR is not required.
141366
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014
Page 7
Next Steps
The Environmental ReviewCommittee (ERC) will review and make a recommendation for the
EIR for the projecton October 2, 2014. The ERC recommendation will be provided to the City
Council at the October 7, 2014 EIR Study Session, and to the Planning Commission prior to the
public hearing on October 14, 2014.
The Final EIR and General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated
Rezoning Project including zoning text amendments and Specific Plan Amendments will be
presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation on October 14, 2014.
The City Council’s review on the certification of the EIR, GeneralPlan Amendment, 2014-2022
Housing Element, and associated rezoningis expected to be on November 3, 2014, and the
second reading related to the rezoning is expected to be on November 18, 2014.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
A – General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Draft
EnvironmentalImpact Report, June18, 2014
B – General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Response to
Comments Document, August 29, 2014
C – Errata No. 1: SupplementalText Revisions, October 1, 2014
D – Planning Commission Staff Report, September 9, 2014
E – Transportation Effects of BRT, March 29, 2014
F – Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications
G – Late Comments Memo from PlaceWorks, September 3, 2014
H – LateComments Memo Updated from PlaceWorks, September 30, 2014
151367
Attachment Z –
Draft Environmental Impact
Report
Dated June 18, 2014
Please view this information on
the City’s website at:
http://www.cupertinogpa.org/
Attachment #19
(under the October 14, 2014
Planning Commission Public
Hearing meeting)
1368
Attachment AA –
Responses to Comments
Document
Dated August 28, 2014
Please view this information on
the City’s website at:
http://www.cupertinogpa.org/
Attachment #24
(under the October 14, 2014
Planning Commission Public
Hearing meeting)
1369
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 3, 2014
TO Piu Ghosh
FROM Steve Noack and Terri McCracken
SUBJECT Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update
and Assoicated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
This memorandum describes changes made to the text of the General Plan Amendment, Housing
Element Update and Associated Rezoning Project Final EIR. The Final EIR is comprised of the June 18,
2014 Draft EIR and the August 28, 2014 Response to Comments document.
As shown in Table 1, Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR, the revisions include typographical
corrections, insignificant modifications, amplifications and clarifications of the EIR. These changes do
not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute new information, and do not
alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis in the Final EIR as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5.
Underlined text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been
deleted from the EIR.
1370
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 2
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
1:
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
1‐1
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
un
d
e
r
t
a
k
i
n
g
a co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
‐ba
s
e
d
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
pr
o
c
e
s
s
to
re
v
i
e
w
la
n
d
us
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
as part of a focused
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(o
f
f
i
c
e
,
commercial, hotel, and
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
,
as
we
l
l
as
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
an
d
de
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
fi
v
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
al
o
n
g
ma
jo
r
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
,
where Gateways and
No
d
e
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
se
v
e
n
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
,
an
d
Ot
h
e
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
an
d
No
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
M
i
x
e
d
Use Special
Ar
e
a
s
.
Th
e
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
sh
o
w
n
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3,
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
s
3‐43‐5, 3‐103‐11, and
3‐19
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
3‐13
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
“c
”
o
f
Ta
b
l
e
3‐2 Su
m
m
a
r
y
– Al
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
c.
Ne
t
ne
w
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
is
no
t
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
Th
i
s
nu
m
b
e
r
as
s
u
m
e
s
th
a
t
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Va
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ma
l
l
sq
u
a
r
e
fo
o
t
a
g
e
(1,267,601 sf) will be
de
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
an
d
64
2
,
2
6
6
sf
wi
l
l
go
ba
c
k
in
t
o
th
e
Ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
po
o
l
.
A Th
e
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
to
t
a
l
of
625,335 sf would be
re
s
e
r
v
e
d
fo
r
a fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Du
e
to
th
e
hi
g
h
va
c
a
n
c
y
ra
t
e
at
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ma
l
l
un
d
e
r
existing conditions, this
EI
R
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
th
e
to
t
a
l
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
1,
3
4
3
,
6
7
9
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
(i
.
e
.
642,266 square feet +
70
1
,
4
1
3
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
)
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
3‐33
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
wo
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
a mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
uses south of Stevens
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
A sm
a
l
l
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
wo
u
l
d
be
ma
d
e
to
al
i
g
n
an
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
of
f
i
c
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
Pacifica Avenue into the
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a.
Th
e
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
cu
r
r
e
nt
l
y
al
l
o
w
s
th
e
sa
m
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
al
l
o
w
e
d
by
th
e
South De Anza Conceptual
Pl
a
n
th
a
t
go
v
e
r
n
s
th
e
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
th
e
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
in
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
an
d
eventually in the South De
An
z
a
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Pl
a
n
wi
l
l
be
up
d
a
t
e
d
to
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
3 pa
r
c
e
l
s
(A
s
s
e
s
s
o
r
Pa
r
c
e
l
Nu
m
b
e
r
s
[A
P
N
]
35
9
‐18
‐05
0
,
15
9
‐18‐051 and 159‐18‐049)
in
t
o
th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
.
1 As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐8,
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
office, commercial,
an
d
ho
t
e
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
,
wi
t
h
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
de
n
s
i
t
y
fr
o
m
5 to
15
du
/
a
c
to
25
du
/
a
c
in the southern
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
.
Th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
16
(S
u
m
m
e
r
w
i
n
d
s
an
d
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Rock) at a higher density of
40
du
/
a
c
bu
t
no
ch
a
n
g
e
in
an
d
th
e
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
by
15
fe
e
t
.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Site 16 (Summerwinds and
1 AP
N
35
9
‐18
‐05
0
,
15
9
‐18
‐05
1
an
d
15
9
‐18
‐04
9
we
r
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐10
in
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
.
13
7
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 3
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
is
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
mo
r
e
de
t
a
i
l
be
l
o
w
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.
7
.
4
.
1
6
.
3‐34
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
wo
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
a mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
uses south of Stevens
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
A sm
a
l
l
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
wo
u
l
d
be
ma
d
e
to
al
i
g
n
an
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
of
f
i
c
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
Pacifica Avenue into the
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
.
Th
e
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
cu
r
r
e
nt
l
y
al
l
o
w
s
th
e
sa
m
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
al
l
o
w
e
d
by
th
e
South De Anza Conceptual
Pl
a
n
th
a
t
go
v
e
r
n
s
th
e
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
.
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐8,
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
th
i
s
Special Area would
re
s
u
l
t
in
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
of
f
i
c
e
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
an
d
ho
t
e
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
,
wi
t
h
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
the density from 5 to 15
du
/
a
c
to
25
du
/
a
c
in
th
e
so
u
t
h
e
r
n
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
.
Th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Site 16 (Summerwinds and
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
at
a hi
g
h
e
r
de
n
s
i
t
y
of
40
du
/
a
c
bu
t
no
ch
a
n
g
e
in
th
e
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
an
d
a 15
fo
o
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
height increase.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
16
(S
u
m
m
e
r
w
i
n
d
s
an
d
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
is
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
mo
r
e
de
t
a
i
l
be
l
o
w
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.
7
.
4
.
1
6
.
3‐34
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐10
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐10
,
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
,
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
AP
N
35
9
‐18
‐02
8
.
As
sh
o
w
n
on
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
re
v
i
s
e
d
figure, this parcel has
be
e
n
re
m
o
v
e
d
.
Th
e
re
v
i
s
e
d
fi
g
u
r
e
ha
s
be
e
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
at
th
e
en
d
of
th
i
s
ta
b
l
e
.
3‐53
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 (V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 (V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
wo
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
a ma
j
o
r
re
d
e
s
i
g
n
of
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
Shopping Mall area to
cr
e
a
t
e
a “d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
”
fo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
us
e
s
wo
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
of
f
i
c
e
,
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
pu
b
l
i
c
/
q
u
a
s
i
‐public, light industrial and
ho
t
e
l
.
A ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
of
th
i
s
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
is
al
s
o
a po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
11
(V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ex
c
e
p
t
Rosebowl). In South Vallco
Pa
r
k
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
We
s
t
,
ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
60
fe
e
t
or
up
to
85
fe
e
t
,
if
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
a re
t
a
i
l
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
and provides community
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
Se
e
Ta
b
l
e
3‐15
fo
r
a de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
of
he
i
g
h
t
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
d
by
pa
r
c
e
l
.
In
So
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ea
s
t
,
ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
be
75
fe
e
t
or
up
to
16
0
fe
e
t
if
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a re
t
a
i
l
component and
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
Se
e
Ta
b
l
e
3‐15
fo
r
a de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
of
he
i
g
h
t
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
d
by
pa
r
c
e
l
.
As
sh
o
w
n
be
l
o
w
in
Table 3‐15, zoning would
be
am
e
n
d
e
d
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
,
Li
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P(Regional Shopping,
OM
P
,
Re
s
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
re
s
e
a
r
c
h
an
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
f
i
c
e
s
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
,
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
would be changed
to
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(C
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/
R
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
of
f
i
c
e
us
e
s
in
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to commercial regional
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
,
wh
i
c
h
ar
e
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
at
th
e
Rosebowl site would not
be
ch
a
n
g
e
d
.
It
is
al
s
o
no
t
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
si
t
e
wi
l
l
be
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
or
de
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
.
3‐54
an
d
3‐
55
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 (V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
TAB
L
E
3‐15
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
6 (V
AL
L
C
O
SHO
P
P
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Density Maximum Height
13
7
2
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 4
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Us
e
Si
z
e
S
i
z
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ProposedExisting Propose d
1
AM
C
Th
e
a
t
e
r
10
1
2
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
10
3
1.
8
5
ac
93
,
3
3
2
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
2
Be
n
i
h
a
n
a
’
s
/ Bo
w
l
m
o
r
20
7
4
Va
l
l
c
o
Fa
s
h
i
o
n
Pa
r
k
31
6
‐20
‐
10
0
3.
9
8
ac
44
2
,
8
1
3
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
3
Dy
n
a
s
t
y
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
10
1
2
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
10
5
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
4
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ma
l
l
10
1
2
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
10
7
31
6
‐
20
‐08
1
31
6
‐20
‐
08
1
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
CG
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
5
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐
10
7
5.
4
4
ac
69
8
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
6
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐
10
6
3.
2
5
ac
70
9
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
7
TG
I
Fr
i
d
a
y
’
s
10
3
4
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
10
4
1.
0
0
ac
8,
9
6
0
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
8
Al
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
’
s St
e
a
k
h
o
u
s
e
10
3
3
0
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
09
9
0.
8
6
ac
10
,
2
4
3
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
13
7
3
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 5
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
9
Ma
c
y
’
s
10
3
3
3
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
10
1
4.
5
7
ac
17
6
,
9
6
2
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
10
Se
a
r
s
St
o
r
e
/ Ba
y
Cl
u
b
10
1
0
1
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
08
0
7.
6
4
ac
25
7
,
5
4
8
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
CG
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetd
11
Au
t
o
Ce
n
t
e
r
10
1
0
1
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
08
2
4.
7
8
ac
15
,
5
5
6
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
CG
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feete
12
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐
08
1
3.
6
8
ac
41
8
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
CG
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
13
JC
Pe
n
n
e
y
10
1
5
0
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
09
4
10
.
0
8
ac
20
2
,
3
6
0
sf
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
14
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐
09
5
2.
7
3
ac
72
5
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
15
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
Bo
w
l
Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
10
0
8
8
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐
10
8
5.
8
5
ac
59
,
8
2
7
sf
20
4
un
i
t
s
C/
R
C/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
ML
,
Re
s
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
ML
,
Re
s
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
MP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta
16
KC
R
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐
09
2
2.
1
2
ac
va
c
a
n
t
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac N/A 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
13
7
4
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 6
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
17
Si
m
e
o
n
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐
08
8
5.
1
8
ac
va
c
a
n
t
C/
R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35 du/ac N/A 60 feet 75 feeta
To
t
a
l
63
.
0
1
ac
1,
2
6
7
,
6
0
1
sf
2,
5
5
0
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ga
r
a
g
e
sp
a
c
e
s
(d
o
e
s
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
su
r
f
a
c
e
sp
a
c
e
s
)
20
4
un
i
t
s
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
,
N/
A
= no
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
C/
O
/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
C/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
= Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
= Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Shopping, Planned
Of
f
i
c
e
,
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
MP
= In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
:
a.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
.
b.
al
o
n
g
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
c.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
d.
al
o
n
g
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
e.
al
o
n
g
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
3‐56
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
7
(S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐16
,
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
7 (S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
ne
w
hoteloffice,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
of
60
fe
e
t
,
or
up
to
75
fe
e
t
if
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
includes a retail
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
Mo
s
t
of
th
i
s
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
(e
x
c
e
p
t
Pe
e
t
’
s
Co
f
f
e
e
an
d
Pa
n
e
r
a
Br
e
a
d
)
is
al
s
o
be
i
n
g
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
as
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Element Site 15 (Stevens
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
,
wh
i
c
h
is
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
mo
r
e
de
ta
i
l
be
l
o
w
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.
7
.
4
.
1
5
.
3‐61
Mo
n
t
a
Vi
s
t
a
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Th
e
Mo
n
t
a
Vi
s
t
a
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
wa
s
a fa
r
m
i
n
g
an
d
se
c
o
n
d
ho
m
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
si
n
c
e
th
e
la
t
e
r
18
0
0
s
an
d
is
now a residential,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
As
sh
o
w
n
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐19
,
th
i
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
is
ce
n
t
r
a
l
l
y
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
As shown in Table
3‐17
,
th
e
r
e
is
no
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
of
f
i
c
e
sp
a
c
e
or
ho
t
e
l
ro
o
m
s
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
r
e
is
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
allocation of 5,784
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
up
to
94
7
4
un
i
t
s
at
12
du
/
a
c
.
Th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
in
th
i
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
is 30 feet.
3‐69
Ta
b
l
e
3‐21
Ta
b
l
e
3‐21
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
(d
u
/
a
c
)
Capacity (du/ac)
13
7
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 7
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Si
t
e
#
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
(a
c
r
e
s
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Us
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Realist ic YieldNet
11
10
1
2
3
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
.
10
1
5
0
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
.
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
Va
r
i
o
u
s
31
6
‐20
‐
09
2
47
.
8
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l
C/
‐/R
C/
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
M
P
,
Re
s
)
35
35
0 800 800
15
20
8
2
3
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐32
‐
05
3
32
6
‐32
‐
05
2
32
6
‐
32
‐05
3
6.
3
1
Of
f
i
c
e
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
40
0 214 214
18
21
2
5
5
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐27
‐
03
9
32
6
‐27
‐
99
9
32
6
‐27
‐
04
1
32
6
‐27
‐
04
0
7.
9
Co
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
35
0 235 235
No
t
e
s
:
AP
N
= As
s
e
s
s
o
r
’
s
Pa
r
c
e
l
Nu
m
b
e
r
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ac
r
o
n
y
m
s
:
P = Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
CG
= Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
Re
s
= Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
OP
= Of
f
i
c
e
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
Of
f
i
c
e
,
MP
= Light Industrial:
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Ac
r
o
n
y
m
s
:
C/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
C/
O
/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a.
Wh
i
l
e
th
i
s
ta
b
l
e
sh
o
w
s
a re
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
yi
e
l
d
of
4,
8
0
4
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
(w
h
i
c
h
is
85
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
5,
6
5
1
un
i
t
s
)
,
as
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐2 in Section 3.7 of this chapter,
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
al
l
o
w
s
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
of
4,
4
2
1
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
.
Th
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
si
t
e
s
in
th
i
s
ta
b
l
e
ar
e
be
i
n
g
ev
a
lu
a
t
e
d
in
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
to
provide a broad evaluation to aid
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
ho
u
s
i
n
g
si
t
e
s
to
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
ho
u
s
i
n
g
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
be
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
under the proposed Project is 4,42
un
i
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
3‐80
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
5 (G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
zo
n
i
n
g
,
or
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
However, the
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
he
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
by
15
fe
e
t
.
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐21
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Project could result in
13
7
6
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 8
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
up
to
93
ne
w
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
ad
d
e
d
to
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
51
7
un
i
t
s
,
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
61
0
un
i
t
s
.
3‐82
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
6 (T
h
e
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
s
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
zo
n
i
n
g
,
or
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
As shown in Table 3‐
21
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
up
to
62
ne
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
ad
d
e
d
to
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
468 units, for a total
of
53
0
un
i
t
s
.
3‐90
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
6 (T
h
e
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
s
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐21
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
up
to
82
0
ne
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
units added to the
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
34
2
un
i
t
s
,
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
1,
1
6
2
un
i
t
s
.
3‐92
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
11
(V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ex
c
e
p
t
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
)
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
ch
a
n
g
e
d
fr
o
m
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(C/R) to
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(C
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/
R
)
an
d
th
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be changed from Planned
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
(P
(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
Professional Office Light
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P
(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OM
P
,
Re
s
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
s
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
.
The permitted
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
n
s
i
t
y
wo
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
35
du
/
a
c
,
an
d
th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
be
16
0
fe
e
t
in
th
e
ar
e
a
bo
u
n
d
e
d
by
I‐280 to the north, Vallco
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
to
th
e
so
u
t
h
,
an
d
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
Ro
a
d
to
th
e
ea
s
t
if
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a re
t
a
i
l
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
community
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐21
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
up
to
80
0
ne
t
residential units.
3‐10
0
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
15
(S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
Th
i
s
Si
t
e
co
m
p
r
i
s
e
s
on
e
th
r
e
e
pa
r
c
e
l
s
to
t
a
l
i
n
g
6.
3
1
ac
r
e
s
.
Th
i
s
Si
t
e
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(C
/
O
/
R
)
General Plan land
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
zo
n
e
d
as
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
)
wi
t
h
a maximum residential
de
n
s
i
t
y
of
25
du
/
a
c
an
d
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
of
45
fe
e
t
.
3‐10
4
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
16
(S
u
m
m
e
r
w
i
n
d
s
&
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
Zoning designation would
be
am
e
n
d
e
d
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
uses. The permitted
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
n
s
i
t
y
wo
u
l
d
be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
to
40
du
/
ac
an
d
th
e
ma
xi
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
30
fe
e
t
be
45
fe
e
t
.
As shown in Table 3‐21,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
up
to
15
4
ne
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
.
3‐10
6
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
18
(T
h
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
Th
i
s
Si
t
e
ha
s
fo
u
r
pa
r
c
e
l
s
to
t
a
l
i
n
g
7.
9
ac
r
e
s
,
is
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
as
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
(C
/
O
/
R
)
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(C/R) under the
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
an
d
is
zo
n
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
(P
(
C
G
,
OP)). The maximum
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
n
s
i
t
y
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
on
th
e
Si
t
e
is
25
du
/
a
c
,
wi
t
h
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
of
45
fe
e
t
.
13
7
7
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 9
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Th
i
s
Si
t
e
is
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
by
th
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
.
Th
e
ce
n
t
e
r
ha
s
va
r
i
o
u
s
sm
a
l
l
sc
a
l
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
tenants and one of the
Ci
t
y
’
s
tw
o
mo
v
i
e
th
e
a
t
e
r
s
,
Bl
u
e
Li
g
h
t
Ci
n
e
m
a
.
Th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ha
s
en
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
a mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
of
f
i
c
e
/
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
building and a hotel which
ex
p
i
r
e
in
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
4
.
Th
i
s
Si
t
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
s
a st
r
o
n
g
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
a mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
pr
o
d
u
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
residential units
ba
s
e
d
on
it
s
la
r
g
e
si
z
e
,
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
cu
r
r
e
n
t
en
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
,
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
freeway access and
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
on
Ma
r
y
Av
e
n
u
e
to
th
e
ea
s
t
an
d
th
e
Ma
r
y
Av
e
n
u
e
Do
g
Pa
r
k
is located to the
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
.
Th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Se
n
i
o
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
.
Ga
r
d
e
n
Ga
t
e
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
an
d
Homestead High School are
lo
c
a
t
e
d
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
th
r
e
e
‐qu
a
r
t
e
r
s
of
a mi
l
e
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
an
d
no
r
t
h
of
th
e
Si
t
e
.
La
w
s
o
n
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
,
Mo
n
t
a
Vista High, Lincoln
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
an
d
Jo
h
n
F.
Ke
n
n
e
d
y
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ar
e
in
pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
of
th
i
s
Si
t
e
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
Zoning designation would
be
am
e
n
d
e
d
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
an
d
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
(P
(
C
G
,
Res, OP)) to allow for
fu
t
u
r
e
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
.
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
density would be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
to
35
du
/
a
c
an
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
wo
u
l
d
ra
n
g
e
fr
o
m
60
fe
e
t
to
75
fe
e
t
wi
t
h
a re
t
a
i
l
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
As
sh
o
w
n
in Table 3‐21, future
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
up
to
23
5
ne
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
.
3‐11
2
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
La
n
d
Us
e
Ma
p
an
d
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
Co
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
No
t
e
th
a
t
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
si
m
i
l
a
r
to
th
e
ot
h
e
r
93
pa
r
c
e
l
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐22
,
ha
v
e
be
e
n
ma
d
e
to
bring consistency between
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
us
e
an
d
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
/
o
r
Zo
n
i
n
g
fo
r
th
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
wi
l
l
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
ent potential at these
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
TAB
L
E
3‐22
GEN
E
R
A
L
PLA
N
AN
D
ZON
I
N
G
ORD
I
N
A
N
C
E
CON
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
SIT
E
S
Ma
p
#
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
La
n
d
Us
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Reason
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
94
20
4
5
5
Si
l
v
e
r
a
d
o
Av
e
.
36
9
‐39
‐01
6
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
(1
‐5 du
/
a
c
)
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P(
C
G
)
P(
C
G
)
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
with GP. Allows
th
e
Chamber of Commerce to
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to operate at this location.
13
7
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 10
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
95
22
2
4
1
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Rd
.
35
7
06
01
4
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
R1
‐10
PR
Consistency with GP.
96
22
2
4
0
Sc
e
n
i
c
Ci
r
.
35
7
07
02
9
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
R1
‐7.
5
PR
Consistency with GP.
97
35
7
06
01
9
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
R1
‐7.
5
PR
Consistency with GP.
98
32
6
49
04
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Pa
r
k
s
an
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
R1
‐10
PR
Consistency with GP.
3‐11
6
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐40
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐40
,
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
an
d
Zo
n
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Co
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Si
t
e
s
,
ha
s
be
e
n
re
v
i
s
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
fo
u
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
conformance sites
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
ab
o
v
e
.
Th
e
re
v
i
s
e
d
fi
g
u
r
e
ha
s
be
e
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
at
th
e
en
d
of
th
i
s
ta
b
l
e
.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
1
:
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
1
‐8
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
al
o
n
g
Ma
j
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
In
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
s
an
d
No
d
e
s
Th
e
fi
v
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
s
/
No
d
e
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
ke
y
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
in
th
e
ci
t
y
wh
e
r
e
in
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
could occur under
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Th
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
ar
e
sh
o
w
n
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐43
‐5,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
.
Th
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
major arterials in the city,
ne
a
r
fr
e
e
w
a
y
s
,
ca
p
t
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
mo
s
t
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
an
d
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
co
r
e
s
.
Th
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a va
r
i
e
t
y
of uses, including
of
f
i
c
e
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
4.
1
‐33
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
Oa
k
s
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
/
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
18
(T
h
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
Th
e
Oa
k
s
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
is
co
t
e
r
m
i
n
o
u
s
wi
t
h
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
18
(T
h
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
lo
c
a
t
e
d
on
th
e
no
r
t
h
side of Stevens Creek
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
SR
85
an
d
Ma
r
y
Av
e
n
u
e
.
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
ge
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
al Plan land use
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
am
e
n
d
e
d
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
and Residential
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
.
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
the permitted residential
de
n
s
i
t
y
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
to
35
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
an
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
wo
u
l
d
ra
n
g
e
fr
o
m
60
fe
e
t
to
up
to
75
fe
e
t
with a retail
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
Be
c
a
u
s
e
th
i
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
1‐st
o
r
y
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
,
wh
i
c
h
currently has
en
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
a mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
of
f
i
c
e
/
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
a ho
t
e
l
wh
i
c
h
ex
p
i
r
e
in
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
4
,
an
d
is
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
by urban land
us
e
s
an
d
SR
85
to
th
e
we
s
t
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
the visual character of
th
e
Si
t
e
or
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
.
Th
u
s
,
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
to
th
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
or
qu
a
l
i
t
y
of
th
e
si
t
e
or
surrounding areas would
be
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
13
7
9
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 11
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
4.
1
‐33
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
d
e
/
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
7
(S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
/
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
14
(M
a
r
i
n
a
Pl
a
z
a
)
an
d
15
(S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
i
n
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
7 (S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
,
wh
i
c
h
is
co
t
e
r
m
i
n
o
u
s
with Housing Element
Si
t
e
15
,
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
ne
w
ho
t
e
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l
, an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
of 60 feet, or up to 75
fe
e
t
if
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a re
t
a
i
l
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
Th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
;
however, the Zoning
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
am
e
n
d
e
d
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P(CG, OP. Res.))
4.
1
‐35
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
Ot
h
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
5 (G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
zo
n
i
n
g
,
or
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
However, the
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
he
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
by
15
fe
e
t
.
Be
c
a
u
s
e
th
i
s
Si
t
e
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
wi
t
h
hi
g
h
‐de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
comprised of
nu
m
e
r
o
u
s
2‐st
o
r
y
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
an
d
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
u
l
d
co
n
v
e
r
t
th
e
la
r
g
e
ca
r
p
o
r
t
ar
e
a
s
to
gr
o
u
n
d
floor parking with new
un
i
t
s
ab
o
v
e
wi
t
h
o
u
t
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
or
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
la
n
d
us
e
s
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
the proposed Project
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
th
e
Si
t
e
or
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
;
th
u
s
im
p
a
c
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
th
a
n
significant.
4.
1
‐35
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
Ot
h
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
or
zo
n
i
n
g
at
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Element Sites 2
(A
r
y
a
/
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
)
,
3 (U
n
i
t
e
d
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
/
E
a
s
t
of
Ea
s
t
Es
t
a
t
e
s
Dr
i
v
e
)
,
4 (B
a
r
r
y
Sw
e
n
s
o
n
)
,
5 (G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
,
13 (Loree
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
an
d
19
(C
y
p
r
e
s
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
& Ha
l
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
;
th
u
s
,
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
permitted under the
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
th
e
Si
t
e
or
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
;
th
u
s
im
p
a
c
t
s
would be less than
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
4.
1
‐35
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
16
(S
u
m
m
e
r
w
i
n
d
s
&
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
Zoning designation would
be
am
e
n
d
e
d
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
uses. The permitted
de
n
s
i
t
y
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
to
40
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
bu
t
no
,
he
i
g
h
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
wo
u
l
d
be
oc
c
u
r
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
15
fe
e
t
(a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
one story)
an
d
th
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
wo
u
l
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
re
m
a
i
n
th
e
sa
m
e
;
th
u
s
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
would not adversely
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
th
e
Si
t
e
or
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
;
th
u
s
im
p
a
c
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
13
8
0
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 12
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
2
:
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
2
‐16
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Am
b
i
e
n
t
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
le
v
e
l
s
of
am
b
i
e
n
t
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
an
d
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
tr
e
n
d
s
an
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
th
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ha
v
e
be
e
n
documented by
me
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
ma
d
e
by
th
e
BA
A
Q
M
D
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
24
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
Ba
y
Area, BAAQMD has a
sp
e
c
i
a
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
st
a
t
i
o
n
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
at
th
e
Mo
n
t
a
Vi
s
t
a
Pa
r
k
on
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
Th
i
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
Monitoring Station
st
a
r
t
e
d
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
in
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
0
.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
fo
r
ye
a
r
s
pr
i
o
r
to
20
1
0
,
da
t
a
fr
o
m
th
e
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
Monitoring Station was
us
e
d
in
th
i
s
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
Da
t
a
fr
o
m
th
e
s
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
su
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐4.
Th
e
da
t
a
sh
o
w
oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
of the State and federal
O3 st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Th
e
fe
d
e
r
a
l
PM
2
.
5
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
on
fi
v
e
da
y
s
,
an
d
st
a
t
e
PM
10
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
exceeded once on one
da
y
,
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
la
s
t
fi
v
e
ye
a
r
s
.
Th
e
St
a
t
e
an
d
fe
d
e
r
a
l
CO
an
d
NO
2
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
ha
v
e
no
t
be
e
n
ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
in
th
e
la
s
t
fi
v
e
years in the vicinity of
th
e
ci
t
y
.
4.
2
‐65
Si
t
i
n
g
Ne
w
Od
o
r
So
u
r
c
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
ne
w
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
od
o
r
s
,
su
c
h
as
co
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
,
gr
e
e
n
w
a
s
t
e
,
and recycling
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
fo
o
d
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
;
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
;
an
d
pa
i
n
t
i
n
g
/
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
be
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
s
e
ar
e
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
uses in the
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
/
o
r
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
ci
t
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
co
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
fo
r
in
du
s
t
r
i
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
listed in Table 4.2‐
84
.
2
‐9,
ab
o
v
e
,
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
ar
e
no
t
ex
p
o
s
e
d
to
ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
od
o
r
s
.
BA
A
Q
M
D
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7, Odorous Substances,
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
ab
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
of
an
y
nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
an
od
o
r
co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
.
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
ab
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
pa
s
s
i
n
g
ai
r
th
r
o
u
g
h
a drying agent followed
by
tw
o
su
c
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
be
d
s
of
ac
t
i
v
a
t
e
d
ca
r
b
o
n
to
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
od
o
r
‐fr
e
e
ai
r
.
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
li
s
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐10
wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
to consider measures to
re
d
u
c
e
od
o
r
s
as
pa
r
t
of
th
e
i
r
CE
Q
A
re
v
i
e
w
.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
3
:
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
3
‐13
Im
p
a
c
t
BI
O
‐3
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
in
ur
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
areas where
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
wa
t
e
r
s
ar
e
ab
s
e
n
t
.
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
an
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
ot
h
e
r
wa
t
e
r
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
1)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in the potential for
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
du
e
to
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
gr
a
d
i
n
g
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
,
2)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l fo
r
er
o
s
i
o
n
du
e
to increased runoff
vo
l
u
m
e
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by
im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
,
an
d
3)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
de
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
du
e
to increased levels in
no
n
‐po
i
n
t
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
co
u
l
d
be
la
r
g
e
l
y
av
o
i
d
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Be
s
t
Management Practices
(B
M
P
)
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
.
As
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4.
8
.
1
.
1
,
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Framework, of Chapter
4.
9
4
.
8
,
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
an
d
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
in
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ru
n
o
f
f
is
re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
lo
c
a
l
l
y
by
the Santa Clara Valley
Ur
b
a
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
,
wh
i
c
h
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
C.
3
of
th
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
o
r
m
Wa
t
e
r
National Pollutant
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
(N
P
D
E
S
)
Pe
r
m
i
t
(M
R
P
)
ad
o
p
t
e
d
by
th
e
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
RW
Q
C
B
.
13
8
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 13
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
4.
3
‐14
Im
p
a
c
t
BI
O
‐6
BI
O
‐6
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
reasonably foreseeable
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
6
:
Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
Ga
s
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
6
‐30
Im
p
a
c
t
GH
G
‐1
Th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
s
th
e
fr
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
gr
o
w
t
h
an
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
A Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
do
e
s
not directly result in
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
o
u
t
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
.
Be
f
o
r
e
an
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ca
n
oc
c
u
r
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
,
it
is
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
be
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
for consistency with
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
zo
n
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
lo
c
a
l
an
d
st
a
t
e
re
q
u
i
r
eme
n
t
s
;
co
m
p
l
y
wi
t
h
th
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of CEQA; and
ob
t
a
i
n
al
l
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
cl
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
an
d
pe
r
m
i
t
s
.
As
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
s
4.
5
‐54
.
6
‐5 an
d
4.
5
‐64
.
6
‐6,
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
would achieve the
20
2
0
an
d
20
3
5
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
,
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
th
e
Ci
t
y
is
on
a tr
a
j
e
c
t
o
r
y
th
a
t
is
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with the statewide
GH
G
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
go
a
l
s
.
Co
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
,
sh
o
r
t
‐te
r
m
an
d
lo
n
g
‐te
r
m
GH
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
im
p
a
c
t
s
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
are less than significant.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
7
:
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
7
‐15
Wi
l
d
l
a
n
d
Fi
r
e
Ha
z
a
r
d
CA
L
FI
R
E
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
s
fi
r
e
ha
z
a
r
d
se
v
e
r
i
t
y
ri
s
k
s
ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
to
ar
e
a
s
of
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
(i
.
e
.
fe
d
e
r
a
l
,
st
a
t
e
,
an
d
lo
c
a
l
)
.
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
to CAL FIRE, and as
de
p
i
c
t
e
d
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
4.
7
‐2,
th
e
r
e
ar
e
no
ve
r
y
hi
g
h
fi
r
e
ha
z
a
r
d
se
v
e
r
i
t
y
zo
n
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Lo
c
a
l
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ar
e
a
s
of Cupertino with the
ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
of
a sm
a
l
l
ar
e
a
ne
a
r
th
e Ci
t
y
’
s
so
u
t
h
ce
n
t
e
r
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Al
s
o
as
de
p
i
c
t
e
d
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
4.
7
‐3,
th
e
r
e
ar
e
no
moderate, or high, and
ve
r
y
hi
g
h
fi
r
e
ha
z
a
r
d
se
v
e
r
i
t
y
zo
n
e
s
in
th
e
St
a
t
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.
Furthermore, as discussed
ab
o
v
e
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4.
7
.
1
.
1
,
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Se
t
t
i
n
g
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Wi
l
d
l
a
n
d
Ur
b
a
n
In
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
Fi
r
e
Ar
e
a
ma
p
,
as
sh
o
w
n
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
4.7‐4 also identifies
th
a
t
th
e
r
e
ar
e
no
hi
g
h
or
ve
r
y
hi
g
h
fi
r
e
ri
s
k
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.
4.
7
‐21
Im
p
a
c
t
HA
Z
‐2
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
,
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
s
,
within Cupertino. Some of
th
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
on
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
y
ar
e
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
an
d
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
un
d
e
r
g
o
i
n
g
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
and/or undergoing
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
ac
t
i
o
n
,
as
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
7
.
1
4
.
7
‐2.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
9
:
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
9
‐13
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
4
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
4 (M
i
r
a
p
a
t
h
)
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
.
As
sh
o
w
n
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐14
3
‐15
,
th
i
s
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
is
on one small parcel
13
8
2
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 14
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
(M
i
r
a
p
a
t
h
)
co
m
p
r
i
s
i
n
g
th
e
Mi
r
a
p
a
t
h
of
f
i
c
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
su
r
f
a
c
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fr
o
n
t
i
n
g
No
r
t
h
Bl
a
n
e
y
Av
e
n
u
e
.
4.
9
‐14
Ot
h
e
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
an
d
No
n
‐Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
Th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
an
d
no
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
(s
e
e
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐18
3
‐4)
.
4.
9
‐20
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
11
(V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ex
c
e
p
t
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
11
(V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ex
c
e
p
t
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
)
en
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
e
s
mo
s
t
of
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 (V
a
l
l
c
o
Shopping District), with the
ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Ro
s
e
B
o
w
l
si
t
e
lo
c
a
t
e
d
so
u
t
h
of
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
.
Th
i
s
Si
t
e
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Area. The Site has three
is
ma
d
e
up
of
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
pa
r
c
e
l
s
to
t
a
l
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
47
.
8
3
ac
r
e
s
,
is
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
as
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(C/O/R) under the
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
an
d
is
zo
n
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
(P
(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
)
Z
o
n
i
n
g
designation. The maximum
de
n
s
i
t
y
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
on
th
e
Si
t
e
is
35
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
,
wi
t
h
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
of
60
fe
e
t
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
uses on the ground level
(s
e
e
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐31
)
.
4.
9
‐21
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
14
(M
a
r
i
n
a
Pl
a
z
a
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
14
(M
a
r
i
n
a
Pl
a
z
a
)
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
d
e
,
wh
i
c
h
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
City Special Area (see
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐73
‐8)
.
4.
9
‐23
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
18
(T
h
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
18
(T
h
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
Oa
k
s
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
,
wh
i
c
h
is
pa
r
t
of
th
e
He
a
r
t
of the City Special Area (see
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐73
‐8)
.
Si
t
e
18
ha
s
fo
u
r
pa
r
c
e
l
s
to
t
a
l
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
7.
9
ac
r
e
s
,
is
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
as
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Residential (C/O/R)
un
d
e
r
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
an
d
is
zo
n
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Office (P(CG, OP)). The
ma
x
i
m
u
m
de
n
s
i
t
y
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
on
th
i
s
Si
t
e
is
25
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
,
wi
t
h
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
of
45
fe
e
t
(see Figure 3‐38).
4.
9
‐23
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
19
(C
y
p
r
e
s
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
/
Ha
l
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
19
(C
y
p
r
e
s
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
/
H
a
l
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
Ea
s
t
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Node, which is part of
th
e
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
(s
e
e
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐73
‐8)
.
13
8
3
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 15
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
1
0
:
No
i
s
e
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
1
0
‐29
th
r
o
u
g
h
4.
1
0
‐30
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
ma
y
be
lo
o
s
e
l
y
gr
o
u
p
e
d
in
t
o
tw
o
no
n
‐ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
:
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
al
o
n
g
or
ne
a
r
ma
j
o
r
ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
and study areas along or
ne
a
r
ma
j
o
r
fr
e
e
w
a
y
s
.
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Fi
g
u
r
e
3‐23
‐11
,
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
7 (S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
an
d
2 (C
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
fall into the first
ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
,
an
d
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
no
i
s
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
do
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
by
no
i
s
e
al
o
n
g
ma
j
o
r
ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
1 (C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Inn and Goodyear
Ti
r
e
)
,
3 (P
G
&
E
)
,
4 (M
i
r
a
p
a
t
h
)
an
d
5 (C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
)
ar
e
in
th
e
se
c
o
n
d
ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
wh
e
r
e
no
i
s
e
fr
o
m
ne
a
r
b
y
fr
e
e
w
a
y
s
is likely to dominate
th
e
no
i
s
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 (V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
wo
u
l
d
fa
l
l
in
t
o
bo
t
h
of
th
e
s
e
ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
,
as
th
e
r
e
are portions of the Study
Ar
e
a
th
a
t
ma
y
be
mo
r
e
do
m
i
n
a
t
ed
by
fr
e
e
w
a
y
no
i
s
e
an
d
po
r
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
ma
y
be
mo
r
e
do
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
by
no
i
s
e
fr
o
m
major arterials.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
1
1
:
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
1
1
‐5
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
‐
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Th
e
to
t
a
l
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
gr
e
w
fr
o
m
52
,
9
7
0
in
20
0
0
to
58
,
3
0
2
5
8
,
7
3
9
in
20
1
0
.
8,
9
Th
i
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
an
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
910 percent
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
20
0
0
to
20
1
0
.
In
co
n
t
r
a
s
t
,
th
e
co
u
n
t
y
gr
e
w
fr
o
m
1,
6
8
2
,
5
8
5
in
20
0
0
to
1,
7
8
1
,
6
4
2
in
20
1
0
,
wh
i
c
h
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a slower rate of
gr
o
w
t
h
(5
pe
r
c
e
n
t
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
91
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
)
fo
r
th
e
co
u
n
t
y
as
a wh
o
l
e
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
sa
m
e
pe
r
i
o
d
.
10
,
1
1
In
20
1
0
,
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
had a much smaller
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
n
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
ci
t
i
e
s
of
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
(1
4
0
,
0
8
5
)
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
(1
1
6
,
4
6
8
)
an
d
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
(9
8
5
,
6
9
1
)
.
8 As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
,
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
0
9
, Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Su
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
Ta
b
l
e
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
County.
9 As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
,
Pl
a
n
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
,
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
1
3
,
Su
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
Ta
b
l
e
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
County.
10
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
,
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
0
9
, Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Su
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
Ta
b
l
e
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
County.
11
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
,
Pl
a
n
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
,
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
1
3
,
Su
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
Ta
b
l
e
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
County
4.
1
1
‐6
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
–
Fu
t
u
r
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
1
‐1 in
c
l
u
d
e
s
th
e
AB
A
G
’
s
20
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
.
Th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
estimate that by 2040
th
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
is
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
gr
o
w
to
71
,
7
0
0
pe
o
p
l
e
an
d
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
wo
u
l
d
gr
o
w
to
24,180, an increase of
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
22
pe
r
c
e
n
t
an
d
19
pe
r
c
e
n
t
fr
o
m
201
0
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
Th
e
s
e
ra
t
e
s
ar
e
lo
w
e
r
th
a
n
th
e
AB
A
G
’
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
population and
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
gr
o
w
t
h
of
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
36
an
d
35
pe
r
c
e
n
t
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
,
fo
r
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
as
a wh
o
l
e
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
same period.
4.
1
1
‐13
Im
p
a
c
t
PO
P
‐1 –
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
1
‐3,
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
a to
t
a
l
of
4,
4
2
1
ne
w
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
in the city for a total of
25
,
8
2
0
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
fo
r
th
e
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
ho
r
i
z
o
n
ye
a
r
20
4
0
.
As
s
u
m
i
n
g
th
e
ne
w
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Project would have
th
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
2.
9
4
pe
r
s
o
n
s
pe
r
ho
u
seh
o
l
d
si
z
e
as
ap
p
l
i
e
d
in
AB
A
G
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
20
1
3
,
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
th
e
ci
t
y
co
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
by 12,998 residents
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
71
,
3
0
0
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
by
20
4
0
.
By
co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,
as
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
1
‐1 4.
1
1
‐2,
AB
A
G
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
s
3,
8
6
1
new households and
13
8
4
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 16
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
12
,
9
6
1
ne
w
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
24
,
1
8
0
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
an
d
71
,
7
0
0
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
by
20
4
0
.
Wh
i
l
e
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Project would
re
s
u
l
t
in
40
0
fe
w
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
1,
64
0
mo
r
e
un
i
t
s
,
th
e
ra
t
e
of
gr
o
w
t
h
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
an
d
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
by ABAG would be the
sa
m
e
fo
r
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
gr
o
w
t
h
(i
.
e
.
22
pe
r
c
e
n
t
)
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
by
2 pe
r
c
e
n
t
(2
1
co
m
p
a
r
ed
to
19
pe
r
c
e
n
t
)
fo
r
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
growth. Consequently,
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
fr
o
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
ex
c
e
e
d
regional projections.
4.
1
1
‐13
Im
p
a
c
t
PO
P
‐1 –
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
jo
b
s
,
AB
A
G
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
7,
0
4
0
jo
b
s
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
33
,
3
6
0
jo
b
s
in
20
4
0
,
as
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.11‐1. As shown in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
1
‐3 4.
1
1
‐4,
wh
e
n
ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
jo
b
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
s
fo
r
of
f
i
c
e
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
ho
t
e
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
buildout of the proposed
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
as
ma
n
y
as
16
,
8
5
5
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
jo
b
s
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
44
,
2
4
2
jo
b
s
in
20
4
0
,
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
the regional job projections
by
10
,
9
8
2
jo
b
s
,
wh
i
c
h
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a 35
pe
r
c
e
n
t
ra
t
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
(6
2
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
27
pe
r
c
e
n
t
)
.
4.
1
1
‐17
Im
p
a
c
t
PO
P
‐3
As
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
un
d
e
r
Im
p
a
c
t
PO
P
‐2 ab
o
v
e
,
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
at
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
Si
t
e
5 (G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Apartments), and
Si
t
e
6 (T
h
e
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
s
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
,
wo
u
l
d
be
in
f
i
l
l
an
d
no
re
m
o
v
a
l
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Site 10 (The Hamptons)
co
u
l
d
in
v
o
l
v
e
th
e
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
an
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
,
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
of some
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
bu
t
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
nu
m
b
e
r
s
of
pe
o
p
l
e
an
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ne
c
e
s
s
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
more replacement
ho
u
s
i
n
g
th
a
n
is
al
r
e
a
d
y
pl
a
n
n
e
d
.
Fo
r
th
e
re
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
of
th
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
1 th
r
o
u
g
h
9 4,
7 th
r
o
u
g
h
9,
an
d
11 through 19 listed in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3,
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
no
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
be
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
ho
u
s
i
n
g
would be accomplished by
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
in
f
i
l
l
un
i
t
s
on
po
r
t
i
o
n
s
of
th
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
th
a
t
ar
e
no
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
wi
t
h
ho
u
s
i
n
g
.
For Housing Element Sites
10
,
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
si
t
e
at
it
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ma
x
i
m
u
m
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
wo
u
ld re
q
u
i
r
e
de
m
o
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
an
d
would require the
oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
to
mo
v
e
wh
i
l
e
th
e
ne
w
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
is
un
d
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
a ne
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in the number of
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
(4
,
42
1
un
i
t
s
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
1,
8
9
5
un
i
t
s
)
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
ba
s
e
d
on
an
av
e
r
a
g
e
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
size of 2.94 persons per
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
,
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ne
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
82
0
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
fr
o
m
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
th
e
s
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
10 would accommodate
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2,
4
1
1
ne
w
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
in
th
e
ci
t
y
.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
1
2
:
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
an
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
Th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
to
t
a
l
of
4,
4
2
1
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
be
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
th
e
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
as
a wh
o
l
e
.
The following revisions
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a br
e
a
k
‐do
w
n
of
th
e
to
t
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
by
sc
h
o
o
l
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
to
mo
r
e
pr
e
c
i
s
e
l
y
il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
by
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
13
8
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 17
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
4.
1
2
‐13
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
Th
i
s
se
c
t
i
o
n
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
re
g
a
r
d
to
sc
h
o
o
l
s
se
r
v
i
n
g
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
and Fiscal Impact
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2 in
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
F,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
.
4.
1
2
‐15
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Un
i
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
2
‐3,
th
e
CU
S
D
sc
h
o
o
l
s
ar
e
al
r
e
a
d
y
we
l
l
ov
e
r
th
e
i
r
ca
p
a
c
i
t
i
e
s
,
ex
c
e
p
t
fo
r
th
e
Ea
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
School, which is also
ne
a
r
it
s
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
Wi
t
h
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
CU
S
D
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
an
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
i
r
at
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
of 1,10590124 students
in
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
30
9
2
5
3
25
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
in
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
,
indicates that the CUSD
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
th
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
20
4
0
.
24
Th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
in
th
e
CU
S
D
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
is
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
of
0.
2
5
fr
o
m
th
e
school report, and the
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
at
20
4
0
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
,
4,
4
2
1
3,
6
0
1
un
i
t
s
(4
,
4
2
1
to
t
a
l
un
i
t
s
– 82
0
un
i
t
s
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
= 3,601 units).
25
Th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
in
th
e
CU
S
D
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
is
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
of
0.
0
7
fr
o
m
the school report, and
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
at
20
4
0
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
,
4,
4
2
1
3,
6
0
1
un
i
t
s
(4
,
4
2
1
to
t
a
l
un
i
t
s
– 82
0
un
i
t
s
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
= 3,601 units).
4.
1
2
‐16
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
Un
i
f
i
e
d
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
As
sh
o
w
n
in
th
e
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
2
‐4,
FU
H
S
D
sc
h
o
o
l
s
ar
e
wi
t
h
i
n
5 pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
FU
H
S
D
’
s
standards. For the
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
as
a wh
o
l
e
,
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
is
al
m
o
s
t
ex
a
c
t
l
y
eq
u
a
l
to
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
Al
m
o
s
t
al
l
of
th
e
fi
v
e
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
s
show a capacity deficit
wi
t
h
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
wi
t
h
th
e
la
r
g
e
s
t
de
f
i
c
i
t
,
an
d
Mo
n
t
a
Vi
s
t
a
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
wi
t
h
a sl
i
g
h
t
su
r
p
l
u
s
in
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
With the proposed
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
FU
H
S
D
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
an
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
i
r
at
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
by
30
9
2
5
3
29
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
20
4
0
.
The increased student
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
,
an
d
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
de
f
i
c
i
t
fo
r
th
e
FU
H
S
D
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
an
d
sc
h
o
o
l
s
wi
l
l
be
ov
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
e
d
.
29
Th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
in
th
e
CF
U
H
S
D
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
is
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
of
0.
0
7
fr
o
m
the school report, and
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
at
20
4
0
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
,
4,
4
2
1
3,
6
0
1
un
i
t
s
(4
,
4
2
1
to
t
a
l
un
i
t
s
– 82
0
un
i
t
s
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
= 3,601 units).
2 No
t
e
th
a
t
th
i
s
re
p
o
r
t
ha
s
be
e
n
re
v
i
s
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
mi
n
o
r
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
do
no
t
af
f
e
c
t
th
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
Th
e
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
ar
e
sh
o
w
n
in this table
un
d
e
r
th
e
he
a
d
i
n
g
“A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F”
be
l
o
w
.
13
8
6
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 18
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
4.
1
2
‐18
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Un
i
f
i
e
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Th
e
SC
U
S
D
ha
s
be
e
n
gr
o
w
i
n
g
ov
e
r
th
e
pa
s
t
de
c
a
d
e
,
wi
t
h
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
fr
o
m
13
,
9
7
6
in
20
0
3
to
15
,
3
9
4
in
2013. For the next
de
c
a
d
e
,
10
,
5
0
0
ne
w
un
i
t
s
ar
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
to
be
ad
d
e
d
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
,
of
wh
i
c
h
90
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
th
e
m
wo
u
l
d
be
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
Since high density
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
ve
r
y
fe
w
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
th
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
s
on
l
y
ab
o
u
t
0.
0
2
3
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
pe
r
un
i
t
based on, 0.034 for
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
0.
0
1
2
fo
r
mi
d
d
l
e
an
d
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
is
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
us
i
n
g
th
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
generation rates from
th
e
sc
h
o
o
l
re
p
o
r
t
,
an
d
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
at
20
4
0
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
,
82
0
un
i
t
s
(4
,
4
2
1
to
t
a
l
un
i
t
s
– 3,
6
0
1
u
n
i
t
s
in the CUSD and
FU
H
S
D
= 82
0
un
i
t
s
)
.
4.
1
2
‐18
Im
p
a
c
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Th
i
s
se
c
t
i
o
n
an
a
l
y
z
e
s
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
an
d
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
sc
h
o
o
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
ba
s
e
d
on the School Enrollment
an
d
Fi
s
c
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
3 in
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
F,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
.
4.
1
2
‐19
Im
p
a
c
t
PS
‐5 –
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Un
i
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4,
4
2
1
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
As
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
ab
o
v
e
,
af
t
e
r
subtracting the 820 units
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
be
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
,
th
e
CU
S
D
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
an
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
1,
1
0
5
9
0
1
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
in
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
schools and 309253
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
in
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Wi
t
h
st
u
d
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
al
r
e
a
d
y
ex
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
CU
S
D
’
s
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
would exacerbate the
CU
S
D
’
s
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
In
or
d
e
r
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
ne
w
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
th
e
CU
S
D
ne
e
d
s
to
ei
t
h
e
r
ex
p
a
n
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
or
construct new schools.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
do
e
s
no
t
ha
v
e
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ne
w
sc
h
o
o
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
enrollment expected.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
mo
s
t
of
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
oc
c
u
r
on
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
si
t
e
s
wi
t
h
tw
o
‐st
o
r
y
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Since these are
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
in
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
im
p
a
ct
s
du
e
to
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ar
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to be minimal. The
CU
S
D
wo
u
l
d
re
c
e
i
v
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$9
.
1
7.
4
mi
l
l
i
o
n
in
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
fr
o
m
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
wh
i
c
h
would mitigate the
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
pe
r
SB
50
.
Th
e
im
p
a
c
t
to
th
e
CU
S
D
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
3 No
t
e
th
a
t
th
i
s
re
p
o
r
t
ha
s
be
e
n
re
v
i
s
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
mi
n
o
r
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
do
no
t
af
f
e
c
t
th
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
Th
e
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
ar
e
sh
o
w
n
in this table
un
d
e
r
th
e
he
a
d
i
n
g
“A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
F”
be
l
o
w
.
13
8
7
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 19
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
4.
1
2
‐19
Im
p
a
c
t
PS
‐5 –
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
Un
i
f
i
e
d
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Wi
t
h
th
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
4,
4
2
1
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
to
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
of
wh
i
c
h
3,
6
0
1
un
i
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
in
th
e
FU
H
S
D
,
the FUHSD would
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
30
9
2
5
3
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
20
4
0
.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
cu
r
r
e
n
t
st
u
d
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
al
m
o
s
t
eq
u
a
l
s
to
it
s
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
an additional
30
9
2
5
3
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
de
f
i
c
i
t
fo
r
th
e
FU
H
S
D
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
FU
H
S
D
ha
s
be
e
n
mo
d
e
r
n
i
z
i
n
g
its facilities with additional
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
an
d
ca
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
s
to
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
de
f
i
c
i
t
is
s
u
e
,
an
d
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fee of $64.9 million would
am
e
l
i
o
r
a
t
e
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
pr
o
b
l
e
m
.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
mo
s
t
of
th
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
oc
c
u
r
on
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
si
t
e
s
with two‐story classroom
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Si
n
c
e
th
e
s
e
ar
e
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
in
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
du
e
to
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of the facilities are
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
be
mi
n
i
m
a
l
.
Th
e
im
p
a
c
t
to
th
e
FU
H
S
D
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
4.
1
2
‐19
Im
p
a
c
t
PS
‐5 –
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Un
i
f
i
e
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Wi
t
h
Of
th
e
4,
4
2
1
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
wi
t
h
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
fo
r
in
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
82
0
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
wi
l
l
be
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in the SCUSD. With
th
e
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
82
0
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
,
th
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
gr
o
w
t
h
in
st
u
d
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fo
r
th
e
SC
U
S
D
wo
u
l
d
be
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
22056 students
(1
3
2
2
8
fo
r
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
an
d
44
14
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
fo
r
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
14
fo
r
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
s
)
.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
enrollment would add
st
r
e
s
s
to
th
e
sc
h
o
o
l
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
,
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
to the SCUSD facilities;
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
th
e
SC
U
S
D
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
13
8
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 20
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
1
3
:
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
4.
1
3
‐25
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
TAB
L
E
4.
1
3
‐5
VT
A
ROU
T
E
S
AN
D
PEA
K
PER
I
O
D
HEA
D
W
A
Y
S
IN
CUP
E
R
T
I
N
O
Bu
s
Ro
u
t
e
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
Pe
a
k
Pe
r
i
o
d
He
a
d
w
a
y
s
(m
i
n
.
)
Ro
u
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
23
10
to
12
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
to
Al
u
m
Ro
c
k
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
vi
a
St
e
v
e
n
s
Creek
25
10
2
0
to
30
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
to
Al
u
m
Ro
c
k
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
vi
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Me
d
i
c
a
l
Center
26
15
/
3
0
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
/
L
o
c
k
h
e
e
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
ce
n
t
e
r
to
Ea
s
t
r
i
d
g
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Center
51
60
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
to
Mo
f
f
e
t
t
Fi
e
l
d
/
A
m
e
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
53
60
We
s
t
Va
l
l
e
y
Co
l
l
e
g
e
to
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
54
30
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
to
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
/
L
o
c
k
h
e
e
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
55
15
3
0
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
to
Gr
e
a
t
Am
e
r
i
c
a
81
30
We
e
k
d
a
y
Va
l
l
c
o
to
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
St
a
t
e
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Sa
t
/
S
u
n
Va
l
l
c
o
to Santa Clara
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
10
1
2 ru
n
s
in
pe
a
k
a
Ca
m
d
e
n
an
d
St
a
t
e
Ro
u
t
e
85
to
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
18
2
1 ru
n
in
pe
a
k
a
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
to
IB
M
/
B
a
i
l
e
y
Av
e
n
u
e
32
3
15
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
to
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
32
8
2 ru
n
s
in
pe
a
k
a
Al
m
a
d
e
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
to
Lo
c
k
h
e
e
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
/
M
o
f
f
e
t
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Park
a.
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
ru
n
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
in
bo
t
h
AM
an
d
PM
pe
a
k
pe
r
i
o
d
s
.
Se
r
v
i
c
e
is
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
in
pe
a
k
co
m
m
u
t
e
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
.
13
8
9
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 21
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
So
u
r
c
e
:
He
x
a
g
o
n
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
20
1
3
.
4.
1
3
‐44
20
4
0
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
4
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
3
‐12
20
4
0
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Le
v
e
l
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
St
u
d
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
LO
S
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
l
a
y
No Project LOS
12
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
SR
85
SB
Ra
m
p
a
D
AM
23
.
9
C
PM
22
.
2
B‐C+
4.
1
3
‐50
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Fi
v
e
Si
x
(5
6
)
of
th
e
si
x
t
e
e
n
(1
6
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
fo
r
at
le
a
s
t
one peak hour under the
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
we
r
e
al
s
o
pr
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
to
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
un
d
e
r
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
4 Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
3
‐12
li
s
t
s
41
to
t
a
l
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
on
l
y
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
LO
S
fo
r
th
e
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
fo
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
#1
2
wa
s
re
v
i
s
e
d
.
13
9
0
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 22
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
4.
1
3
‐52
th
r
o
u
g
h
4.
1
3
‐53
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
3
‐13
,
ab
o
v
e
,
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
se
v
e
n
t
e
e
n
(1
7
)
si
x
t
e
e
n
(16) intersections
du
r
i
n
g
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
of
th
e
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
.
SR
85
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
)
:
LO
S
E – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
3
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
‐Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
7
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
a
Dr
i
v
e
(#
9
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
1
6
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
:
LO
S
F an
d
E – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
9
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
(#
2
1
)
:
LO
S
E+
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
No
r
t
h
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
/
Q
u
a
i
l
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
2
4
)
:
LO
S
E – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
an
d
E+
– PM
Pe
a
k
Hour
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
(#
2
7
)
:
LO
S
E+
an
d
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
SB
Ra
m
p
s
/
C
a
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
(#
2
9
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Ag
i
l
e
n
t
Te
c
h
Dr
i
v
e
Wa
y
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
3
0
)
:
LO
S
F ‐
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
3
1
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
3
2
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
4.
1
3
‐55
th
r
o
u
g
h
4.
1
3
‐56
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
TR
A
F
‐1
Wh
i
l
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
TR
A
F
‐1 wo
u
l
d
se
c
u
r
e
a fu
n
d
i
n
g
me
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
an
d
infrastructure
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
ar
e
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
im
p
a
c
t
s
would remain
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
u
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
, be
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
ca
n
n
o
t
gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
at
th
e
s
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
th
i
s
ti
m
e
.
This is in part because
th
e
ne
x
u
s
st
u
d
y
ha
s
ye
t
to
be
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
an
d
be
c
a
u
s
e
so
m
e
of
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
un
d
e
r
th
e
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
of the Cities of
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
an
d
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
an
d
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
ou
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
:
SR
85
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
)
(#
2
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(C
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
)
(#
6
)
13
9
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 23
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(S
u
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
/
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
)
(#
1
6
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(C
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
)
(#
1
8
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(C
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
)
(#
1
9
)
No
r
t
h
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
/
Q
u
a
i
l
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(S
u
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
/
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
)
(#
2
4
)
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ag
i
l
e
n
t
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
(S
a
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
)
(#
3
0
)
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
M
P
,
Co
u
n
t
y
)
(
#
3
1
)
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
M
P
,
Co
u
n
t
y
)
(#
3
2
)
4.
1
3
‐63
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐2 –
CM
P
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Of
th
e
41
st
u
d
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
i
s
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
21
ar
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
’
s
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Program (CMP).
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1,
wh
i
c
h
pr
e
s
e
n
t
s
th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
un
d
e
r
20
4
0
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Project on all of the
st
u
d
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s,
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
th
e
21
CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to the following twelve
(1
2
)
el
e
v
e
n
(1
1
)
CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
of
th
e
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
:
SR
85
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
)
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
#
3
)
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
‐Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
7
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
9
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
1
)
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
Ra
m
p
s
/
C
a
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
(#
2
9
)
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
(#
3
1
)
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
(#
3
2
)
13
9
2
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 24
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
5:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
of
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
5‐3
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
5
Ta
b
l
e
5‐3
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
Su
m
m
a
r
y
At
20
4
0
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
20
1
3
Bu
i
l
t
/
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
b
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
Land Use Alternative B
Jo
b
s
21
,
3
9
9
2
7
,
3
8
7
44
,
2
4
2
30
,
8
4
8
32
,
5
9
3
39,092
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
5.
1
:
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
5.
1
‐1
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
6
Ta
b
l
e
5.
1
‐1
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
& Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(2
0
1
3
)
a
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
Ne
t
Ne
w
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
b
Buildout (2040)c
Jo
b
s
27
,
3
8
7
2
1
,
3
9
9
3,
4
6
1
e
0
3,
4
6
1
e
30,848
5.
1
‐50
Si
t
i
n
g
Ne
w
Od
o
r
So
u
r
c
e
s
Wh
i
l
e
no
t
al
l
so
u
r
c
e
s
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐10
,
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
2
,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
ar
e
fo
u
n
d
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
(e
.
g
.
re
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
plants, confined
an
i
m
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
that generate
ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
od
o
r
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
rn
a
t
iv
e
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
ne
w
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
od
o
r
s
,
su
c
h
as composting,
gr
e
e
n
w
a
s
t
e
,
an
d
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
fo
o
d
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
;
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
;
an
d
pa
i
n
t
i
n
g
/
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
because these are
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
us
e
s
in
th
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
/
o
r
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
co
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
for industrial projects
li
s
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐84
.
2
‐9,
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
2
,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
ar
e
no
t
exposed to objectionable
od
o
r
s
.
5.
1
‐55
Im
p
a
c
t
BI
O
‐3
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
oc
c
u
r
in
ur
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
areas where jurisdictional
wa
t
e
r
s
ar
e
ab
s
e
n
t
.
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
an
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
ot
h
e
r
wa
t
e
r
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
1)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
for sedimentation
5 Ta
b
l
e
5‐3 li
s
t
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
al
l
ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
on
l
y
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
jo
b
nu
m
b
e
r
wa
s
re
v
i
s
e
d
.
6 Ta
b
l
e
5.
1
‐1 li
s
t
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
al
l
ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
on
l
y
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
jo
b
nu
m
b
e
r
wa
s
re
v
i
s
e
d
.
13
9
3
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 25
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
du
e
to
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
gr
a
d
i
n
g
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
,
2)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
er
o
s
i
o
n
du
e
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
runoff volumes generated
by
im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
,
an
d
3)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
de
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
du
e
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
le
v
e
l
s
in non‐point pollutants.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
co
u
l
d
be
la
r
g
e
l
y
av
o
i
d
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Be
s
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(BMPs) during
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
co
n
tr
o
l
s
.
As
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4.
8
.
1
.
1
,
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Fr
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
,
of Chapter 4.94.8,
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
an
d
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
in
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ru
n
o
f
f
is
re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
lo
c
a
l
l
y
by
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Clara Valley Urban
Ru
n
o
f
f
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(S
C
V
U
R
P
P
P
)
,
wh
i
c
h
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
C.
3
of
th
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
o
r
m
Water National Pollutant
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
(N
P
D
E
S
)
Pe
r
m
i
t
(M
R
P
)
ad
o
p
t
e
d
by
th
e
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Control Board (RWQCB).
5.
1
‐78
Im
p
a
c
t
HA
Z
‐2
Th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wo
u
l
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
,
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
uses, within Cupertino.
So
m
e
of
th
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
on
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
y
ar
e
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
an
d
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
un
d
e
r
g
o
i
n
g
evaluation, and/or
un
d
e
r
g
o
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
ac
t
i
o
n
,
as
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
7
.
1
4
.
7
‐2 of
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
7
,
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
Ha
z
ar
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
5.
1
‐13
0
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
As
sh
o
w
n
on
Ta
b
l
e
5.
1
‐10
an
d
li
s
t
e
d
be
l
o
w
,
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ei
g
h
t
(8) intersections during
th
e
AM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
,
th
e
PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
or
bo
t
h
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
.
Th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
nu
m
b
e
r
,
as
us
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Ta
b
l
e
5.
1
‐10, is shown in
pa
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
an
d
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
‐Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
:
LO
S
E ‐
– PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
a
Dr
i
v
e
(#
9
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
1
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
7
)
:
LO
S
E+
– PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
SB
Ra
m
p
s
/
C
a
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
(#
2
9
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
5.
1
‐13
1
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
TR
A
F
‐1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
SB
Ra
m
p
s
/
C
a
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
(#
2
9
)
:
Ma
k
e
th
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
to
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
ri
g
h
t
turn a free movement.
Th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
is
l
a
n
d
an
d
se
p
a
r
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
fr
o
m
si
g
n
a
l
co
n
t
r
o
l
.
It
al
s
o
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
building a third
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
on
Ca
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
to
re
c
e
i
v
e
th
e
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
5.
1
‐13
5
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
TR
A
F
‐2 – CM
P
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Of
th
e
41
st
u
d
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
i
s
EI
R
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
21
ar
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
’
s
CM
P
.
As
sh
o
w
n
on Table 5.1‐910 and
li
s
t
e
d
ab
o
v
e
,
th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
a
t
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
si
x
(6
)
fi
v
e
(5
)
CM
P
st
u
d
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
levels of service
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
AM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
,
th
e
PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
or
bo
t
h
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
un
d
e
r
th
e
20
4
0
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
number, as used
13
9
4
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 26
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
Ta
b
l
e
5.
1
‐91
0
,
is
sh
o
w
n
in
pa
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
an
d
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
‐Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
:
LO
S
FE
‐
– PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
1
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
9
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Of
th
e
ab
o
v
e
si
x
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
on
l
y
th
r
e
e
tw
o
of
th
e
m
– th
o
s
e
wi
t
h
an
LO
S
E‐
or
LO
S
F ‐
‐
wo
u
l
d
fa
l
l
be
l
o
w
th
e
VT
A
’
s
CMP standard, which is
LO
S
E.
Th
e
th
r
e
e
CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
ar
e
wi
t
h
i
n
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
ha
v
e
LO
S
E (#
5
,
#6
,
an
d
#2
1
)
do
not actually fall below the
CM
P
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
,
bu
t
on
l
y
be
l
o
w
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
of
D re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
in
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
5.
2
:
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
5.
2
‐1
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
A
TAB
L
E
5.
2
‐1
LAN
D
USE
ALT
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
A DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
ALL
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
& PRO
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
SUM
M
A
R
Y
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
(2
0
1
3
)
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
(N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
)
Ne
t
Ne
w
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
To
t
a
l
in
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ab
Buildout (2040)bc
5.
2
‐58
Si
t
i
n
g
Ne
w
Od
o
r
So
u
r
c
e
s
Wh
i
l
e
no
t
al
l
so
u
r
c
e
s
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐10
,
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
2
,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
ar
e
fo
u
n
d
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
(e
.
g
.
rendering plants, confined
an
i
m
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
land uses that generate
ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
od
o
r
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
rn
a
t
iv
e
A
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
ne
w
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
od
o
r
s
,
such as composting,
gr
e
e
n
w
a
s
t
e
,
an
d
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
fo
o
d
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
;
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
;
an
d
pa
i
n
t
i
n
g
/
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
because these are
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
us
e
s
in
th
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
/
o
r
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
co
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
for industrial projects
li
s
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐84
.
2
‐9,
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
2
,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
ar
e
no
t
exposed to objectionable
od
o
r
s
.
5.
2
‐62
Im
p
a
c
t
BI
O
‐3
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
in urbanized areas where
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
wa
t
e
r
s
ar
e
ab
s
e
n
t
.
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
an
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
ot
h
e
r
wa
t
e
r
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
1)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in the potential for
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
du
e
to
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
gr
a
d
i
n
g
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
,
2)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
ia
l
fo
r
er
o
s
i
o
n
due to increased runoff
vo
l
u
m
e
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by
im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
,
an
d
3)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
de
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
due to increased levels in
no
n
‐po
i
n
t
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
co
u
l
d
be
la
r
g
e
l
y
av
o
i
d
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Best Management Practices
13
9
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 27
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
.
As
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4.
8
.
1
.
1
,
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Fr
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
,
of Chapter 4.94.8,
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
an
d
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
in
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ru
n
o
f
f
is
re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
lo
c
a
l
l
y
by
th
e
Santa Clara Valley Urban
Ru
n
o
f
f
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(S
C
V
U
R
P
P
P
)
,
wh
i
c
h
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
C.
3
of
th
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
o
r
m
Water National Pollutant
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
(N
P
D
E
S
)
Pe
r
m
i
t
(M
R
P
)
,
ad
o
p
t
e
d
by
th
e
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Control Board (RWQCB).
5.
2
‐88
Im
p
a
c
t
HA
Z
‐2
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
wo
u
l
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
,
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
s
,
within Cupertino. Some
of
th
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
on
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
y
ar
e
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
an
d
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
un
d
e
r
g
o
i
n
g
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
and/or undergoing
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
ac
t
i
o
n
,
as
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
7
.
1
4
.
7
‐2.
5.
2
‐13
2
Im
p
a
c
t
PO
P
‐1
–
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
jo
b
s
,
AB
A
G
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
7,
0
4
0
jo
b
s
fo
r
a
to
t
a
l
of
33
,
3
6
0
jo
b
s
in
20
4
0
,
as
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.11‐1 in Chapter 4.11,
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
.
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
5.
2
‐9,
wh
e
n
ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
jo
b
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
s
for office, commercial and
ho
t
e
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
of
th
i
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
as
ma
n
y
as
5,
2
0
6
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
jo
b
s
fo
r
a
to
t
a
l
of
32,593 jobs in 2040, which
wo
u
l
d
be
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
jo
b
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(1
9
pe
r
c
e
n
t
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
27
pe
r
c
e
n
t
)
.
5.
2
‐13
4
Im
p
a
c
t
PO
P
‐2
As
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
,
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
wo
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
and development
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
16
(S
u
m
m
e
r
w
i
n
d
s
an
d
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
.
Th
e
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
de
n
s
i
t
y
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
15
du/ac to 25 du/ac and the
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
ch
a
n
g
e
d
fr
o
m
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P(CG, Res 5‐15)) to
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
)
.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
18
(T
h
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
.
Th
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
ch
a
n
g
e
fr
o
m
P(
C
G
)
to
Planned Development with
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
an
d
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
,
OP
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
mi
x
e
d
‐use development including
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
.
13
9
6
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 28
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
5.
2
‐14
9
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
5.
2
‐10
,
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
r
e
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
un
d
e
r
bo
t
h
No Project and Land Use
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
bu
t
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
on
th
e
i
r
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
a
Dr
i
v
e
(#
9
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
1
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
7
)
:
LO
S
E+
– PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
SB
Ra
m
p
s
/
C
a
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
(#
2
9
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
5.
2
‐15
0
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
5.
2
‐10
,
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
du
r
i
n
g
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
of
th
e
pe
a
k
hours. The following
fo
u
r
(4
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
:
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
‐Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
:
LO
S
E+
an
d
EF
– AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Hours, respectively
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
:
LO
S
FE
‐
– PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
5.
2
‐15
7
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐2 –
CM
P
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Of
th
e
41
st
u
d
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
i
s
EI
R
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
21
ar
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
’
s
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Management Program
(C
M
P
)
.
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1,
wh
i
c
h
pr
e
s
e
n
t
s
th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
un
d
e
r
20
4
0
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
the Land Use Alternative A
on
al
l
of
th
e
st
u
d
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
th
e
21
CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
rna
t
i
v
e
A re
s
u
l
t
e
d
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
impacts to five (5) four
(4
)
CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
fo
u
r
CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
du
r
i
n
g
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
of the peak hours:
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
‐Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
:
LO
S
E+
an
d
F – AM
an
d
PM
pe
a
k
hours, respectively
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
(#
6
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
:
LO
S
E‐
– PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
Of
th
e
ab
o
v
e
fo
u
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
tw
o
of
th
e
m
Al
l
fo
u
r
of
th
e
ab
o
v
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
fa
l
l
be
l
o
w
VT
A
’
s
CM
P
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
,
which is LOS E. The
tw
o
CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
ar
e
wi
t
h
i
n
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
LO
S
E (S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
‐Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Road/De Anza Boulevard
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
[#
5
]
an
d
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
[#
8
]
)
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
‐Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
Anza Boulevard and
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
,
wh
i
c
h
is
a CM
P
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
is
wi
t
h
i
n
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
ab
o
v
e
LOS E during the AM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
,
do
e
s
no
t
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
fa
l
l
be
l
o
w
th
e
CM
P
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
,
bu
t
on
l
y
be
l
o
w
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
of
LO
S
D. It does, however, fall
be
l
o
w
th
e
CM
P
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
fo
r
th
e
PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
.
13
9
7
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 29
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
5.
2
‐16
1
Im
p
a
c
t
UT
I
L
‐1 – Ca
l
Wa
t
e
r
Fo
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A,
it
is
as
s
u
m
e
d
th
a
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
wa
t
e
r
de
m
a
n
d
wo
u
l
d
be
ad
d
e
d
to
th
e
LA
S
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
an
d
Apple Campus 2 demands.
Al
s
o
,
it
is
as
s
u
m
e
d
th
a
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
at
a re
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
n
s
t
a
n
t
ra
t
e
ov
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A’
s
26
‐year horizon period. The
WS
E
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
wa
t
e
r
de
m
a
n
d
fr
o
m
La
n
d Us
e Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A,
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
sh
o
w
n
in Table 5.2‐1315. As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
5.
2
‐15
.
1
,
th
e
WS
E
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
e
wa
t
e
r
de
m
a
n
d
at
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
(2
0
4
0
)
fo
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A in
the Cal Water LAS District
wo
u
l
d
be
80
7
af
y
.
Th
i
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
wa
s
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
us
i
n
g
th
e
re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
fo
r
ea
c
h
la
n
d
us
e
classification and
ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
it
to
th
e
de
m
a
n
d
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
a 15
pe
r
c
e
n
t
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
fa
c
t
o
r
du
e
to
wa
t
e
r
conservation
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
to
be
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
t
o
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
th
e
to
t
a
l
LA
S
GP
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
wa
t
e
r
de
m
a
n
d
at
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
(2
0
4
0
)
for Alternative A is
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
to
be
85
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
94
9
af
y
,
or
37
.
8
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
th
e
fi
v
e
‐ye
a
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
for Land Use Alternative
A Pr
o
j
e
c
t
de
m
a
n
d
is
16
1
af
y
.
5.
2
‐16
4
Im
p
a
c
t
UT
I
L
‐1 – Ca
l
Wa
t
e
r
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
Dr
y
Ye
a
r
s
Ta
b
l
e
5.
2
‐19
co
m
p
a
r
e
s
de
m
a
n
d
to
su
p
p
l
y
fo
r
a 4 ye
a
r
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
dr
y
ye
a
r
pe
r
i
o
d
.
Fo
r
th
e
fi
r
s
t
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
,
th
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
conservatively
as
s
u
m
e
s
th
a
t
de
m
a
n
d
wo
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
un
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
fr
o
m
a no
r
m
a
l
hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
ye
a
r
an
d
th
a
t
in
th
e
fo
u
r
t
h
ye
a
r
de
m
a
n
d would decrease by 10
pe
r
c
e
n
t
as
do
e
s
th
e
de
l
i
v
e
r
y
of
SC
W
V
D
“c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
”
wa
t
e
r
.
In
al
l
ca
s
e
s
,
th
e
su
p
p
l
y
is
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
to
me
e
t
10
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of demand. It is noted
th
a
t
ev
e
n
if
de
m
a
n
d
di
d
no
t
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
by
10
pe
r
c
e
n
t
in
ye
a
r
4 an
d
SC
V
W
D
su
p
p
l
y
di
d
,
th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
supplied in 2040 would
be
1,
5
6
5
ac
r
e
fe
e
t
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
3,
9
6
3
3
,
9
5
4
ac
r
e
fe
e
t
,
wh
i
c
h
ca
n
be
pu
m
p
e
d
by
th
e
LA
S
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
by
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
we
l
l
operation times
13
9
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 30
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
5.
2
‐16
5
Im
p
a
c
t
UT
I
L
‐1 – Ca
l
Wa
t
e
r
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
Dr
y
Ye
a
r
s
TAB
L
E
5.
2
‐19
DEM
A
N
D
AN
D
SUP
P
L
Y
COM
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
‐ MUL
T
I
P
L
E
DRY
YEA
R
PER
I
O
D
(4
YEA
R
S
):
CAL
WAT
E
R
LA
S
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
+ LAND USE
ALT
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
A (A
F
Y
)
20
1
5
20
2
0
20
2
5
20
3
0
20
3
5
2040
To
t
a
l
De
m
a
n
d
:
Ye
a
r
s
1 ‐
3
13
,
6
4
1
12
,
8
1
2
13
,
5
2
2
14
,
2
3
1
14
,
9
4
2
15,654
SC
V
W
D
Su
p
p
l
y
10
,
2
0
0
9,
7
0
0
10
,
2
0
0
11
,
2
0
0
12
,
1
2
0
13,000
LA
S
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
3,
4
4
1
3,
3
7
8
3,
8
5
5
3,
8
3
1
3,
8
8
8
3,984
To
t
a
l
Su
p
p
l
y
13
,
6
4
1
13
,
0
7
8
14
,
0
5
5
15
,
0
3
1
16
,
0
0
8
16,984
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
26
6
53
3
80
0
1,
0
6
6
1,330
To
t
a
l
De
m
a
n
d
:
Ye
a
r
4
12
,
2
7
7
11
,
5
3
0
12
,
1
7
0
12
,
8
0
8
13
,
4
4
8
14,089
SC
V
W
D
Su
p
p
l
y
9,
1
8
0
8,
7
3
0
9,
1
8
0
10
,
0
8
0
10
,
9
0
8
11,700
LA
S
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
3,
0
9
7
2,
8
0
0
2,
9
9
0
2,
7
2
8
2,
5
4
0
2,389
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
5.
3
:
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
5.
3
‐1
Ta
b
l
e
5.
3
‐1
TAB
L
E
5.
3
‐1
LAN
D
USE
ALT
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
B DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
ALL
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
& PRO
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
SUM
M
A
R
Y
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
(2
0
1
3
)
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
(N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
)
Ne
t
Ne
w
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
To
t
a
l
In
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Bb
Buildout (2040)c
Of
f
i
c
e
8,
9
2
9
,
7
7
4
sf
54
0
,
2
3
1
sf
+ 2,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
sf
2,
5
4
0
,
2
3
1
sf
11,470,005 sf
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
3,
7
2
9
,
5
6
9
sf
70
1
,
4
1
3
sf
+ 62
5
,
3
3
5
sf
d
1,
3
4
3
,
6
7
0
sf
g
5,073,248 sf
Ho
t
e
l
1,
0
9
0
ro
o
m
s
33
9
ro
o
m
s
+ 50
0
ro
o
m
s
83
9
ro
o
m
s
1,929 rooms
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
21
,
3
9
9
un
i
t
s
1,
8
9
5
un
i
t
s
+ 1,
4
2
1
un
i
t
s
3,
3
1
6
un
i
t
s
24,715 units
13
9
9
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 31
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
58
,
3
0
2
5,
5
7
1
4,
2
0
8
9,
7
4
9
e
68,051
Jo
b
s
27
,
8
3
7
3,
4
6
1
8,
2
4
2
11
,
7
0
5
f
39,092
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
a.
Th
e
am
o
u
n
t
of
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
th
a
t
is
bu
i
l
t
an
d
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
in
th
e
ci
t
y
an
d
th
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
jo
b
s
ac
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
fo
r
in 2013.
b.
Th
e
“r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
”
(i
.
e
.
wh
a
t
is
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
“C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
”
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
pl
u
s
th
e
“n
e
t
new proposed” equals the
to
t
a
l
ne
w
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
d
e
r
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
rn
a
t
iv
e
B.
c.
Th
e
“b
u
i
l
t
/
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
20
1
3
ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
”
pl
u
s
th
e
“L
a
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B”
eq
u
a
l
s
th
e
to
t
a
l
20
4
0
bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
d.
No
ne
t
ne
w
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
is
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
Th
i
s
nu
m
b
e
r
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
th
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
Ma
l
l
.
e.
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
is
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
by
3,
3
1
6
un
i
t
s
ti
m
e
s
2.
9
4
pe
r
s
o
n
s
pe
r
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
,
wh
i
c
h
is
th
e
AB
A
G
20
4
0
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
generation rate.
f.
Jo
b
s
ar
e
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
s
as
fo
l
l
o
w
s
;
2,
5
4
0
,
2
3
1
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
of
of
f
i
c
e
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
divided by 300 square
fe
e
t
eq
u
a
l
s
8,
4
6
7
jo
b
s
;
1,
3
4
3
,
6
7
0
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
di
v
i
d
e
d
by
45
0
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
eq
u
a
l
s
2,986 jobs; and 839 hotel
ro
o
m
s
at
0.
3
jo
b
s
pe
r
ro
o
m
eq
u
a
l
s
25
2
jo
b
s
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
11
,
7
0
5
jo
b
s
.
g.
Ne
t
ne
w
co
m
me
r
c
i
a
l
is
no
t
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
Th
i
s
nu
m
b
e
r
as
s
u
m
e
s
th
a
t
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Va
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ma
l
l
sq
u
a
r
e
footage (1,267,601 sf) will
be
de
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
an
d
64
2
,
2
6
6
sf
wi
l
l
go
ba
c
k
in
t
o
th
e
Ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
po
o
l
.
A Th
e
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
to
t
a
l
of 625,335 sf would be
re
s
e
r
v
e
d
fo
r
a
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Du
e
to
th
e
hi
g
h
va
c
a
n
c
y
ra
t
e
at
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ma
l
l
under existing conditions,
th
i
s
EI
R
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
th
e
to
t
a
l
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
1,
3
4
3
,
6
7
9
sq
u
a
r
e
feet (i.e. 642,266 square
fe
e
t
+ 70
1
,
4
1
3
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
)
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
14
0
0
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 32
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
5.
3
‐7
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
li
m
i
t
ov
e
r
a
l
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
allocation under this
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wo
u
l
d
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
th
e
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
(R
H
N
A
)
fo
r
th
e
20
1
4
–
2
0
2
2
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
and allow the city to
me
e
t
it
s
fa
i
r
‐sh
a
r
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ob
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
of
1,
0
6
4
un
i
t
s
.
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
5.
3
‐1,
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
un
d
e
r
th
i
s
Alternative would allow
fo
r
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
up
to
3,
3
1
6
3,
3
6
1
un
i
t
s
,
wh
i
c
h
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
1,
4
2
1
un
i
t
s
ab
o
v
e
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
fa
i
r
‐sh
a
r
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
obligation. The
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
th
e
ci
t
y
by
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
th
e
to
t
a
l
nu
m
b
e
r
of new housing in the
Bu
b
b
Ro
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
by
94
un
i
t
s
an
d
th
e
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
by
29
un
i
t
s
.
5.
3
‐6
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
11
(V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ex
c
e
p
t
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
)
:
He
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
60
fe
e
t
to
110 feet in the area
bo
u
n
d
e
d
by
I‐28
0
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
,
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
to
th
e
so
u
t
h
,
an
d
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
Ro
a
d
to
th
e
ea
s
t
if
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
includes a retail
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
co
m
m
u
ni
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
He
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
in
cr
e
a
s
e
wi
t
h
th
e
ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
ar
e
a
al
o
n
g
Stevens Creek
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
wh
e
r
e
he
i
g
h
t
wi
l
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
to
75
fe
e
t
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
benefits. There will be no
ch
a
n
g
e
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
Th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
ch
a
n
ge
d
fr
o
m
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
tial (C/R) to
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(C
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
O
/
R
)
an
d
th
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be changed from
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
(P
(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Shopping, Professional
Of
f
i
c
e
Li
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P
(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OM
P
,
Re
s
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
s
an
d
residential uses.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
16
(S
u
m
m
e
r
w
i
n
d
s
an
d
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
:
De
n
s
i
t
y
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
15
du
/
a
c
to
25
du
/
a
c
.
Zoning designation
wo
u
l
d
ch
a
n
g
e
fr
o
m
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
5‐15
)
)
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
Development with
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
.
No
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
he
i
g
h
t
or
th
e
General Plan land use
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
an
d
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
by
15
fe
e
t
.
5.
3
‐19
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
5 (G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
Un
d
e
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
zo
n
i
n
g
,
or
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
the permitted
he
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
by
15
fe
e
t
.
Be
c
a
u
s
e
th
i
s
Si
t
e
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
wi
t
h
hi
g
h
‐de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
co
m
p
r
i
s
e
d
of numerous 2‐story
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
an
d
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
u
l
d
co
n
v
e
r
t
th
e
la
r
g
e
ca
r
p
o
r
t
ar
e
a
s
to
gr
o
u
n
d
fl
o
o
r
pa
r
k
i
n
g
wi
t
h
new units above without
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
or
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
la
n
d
us
e
s
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B wo
u
l
d
not adversely impact
th
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
th
e
Si
t
e
or
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
;
th
u
s
im
p
a
c
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
5.
3
‐19
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
5
(G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
Un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
or
zo
n
i
n
g
at
Housing Element Sites 2
(A
r
y
a
/
S
c
a
n
d
i
n
a
v
i
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
)
,
3 (U
n
i
t
e
d
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
/
E
a
s
t
of
Ea
s
t
Es
t
a
t
e
s
Dr
i
v
e
)
,
4 (B
a
r
r
y
Sw
e
n
s
o
n
)
,
5 (G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
,
13 (Loree
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
an
d
19
(C
y
p
r
e
s
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
& Ha
l
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
;
th
u
s
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
permitted under Land Use
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B wo
u
l
d
no
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
th
e
Si
t
e
or
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
;
th
u
s
im
p
a
c
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be less than significant.
5.
3
‐19
Im
p
a
c
t
AE
S
‐3:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
;
bu
t
no
he
i
g
h
t
increases would be
oc
c
u
r
up
to
15
fe
e
t
(a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
on
e
st
o
r
y
)
an
d
th
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
wo
u
l
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
re
m
a
i
n
th
e
sa
m
e
;
th
u
s
,
fu
t
u
r
e
development permitted
14
0
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 33
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Si
t
e
16
(S
u
m
m
e
r
w
i
n
d
s
an
d
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Ro
c
k
)
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B wo
u
l
d
no
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
th
e
Si
t
e
or
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
;
th
u
s
impacts would be less
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
5.
3
‐63
Si
t
i
n
g
Ne
w
Od
o
r
So
u
r
c
e
s
Wh
i
l
e
no
t
al
l
so
u
r
c
e
s
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐10
,
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
2
,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
ar
e
fo
u
n
d
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
(e
.
g
.
re
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
plants, confined
an
i
m
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
that generate
ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
od
o
r
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
er
n
a
t
i
v
e
B co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
ne
w
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
od
o
r
s
,
su
c
h
as composting,
gr
e
e
n
w
a
s
t
e
,
an
d
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
fo
o
d
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
;
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
;
an
d
pa
i
n
t
i
n
g
/
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
because these are
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
us
e
s
in
th
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
/
o
r
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
co
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
for industrial projects
li
s
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
2
‐84
.
2
‐9,
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
2
,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
ar
e
no
t
exposed to objectionable
od
o
r
s
.
5.
3
‐67
Im
p
a
c
t
BI
O
‐3
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
in
ur
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
areas where
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
wa
t
e
r
s
ar
e
ab
s
e
n
t
.
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
an
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
ot
h
e
r
wa
t
e
r
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
1)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in the potential for
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
du
e
to
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
gr
a
d
i
n
g
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
,
2)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l fo
r
er
o
s
i
o
n
du
e
to increased runoff
vo
l
u
m
e
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by
im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
,
an
d
3)
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
de
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
du
e
to increased levels in
no
n
‐po
i
n
t
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
co
u
l
d
be
la
r
g
e
l
y
av
o
i
d
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Be
s
t
Management Practices
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
wa
t
e
r
qu
al
i
t
y
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
.
As
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4.
8
.
1
.
1
,
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Fr
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
,
of Chapter 4.94.8,
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
an
d
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
in
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ru
n
o
f
f
is
re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
lo
c
a
l
l
y
by
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Clara Valley Urban
Ru
n
o
f
f
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(S
C
V
U
R
P
P
P
)
,
wh
i
c
h
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
C.
3
of
th
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
St
o
r
m
Water National Pollutant
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
(N
P
D
E
S
)
Pe
r
m
i
t
(M
R
P
)
,
ad
o
p
t
e
d
by
th
e
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Control Board (RWQCB).
5.
3
‐92
Im
p
a
c
t
HA
Z
‐2
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
,
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
s
,
within Cupertino. Some of
th
e
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
on
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
y
ar
e
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
an
d
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
un
d
e
r
g
o
i
n
g
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
and/or undergoing
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
ac
t
i
o
n
,
as
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4.
7
.
1
4
.
7
‐2 of
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
7
,
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
Ha
z
a
rd
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
5.
3
‐13
8
Im
p
a
c
t
PO
P
‐2
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
18
(T
h
e
Oa
k
s
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
:
He
i
g
h
t
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
45
fe
e
t
to
60
fe
e
t
wi
t
h
a retail component. Density
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
fr
o
m
25
du
/
a
c
to
35
du
/
a
c
.
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
ch
a
n
g
e
d
fr
o
m
zo
n
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
with General
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
(P
(
C
G
,
OP
)
)
to
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
, and Professional
Of
f
i
c
e
(P
(
C
G
,
Re
s
,
OP
)
)
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
.
14
0
2
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 34
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
5.
3
‐14
4
th
r
o
u
g
h
5.
3
‐14
5
Im
p
a
c
t
PS
‐5 –
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Un
i
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B wo
u
l
d
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3,
3
6
1
3,
3
1
6
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
;
.
Af
t
e
r
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
the 344 units
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
be
lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
t
o
th
e
SC
U
S
D
,
th
e
CU
S
D
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
an
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
th
e
i
r
at
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
of
743 students in
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
20
9
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
in
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
,
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
that the CUSD would
no
t
ha
v
e
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
th
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
20
4
0
.
th
u
s
th
e
CU
S
D
wo
u
l
d
experience additional
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
in
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Wi
t
h
st
u
d
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
al
r
e
a
d
y
ex
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
CU
S
D
’
s
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
the additional students
wo
u
l
d
ex
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
e
th
e
CU
S
D
’
s
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
In
or
d
e
r
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
ne
w
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
th
e
CU
S
D
ne
e
d
s
to
ei
t
h
e
r
ex
p
a
n
d
existing facilities or
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
ne
w
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
do
e
s
no
t
ha
v
e
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ne
w
sc
h
o
o
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
the increased
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
CU
S
D
wo
u
l
d
re
c
e
i
v
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$9
.
1
6.
1
mi
l
l
i
o
n
in
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fees from Land Use
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B,
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B pe
r
SB
50
.
Th
e
im
p
a
c
t
to
th
e
CU
S
D
would be less than
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
5.
3
‐14
5
Im
p
a
c
t
PS
‐5 –
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
Un
i
f
i
e
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Wi
t
h
th
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
2,
9
7
2
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
to
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
th
e
FU
H
S
D
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
20
9
new students by 2040.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
cu
r
r
e
n
t
st
u
d
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
al
m
o
s
t
eq
u
a
l
s
to
it
s
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
deficit for the
FU
H
S
D
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
th
e
FU
H
S
D
ha
s
be
e
n
mo
d
e
r
n
i
z
i
n
g
it
s
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
an
d
ca
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
s
to
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
address the
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
de
f
i
c
i
t
is
s
u
e
,
an
d
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
of
$6
4
.
0
6
mi
l
l
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
am
e
l
i
o
r
a
t
e
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
pr
o
b
l
e
m
.
The impact to the
FU
H
S
D
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
5.
3
‐14
5
Im
p
a
c
t
PS
‐5 –
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Un
i
f
i
e
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Wi
t
h
Of
th
e
3,
3
1
6
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
wi
t
h
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
fo
r
in
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B,
34
4
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
wi
l
l
be
located in the SCUSD. With
th
e
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
34
4
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
,
th
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
gr
o
w
t
h
in
st
u
d
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fo
r
th
e
SC
U
S
D
wo
u
l
d
be
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
28 students (14
fo
r
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
7 fo
r
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
an
d
7 fo
r
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
s
)
.
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
wo
u
l
d
add stress to the
sc
h
o
o
l
in
th
e
SC
U
S
D
,
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
fo
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B wo
u
l
d
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
to
th
e
SC
U
S
D
facilities; therefore, the
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
th
e
SC
U
S
D
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
5.
3
‐15
1
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of
th
e
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
th
e
20
4
0
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
scenario are presented
in
Ta
b
l
e
5.
3
‐10
.
Th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
sh
o
w
th
a
t
,
of
th
e
41
st
u
d
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
29
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
level of service under
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B,
an
d
tw
e
l
v
e
(1
2
)
th
i
r
t
e
e
n
(1
3
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
during the AM peak
ho
u
r
,
th
e
PM
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
,
or
bo
t
h
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
.
5.
3
‐15
4
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
As
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
5.
3
‐10
,
si
x
(6
)
of
th
e
el
e
v
e
n
(1
1
)
th
i
r
t
e
e
n
(1
3
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
level of service for at
le
a
s
t
on
e
(1
)
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B we
r
e
al
s
o
pr
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
to
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
of
service under the No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
Th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
1
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at an unacceptable level of
14
0
3
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 35
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
fo
r
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
un
d
e
r
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
fr
o
m
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
to
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
s
of service: LOS E to LOS
D – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
.
5.
3
‐15
4
th
r
o
u
g
h
5.
3
‐15
5
Im
p
a
c
t
TR
A
F
‐1 –
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ba
s
e
d
on
ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
th
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
fo
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4.
1
3
.
5
,
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
of
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
,
in Chapter 4.13,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
at
tw
e
l
v
e
(1
2
)
th
i
r
t
e
e
n
(1
3
)
of
th
e
study intersections
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B du
r
i
n
g
on
e
or
bo
t
h
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
,
as
hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
in
th
e
Ta
b
l
e
4.
1
3
‐10
,
Ta
b
l
e
5.
3
‐13
.
Proposed Intersection
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ta
b
l
e
,
of
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
1
3
,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
tw
e
l
v
e
(1
2
)
th
i
r
t
e
e
n
(1
3
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
un
d
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B traffic conditions:
SR
85
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
)
:
LO
S
E – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
3
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
‐Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
:
LO
S
E‐
an
d
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Hours, respectively
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
7
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
a
Dr
i
v
e
(#
9
)
:
LO
S
F – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
1
6
)
:
LO
S
EF
– PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
:
LO
S
F an
d
E+
– AM
an
d
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
s
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
No
r
t
h
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
/
Q
u
a
i
l
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
2
4
)
:
LO
S
E+
– AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
(#
2
7
)
:
LO
S
E – PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Ag
i
l
e
n
t
Te
c
h
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
3
0
)
:
LO
S
E – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
3
1
)
:
LO
S
F – AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
5.
3
‐15
7
Wh
i
l
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
TR
A
F
‐1 wo
u
l
d
se
c
u
r
e
a fu
n
d
i
n
g
me
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
an
d
infrastructure
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
ar
e
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
im
p
a
c
t
s
would remain
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
u
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
, be
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
ca
n
n
o
t
gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
at
th
e
s
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
th
i
s
ti
m
e
.
This is in part because
th
e
ne
x
u
s
st
u
d
y
ha
s
ye
t
to
be
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
an
d
be
c
a
u
se
so
m
e
of
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
un
d
e
r
th
e
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
of the Cities of
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
an
d
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
an
d
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
ou
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
:
SR
85
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
)
(#
2
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
)
(#
6
)
14
0
4
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 36
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(S
u
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
/
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
)
(#
1
6
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
)
(#
1
8
)
No
r
t
h
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
/
Q
u
a
i
l
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(S
u
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
/
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
)
(#
2
4
)
Ag
i
l
e
n
t
Te
c
h
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(S
a
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
)
(#
3
0
)
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
M
P
,
Co
u
n
t
y
)
(
#
3
1
)
5.
3
‐16
8
Im
p
a
c
t
UT
I
L
‐1 –
Ca
l
Wa
t
e
r
No
r
m
a
l
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ye
a
r
TAB
L
E
5.
3
‐17
DEM
A
N
D
AN
D
SUP
P
L
Y
COM
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
‐ NOR
M
A
L
HYD
R
O
L
O
G
I
C
YEA
R
: CAL
WAT
E
R
LA
S
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
+L
AN
D
USE
ALT
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
B (AFY)
20
1
5
20
2
0
20
2
5
20
3
0
20
3
5
2040
To
t
a
l
De
m
a
n
d
13
,
6
4
1
12
,
9
6
3
13
,
8
2
4
14
,
6
8
5
15
,
5
4
6
16,407
SC
V
W
D
Su
p
p
l
y
10
,
2
0
0
9,
7
0
0
10
,
2
0
0
11
,
2
0
0
12
,
1
2
0
13,000
LA
S
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
3,
4
4
1
3,
3
7
8
3,
8
5
5
3,
8
3
1
3,
8
8
8
3,984
To
t
a
l
Su
p
p
l
y
13
,
6
4
1
5
13
,
0
7
8
14
,
0
5
5
15
,
0
3
1
16
,
0
0
8
16,984
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
11
5
23
1
34
6
46
2
577
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ta
b
l
e
14
(C
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
)
of
Wa
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
(Y
a
r
n
e
& As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
)
,
Ma
y
20
,
20
1
4
;
De
m
a
n
d
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
to
re
f
l
e
c
t
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B; SVWD Supply and
LA
S
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
su
p
p
l
y
ar
e
as
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
in
WS
E
(i
.
e
.
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
va
l
u
e
s
in
Ta
b
l
e
14
of
WS
E
)
.
No
t
e
:
Th
e
su
p
p
l
y
su
r
p
l
u
s
(D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
)
sh
o
w
n
in the table is theoretical. Total
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
su
p
p
l
i
e
d
is
th
e
qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
ma
k
e
up
th
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
LA
S
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
de
m
a
n
d
an
d
SC
V
WD
su
p
p
l
i
e
s
– both scheduled and Non‐
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
.
He
n
c
e
,
in
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
,
to
t
a
l
su
p
p
l
y
al
w
a
y
s
eq
u
a
l
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
de
m
a
n
d
fo
r
an
y
gi
v
e
n
ye
a
r
.
14
0
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 37
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
6:
CE
Q
A
‐Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Co
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
6.
7
th
r
o
u
g
h
6.
8
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
an
d
Un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
TR
A
F
‐2
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
an
d
un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
four Congestion
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(C
M
P
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
of
th
e
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
.
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
u
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
’
s
Congestion Management
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(C
M
P
)
in
te
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
of
th
e
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
s
:
SR
85
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
)
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
#
3
)
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
‐Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
5
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
7
)
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
9
)
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
1
)
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
Ra
m
p
s
/
C
a
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
(#
2
9
)
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
(#
3
1
)
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
(#
3
2
)
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
F,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Da
t
a
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
an
d
Fi
s
c
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
10
Ty
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
er
r
o
r
4.
1
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Th
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
op
e
r
a
t
e
s
25
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
20
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
fi
v
e
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Th
e
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
se
r
v
e
kindergarten through third
gr
a
d
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
ex
c
e
p
t
fo
r
Mc
A
u
l
i
f
f
e
wh
i
c
h
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
gr
a
d
e
s
ki
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
th
r
o
u
g
h
ei
g
h
t
.
Th
e
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
se
r
v
e
sixth through eighth
gr
a
d
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
14
0
6
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 38
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
12
CU
S
D
ho
u
s
i
n
g
br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
Ta
b
l
e
4‐1
Ne
w
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
A
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
B
Most Growth C
By
20
2
3
1,
1
4
0
1,
1
4
0
1,
0
6
0
1,993
To
t
a
l
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
in
CU
S
D
1,
8
4
5
1,
8
4
5
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
2
3,5963,601
To
t
a
l
in
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
1,
8
9
5
1,
8
9
5
3,
3
1
6
4,421
So
u
r
c
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
14
CU
S
D
st
u
d
e
n
t
br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐2
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
Ne
w
Un
i
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Un
i
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
SG
R
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
A
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
B
Most Growth C
By
20
2
3
gr
a
d
e
s
K‐5
0.
2
5
28
5
28
5
26
5
498
gr
a
d
e
s
6‐8
0.
0
7
80
80
74
140
To
t
a
l
CU
S
D
36
5
36
5
33
9
638
Fr
o
m
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Al
l
o
w
e
d
gr
a
d
e
s
K‐5
0.
2
5
46
1
46
1
74
2
7
4
3
899901
gr
a
d
e
s
6‐8
0.
0
7
12
9
12
9
20
8
2
0
9
252253
To
t
a
l
CU
S
D
59
0
59
0
94
9
9
5
2
1,1511,154
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
an
d
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
16
CU
S
D
To
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐3
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
14
0
7
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 39
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Fr
o
m
Ne
w
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
By
20
2
3
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
To
t
a
l
*
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1,
1
4
0
28
5
1,
8
4
5
46
1
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
1
4
0
28
5
1,
8
4
5
46
1
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
0
6
0
26
5
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
2
74
2
7
4
3
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
9
9
3
49
8
3,
5
9
6
3
,
6
0
1
89
9
9
0
1
*T
h
e
to
t
a
l
s
ar
e
no
t
al
w
a
y
s
ex
a
c
t
l
y
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
s
in
th
e
pr
i
o
r
ta
b
l
e
du
e
to
ro
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
17
CU
S
D
To
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐4
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
Ne
w
Un
i
t
s
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Un
i
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
By
20
2
3
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
To
t
a
l
*
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1,
1
4
0
28
5
1,
8
4
5
46
1
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
1
4
0
28
5
1,
8
4
5
46
1
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
0
6
0
26
5
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
2
74
2
7
4
3
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
9
9
3
49
8
3,
5
9
6
3
,
6
0
1
89
9
9
0
1
*T
h
e
to
t
a
l
s
ar
e
no
t
al
w
a
y
s
ex
a
c
t
l
y
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
s
in
th
e
pr
i
o
r
ta
b
l
e
du
e
to
ro
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
21
CU
S
D
To
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐6
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
fr
o
m
Ne
w
Un
i
t
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
By
20
2
3
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
Fr
o
m
Ne
w
To
t
a
l
From New
*D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
To
t
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
28
5
11
,
8
9
7
46
1
12,073
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
28
5
11
,
8
9
7
46
1
12,073
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
26
5
11
,
8
7
7
74
2
7
4
3
12
,
3
5
4
1
2
,
3
5
5
14
0
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 40
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
49
8
12
,
1
1
0
89
9
9
0
1
12
,
5
1
1
1
2
,
5
1
2
*T
o
t
a
l
s
do
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
ne
w
un
i
t
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
no
r
ab
o
u
t
12
0
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
wh
o
do
no
t
re
s
i
d
e
in
th
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
an
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
23
CU
S
D
To
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐8
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
Ne
w
an
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
By
20
2
3
To
t
a
l
Fr
o
m
Ne
w
To
t
a
l
*
Fr
o
m
Ne
w
Total*
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
80
6,
3
8
8
12
9
6,437
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
80
6,
3
8
8
12
9
6,437
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
74
6,
3
8
2
20
8
2
0
9
6,5166,517
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
14
0
6,
4
4
8
25
2
2
5
3
6,5606,561
*T
o
t
a
l
s
do
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
ne
w
un
i
t
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
no
r
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
who do not
re
s
i
d
e
in
th
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
ab
o
u
t
12
0
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
an
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
23
‐
24
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
Th
e
to
t
a
l
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
of
al
l
of
CU
S
D
’
s
sc
h
o
o
l
s
is
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4‐89
be
l
o
w
.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐89
Cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
Co
u
n
t
an
d
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
25
‐
26
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
Ta
b
l
e
4‐91
0
sh
o
w
s
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
th
e
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
of
th
e
s
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
th
e
la
s
t
co
l
u
m
n
,
is estimated as the
nu
m
b
e
r
of
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
ti
m
e
s
th
e
ra
t
i
o
be
t
w
e
e
n
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s
an
d
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
in
th
e
la
s
t
line of Table 4‐89 above.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐91
0
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
* En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
is
eq
u
a
l
to
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s
ti
m
e
23
.
0
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
pe
r
ro
o
m
,
th
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
sh
o
w
n
in
Table 4‐89 above.
14
0
9
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 41
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
26
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
Si
m
i
l
a
r
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
is
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4‐10
1
1
.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐10
1
1
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
*E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
is
eq
u
a
l
to
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s
ti
m
e
21
.
7
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
pe
r
ro
o
m
,
th
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
sh
o
w
n
in
Table 4‐89 above.
27
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
Ta
b
l
e
4‐11
1
2
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
Th
e
At
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
co
l
u
m
n
of
th
e
ta
b
l
e
sh
o
w
s
th
a
t
at
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
at
ea
c
h
of
th
e
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
sh
o
w
n
except Eaton exceeds the
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4‐89
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
28
‐
29
CU
S
D
To
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ta
b
l
e
,
Ta
b
l
e
4‐12
1
3
,
th
u
s
sh
o
w
s
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
i
e
s
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
in
Ta
b
l
e
4‐91
0
an
d
co
m
p
a
r
e
s
th
e
m
wi
t
h
the projected enrollment
fo
r
ea
c
h
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
sc
h
o
o
l
fr
o
m
bo
t
h
ne
w
un
i
t
s
an
d
to
t
a
l
un
i
t
s
,
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
ne
w
.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐12
1
3
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
fr
o
m
Ne
w
Un
i
t
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
By
20
2
3
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Total
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Fr
o
m
Ne
w
To
t
a
l
Fr
o
m
Ne
w
Total
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
To
t
a
l
*
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
14
,
4
1
4
28
5
11
,
8
9
7
46
1
12,073
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
28
5
11
,
8
9
7
46
1
12,073
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
26
5
11
,
8
7
7
74
2
7
4
3
12,35412,355
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
49
8
12
,
1
1
0
89
9
9
0
1
12,51112,512
* To
t
a
l
s
do
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
ne
w
un
i
t
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
ab
o
u
t
62
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
an
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
30
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
on
l
y
Ta
b
l
e
4‐12
1
3
,
wh
i
c
h
co
m
p
a
r
e
s
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
,
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
so
m
e
ev
i
d
e
n
c
e
wh
y
the schools in the
no
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
ar
e
th
e
mo
s
t
st
r
e
s
s
e
d
.
31
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
th
e
co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
of
cu
r
r
e
n
t
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
fo
r
th
e
mi
d
d
l
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
is
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
4‐1314 below.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐13
1
4
14
1
0
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 42
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
32
CU
S
D
to
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐14
1
5
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
fr
o
m
Ne
w
Un
i
t
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
By
20
2
3
Enrollment Total
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Fr
o
m
Ne
w
To
t
a
l
Fr
o
m
New Total
*D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
To
t
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
4,
8
9
8
80
6,
3
8
8
12
9
6,437
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
80
6,
3
8
8
12
9
6,437
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
74
6,
3
8
2
20
8
2
0
9
6,5166,517
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
14
0
6,
4
4
8
25
2
2
5
3
6,5606,561
*T
o
t
a
l
s
do
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
en
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
ne
w
un
i
t
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
ab
o
u
t
62
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
and students who
do
no
t
re
s
i
d
e
d
in
th
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
ab
o
u
t
12
0
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
an
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
34
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
Ta
b
l
e
4‐15
1
6
be
l
o
w
su
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
s
th
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
co
s
t
s
in
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A‐C ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
increase in the
nu
m
b
e
r
of
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐15
1
6
Ca
m
p
u
s
Si
z
e
s
Co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
St
a
t
e
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
14
1
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 43
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
36
‐
37
CU
S
D
to
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
an
d
co
s
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐16
1
7
Pe
r
St
u
d
e
n
t
an
d
pe
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Co
s
t
s
of
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
‐
CU
S
D
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
20
2
3
Co
s
t
s
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
To
t
a
l
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
Costs (in millions)
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
28
5
$8
.
4
9
46
1
$13.73
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
28
5
$8
.
4
9
46
1
$13.73
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
26
5
$7
.
8
9
74
2
7
4
9
$22.10$22.31
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
49
8
$1
4
.
8
3
89
9
9
0
1
$26.77$26.83
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
80
$2
.
6
1
12
9
$4.21
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
80
$2
.
6
1
12
9
$4.21
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
74
$2
.
4
2
20
8
2
0
9
$6.79$6.82
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
14
0
$4
.
5
7
25
2
2
5
3
$8.23$8.26
CU
S
D
To
t
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
36
5
$1
1
.
1
0
59
0
$17.94
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
36
5
$1
1
.
1
0
59
0
$17.94
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
33
9
$1
0
.
3
1
95
0
9
5
2
$28.89$29.13
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
63
8
$1
9
.
4
0
1,
1
5
1
1
,
1
5
4
$35.00$35.09
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
38
CU
S
D
to
t
a
l
fe
e
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐17
1
8
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
‐
CU
S
D
Un
i
t
s
by
20
2
3
Fe
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Fee Revenue (in millions)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1,
1
4
0
$2
.
3
4
1,
8
4
5
$3.79
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
1
4
0
$2
.
3
4
1,
8
4
5
$3.79
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
0
6
0
$2
.
1
8
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
2
$6.10 $6.11
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
9
9
3
$4
.
1
0
3,
5
9
6
3
,
6
0
1
$7.39 $7.40
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
14
1
2
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 44
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
38
‐
39
CU
S
D
to
t
a
l
fe
e
s
/
c
o
s
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
4‐18
1
9
sh
o
w
s
th
e
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
co
s
t
s
in
c
u
r
r
e
d
an
d
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
likely to be generated
by
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
w
e
d
un
d
e
r
ea
c
h
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐18
1
9
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ve
r
s
u
s
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Co
s
t
s
(i
n
$ mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
‐
CU
S
D
*
Un
i
t
s
by
20
2
3
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Co
s
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
De
f
i
c
i
t
Co
s
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Deficit
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
$1
1
.
1
0
$2
.
3
4
$8
.
7
6
$1
7
.
9
4
$3
.
7
9
$14.15
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
$1
1
.
1
0
$2
.
3
4
$8
.
7
6
$1
7
.
9
4
$3
.
7
9
$14.15
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
$1
0
.
3
1
$2
.
1
8
$8
.
1
3
$2
8
.
8
9
$6
.
1
0
$6
.
1
1
$22.79$22.78
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
$1
9
.
4
0
$4
.
1
0
$1
5
.
3
1
$3
5
.
0
0
$7
.
3
9
$
7
.
4
0
$27.61$27.60
* Bo
t
h
fe
e
re
v
e
n
u
e
an
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
co
s
t
s
ar
e
on
e
‐ti
m
e
,
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
an
n
u
a
l
,
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
39
Ta
b
l
e
nu
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
on
l
y
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
th
e
co
s
t
pe
r
st
u
d
e
n
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
is
si
m
p
l
y
a ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
di
v
i
d
e
d
by
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of students, as shown
in
Ta
b
l
e
4‐19
2
0
.
Ta
b
l
e
4‐19
2
0
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
‐
CU
S
D
43
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐1
Ne
w
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
‐
FU
H
S
D
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
A
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
B
Most Growth C
By
20
2
3
1,
1
4
0
1,
1
4
0
1,
0
6
0
1,993
To
t
a
l
Al
l
o
w
e
d
in
FU
H
S
D
1,
8
4
5
1,
8
4
5
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
2
3,5963,601
To
t
a
l
in
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
1,
8
9
5
1,
8
9
5
3,
3
1
6
4,421
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
14
1
3
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 45
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
44
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
un
i
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐2
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
Ne
w
Un
i
t
s
*
‐
FU
H
S
D
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
SG
R
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
A
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
B
Most Growth C
By
20
2
3
Hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
(g
r
a
d
e
s
9‐12
)
0.
0
7
80
80
74
140
Fr
o
m
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Al
l
o
w
e
d
Hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
(g
r
a
d
e
s
9‐12
)
0.
0
7
12
9
12
9
20
8
2
0
9
252253
*I
n
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Un
i
o
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
an
d
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
45
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐3
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
by
Sc
h
o
o
l
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
‐
FU
H
S
D
Ne
w
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
By
20
2
3
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Un
i
t
s
Enrollment
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
To
t
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1,
1
4
0
80
1,
8
4
5
129
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
1
4
0
80
1,
8
4
5
129
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
0
6
0
74
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
2
208209
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
9
9
3
14
0
3,
5
9
6
3
,
6
0
1
252253
*E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
is
eq
u
a
l
to
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
cl
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s
ti
m
e
s
th
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
rate of
re
c
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Th
e
to
t
a
l
s
ar
e
no
t
al
w
a
y
s
ex
a
c
t
l
y
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
s
in
th
e
pr
i
o
r
ta
b
l
e
du
e
to
ro
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
14
1
4
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 46
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
51
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
co
s
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐8
Co
s
t
s
of
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
pe
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
‐
FU
H
S
D
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
by
20
2
3
Co
s
t
s
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
To
t
a
l
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
Costs
(i
n
millions)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
80
$5
.
5
7
12
9
$8.98
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
80
$5
.
5
7
12
9
$8.98
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
74
$5
.
1
5
20
8
2
0
9
$1
4
.
4
8
$
1
4
.
5
5
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
14
0
$9
.
7
5
25
2
2
5
3
$1
7
.
5
5
$
1
7
.
6
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
52
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
fe
e
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐9
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
– FU
H
S
D
Un
i
t
s
by
20
2
3
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Revenues
(i
n
millions)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1,
1
4
0
$1
.
5
5
1,
8
4
5
$2.51
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
1
4
0
$1
.
5
5
1,
8
4
5
$2.51
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
0
6
0
$1
.
4
4
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
6
$4.04$4.06
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
9
9
3
$2
.
7
2
3,
5
9
6
3
,
6
0
1
$4.90$4.91
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
14
1
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 47
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
53
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
fe
e
s
/
c
o
s
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐10
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
s
Ve
r
s
u
s
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Co
s
t
s
(i
n
$ mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
‐
FU
H
S
D
*
Un
i
t
s
by
20
2
3
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Co
s
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ne
t
Co
s
t
Co
s
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Net Cost
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
$5
.
5
7
$1
.
5
5
$4
.
0
2
$8
.
9
8
$2
.
5
1
$6.47
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
$5
.
5
7
$1
.
5
5
$4
.
0
2
$8
.
9
8
$2
.
5
1
$6.47
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
$5
.
1
5
$1
.
4
4
$3
.
7
1
$1
4
.
4
8
$
1
4
.
5
5
$4
.
0
4
$4
.
0
6
$10.44$10.49
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
$9
.
7
5
$2
.
7
2
$7
.
0
3
$1
7
.
5
5
$
1
7
.
6
1
$4
.
9
0
$4
.
9
1
$12.65$12.70
* Bo
t
h
fe
e
re
v
e
n
u
e
an
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
co
s
t
s
ar
e
on
e
‐ti
m
e
,
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
an
n
u
a
l
,
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
53
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
co
s
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐12
An
n
u
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
– FU
H
S
D
Un
i
t
s
by
20
2
3
Co
s
t
s
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Costs (in millions)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
80
$0
.
8
6
12
9
$1.39
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
80
$0
.
8
6
12
9
$1.39
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
74
$0
.
8
0
20
8
2
0
9
$2.25$2.26
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
14
0
$1
.
5
1
25
2
2
5
3
$2.72$2.73
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
14
1
6
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 48
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
54
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
ta
x
e
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐13
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
‐
FU
H
S
D
Un
i
t
s
by
20
2
3
Re
v
e
n
u
e
(i
n
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Revenue (in millions)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1,
1
4
0
$1
.
1
6
1,
8
4
5
$1.88
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
1
4
0
$1
.
1
6
1,
8
4
5
$1.88
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
0
6
0
$1
.
0
8
2,
9
6
6
2
,
9
7
2
$3.03
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
1,
9
9
3
$2
.
0
3
3,
5
9
6
3
,
6
0
1
$3.67
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
55
FH
U
S
D
to
t
a
l
co
s
t
s
by
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
5‐15
To
t
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
ve
r
s
u
s
Co
s
t
s
(i
n
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
– FU
H
S
D
Un
i
t
s
by
20
2
3
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Co
s
t
s
Ne
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Co
s
t
s
Net
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
$1
.
3
3
$0
.
8
6
$0
.
4
7
$2
.
1
6
$1
.
3
9
$0.77
A ‐
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
$1
.
3
3
$0
.
8
6
$0
.
4
7
$2
.
1
6
$1
.
3
9
$0.77
B ‐
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
$1
.
2
4
$0
.
8
0
$0
.
4
4
$3
.
4
8
$2
.
2
5
$
2
.
2
6
$1.23$1.22
C ‐
Mo
s
t
Gr
o
w
t
h
$2
.
3
4
$1
.
5
1
$0
.
8
3
$4
.
2
1
$2
.
7
2
$
2
.
7
3
$1.49$1.48
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
h
o
u
s
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2:
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
th
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
To
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
2‐4
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ha
s
un
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
a co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
‐ba
s
e
d
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
pr
o
c
e
s
s
to
re
v
i
e
w
la
n
d
us
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
as
pa
r
t
of a focused General
Pl
a
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(o
f
f
i
c
e
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
hotel, and residential),
as
we
l
l
as
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
an
d
de
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
al
o
n
g
ma
j
o
r
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
,
wh
e
r
e
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
s
/
N
o
d
e
s
have been
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
se
v
e
n
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
,
an
d
Ot
h
e
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
an
d
No
n
‐Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
M
i
x
e
d
‐Us
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Areas. These Project
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
sh
o
w
n
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3,
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
on
Fi
g
u
r
e
s
3‐43
‐5,
3‐10
3
‐11
and 3‐19, respectively. The
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
la
n
d
us
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
an
d
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
go
a
l
s
,
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
an
d
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
to
the City of Cupertino 2000‐
14
1
7
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 49
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
20
2
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
ad
o
p
t
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
on
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
15
,
20
0
5
.
2‐6
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
to
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ta
b
l
e
2‐1
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
b
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
Land Use Alternative B
Of
f
i
c
e
4,
0
4
0
,
2
3
1
sf
54
0
,
2
3
1
sf
1,
0
4
0
,
2
3
1
sf
2,540,231 sf
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
1,
3
4
3
,
6
7
9
sf
c
70
1
,
4
1
3
sf
70
1
,
4
1
3
sf
1,343,679 sfc
Ho
t
e
l
1,
3
3
9
ro
o
m
s
33
9
ro
o
m
s
60
0
ro
o
m
s
839 rooms
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
4,
4
2
1
un
i
t
s
1,
8
9
5
un
i
t
s
1,
8
9
5
un
i
t
s
3,316 units
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
a.
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C.
b.
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
un
d
e
r
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
20
0
5
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
.
c.
Re
f
l
e
c
t
s
th
e
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
Va
l
l
c
o
Ma
l
l
(1
,
2
6
7
,
6
0
1
sf
)
wi
t
h
62
5
,
3
3
5
sf
re
s
e
r
v
e
d
fo
r
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
Ma
l
l
an
d
th
e
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
64
2
,
2
6
6
sf
re
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
to other areas in
th
e Ci
t
y
.
Du
e
to
th
e
hi
g
h
va
c
a
n
c
y
ra
t
e
at
th
e
Va
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ma
l
l
un
d
e
r
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
th
i
s
EI
R
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
th
e
to
t
a
l
commercial
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
1,
3
4
3
,
6
7
9
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
(i
.
e
.
64
2
,
2
6
6
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
+ 70
1
,
4
1
3
sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
)
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Project and
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
14
1
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 50
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
2‐12
,
2‐16
an
d
2‐26
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
Im
p
a
c
t
s
an
d
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Ta
b
l
e
2‐2 Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
Im
p
a
c
t
s
an
d
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
BI
O
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
No
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
LT
S
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
BI
O
‐1.
LTS/M
HA
Z
‐7:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
ha
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
LT
S
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
HA
Z
‐4a
an
d
HA
Z
‐4b. LTS/M
UT
I
L
‐7:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
.
LT
S
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
UT
I
L
‐6a
,
UT
I
L
‐6b, and
UT
I
L
‐6c
.
LTS/M
UT
I
L
‐10
:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
so
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
UT
I
L
‐8.
N/ALTS/M
S = Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
LT
S
= Le
s
s
th
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
SU
= Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
an
d
Un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
LT
S
/
M
= Le
s
s
th
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
/
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
of
th
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
to
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
3‐2 of
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
(R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
5
Th
e
la
s
t
pa
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
un
d
e
r
su
b
h
e
a
d
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
5 (G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
on page 3‐80 of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
is
he
r
e
b
y
am
e
n
d
e
d
as
fo
l
l
o
w
s
:
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
zo
n
i
n
g
,
or
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
As shown in Table 3‐
21
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
up
to
93
ne
w
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
ad
d
e
d
to
th
e
existing 517 units, for a
to
t
a
l
of
53
0
6
1
0
un
i
t
s
.
14
1
9
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 51
Ta
b
l
e
1:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Te
x
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
Pa
g
e
No
.
Is
s
u
e
/
T
o
p
i
c
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Te
x
t
/
C
h
a
n
g
e
3‐6 of
th
e
Fi
n
a
l
EI
R
(R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
6
Th
e
la
s
t
pa
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
un
d
e
r
su
b
h
e
a
d
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
6 (T
h
e
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
s
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
on page 3‐82 of
th
e
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
is
he
r
e
b
y
am
e
n
d
e
d
as
fo
l
l
o
w
s
:
Un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
no
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
zo
n
i
n
g
,
or
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
As shown in Table 3‐
21
,
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
up
to
62
ne
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
ad
d
e
d
to
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
468 units, for a total
of
61
0
5
3
0
un
i
t
s
.
14
2
0
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
City of San Jose
Correction:
Removed from the South De Anza
Mixed-Use Special Area,
APN 359-18-028
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
SCOFIELD DR ")2
Jollyman
Park
Cali Mill
Plaza
Library
Field
Faria
Elementary
School
!(
!(
!(
!(
City of San Jose
|ÿ85
City of Saratoga
PROSPECT RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAINBOW DR
Three
Oaks Park
Hoover
Park
!(16
City of
San Jose
|ÿ85
City of
San Jose
|ÿ85
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-10Proposed South De Anza Special Area
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 500 1,000250
Feet
Maximum Residential Density25 dwelling units per acre40 dwelling units per acreMixed-Use Special AreasStudy AreasHousing Element Sites
!(Bus StopsParksCity Boundary
3
3
1421
City of
Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Los Altos
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
!(47
65-70
73-89
71-72
31-36
!(46
61-64
56-59 51-5548-49
90-93
!(94!(96
!(95 !(97
!(98
!(41
!(43
!(13
!(19
!(4
!(39
!(22
!(9!(10
!(27
!(14
!(16
!(37
!(11
!(12
!(25
!(17
!(18 !(26
!(44
!(42
!(23
!(38
!(30
!(20
!(3
!(15
!(2
!(28
!(45
!(40
!(24 !(21
!(29
!(6
!(5 !(7
!(1
!(8
!(50
!(60
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BUB BRD
N
TANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BOLLINGER RD
BLANEYAVE
PRUNERIDGE AVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
M
I
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
TANTAUAVE
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
Monta Vista
Recreation
Center/Park
Linda
Vista Park
Deep Cliff
Golf Course
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve
Blackberry
Farm Park
Somerset
Square
Park
Varian
Park
Memorial
Park
Three
Oaks Park
Jollyman
Park
Cali
Mill
Plaza
Library
Field
Wilson
Park
Creekside
Park
Portal
Park
Franco
Park
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-40General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
1422
1423
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 3 , 2014
TO Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino
FROM Steve Noack, PlaceWorks
SUBJECT General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Updated Late Comments Received after the 45‐Day
Comment Period
Table 1, below, lists and provides a brief response to written comments that were received by the City
after the close of the public comment period for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR. The 45‐day public comment period ended on August 1,
2014. This memo responds to comments received between August 2 through November 3, 2014.1
These comments are reproduced at the end of this memo. No other late comments on the Draft EIR
have been received as of the date of this memo.
These comments do not contain “significant new information,” as defined in the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15088.5, which includes new or substantially more
severe environmental impacts, new mitigation measures or alternatives, or information indicating that
the Draft EIR is fundamentally or basically inadequate. No revisions need to be made to the Draft EIR.
1 This memo updates our October 14, 2014 memo that addressed late comments received
through November 3, 2014.
1424
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 2
TAB
L
E
1:
LAT
E
COM
M
E
N
T
S
AN
D
RES
P
O
N
S
E
S
T
y
p
e
1 N
u
m
b
e
r
2 N
a
m
e
Da
t
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
T
o
p
i
c
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
3
1
B
L
C
-
0
1
J
o
h
n
F
r
e
y
8
/
8
/
2
0
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
,
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
(
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
he
i
g
h
t
)
Im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
3
,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
3
-
4
9
.
Th
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
I
R
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Gr
o
w
t
h
.
S
e
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
,
p
p
.
4
-
4
t
o
4
-
5
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
f
i
r
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
2
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
on
p
a
g
e
s
4
.
1
2
-
1
,
4
.
1
2
-
8
a
n
d
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
se
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
w
e
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
,
A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
.
A
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
,
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
w
e
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
n
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
wh
e
r
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
s
b
e
i
n
g
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
.
S
e
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
B
1
1
-
0
1
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
5
o
f
t
h
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
.
2
B
L
C
-
0
2
B
a
r
b
a
r
a
R
o
g
e
r
s
8
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
4
S
e
n
i
o
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
re
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
3
B
L
C
-
0
3
C
a
r
l
e
n
e
M
a
t
c
h
n
i
f
f
9
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
4
B
L
C
-
0
4
D
a
n
W
h
i
s
e
n
h
u
n
t
9
/
8
/
2
0
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
s
e
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
l
e
t
t
e
r
B
-
16
i
n
t
h
e
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
8
,
2
0
1
4
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
.
5
B
L
C
-
0
5
R
u
b
y
E
l
b
o
g
e
n
9
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
4
W
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
,
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
sc
h
o
o
l
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
2
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
.
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
w
e
r
e
fo
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
w
e
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
4
,
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
pa
g
e
4
.
1
4
-
1
.
W
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
w
e
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
14
2
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 3
TAB
L
E
1:
LAT
E
COM
M
E
N
T
S
AN
D
RES
P
O
N
S
E
S
T
y
p
e
1 N
u
m
b
e
r
2 N
a
m
e
Da
t
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
T
o
p
i
c
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
3
6
B
L
C
-
0
6
R
u
b
y
E
l
b
o
g
e
n
9
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
7
B
L
C
-
0
7
S
a
b
r
i
n
a
R
i
s
k
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
8
B
L
C
-
0
8
T
r
i
s
h
M
c
A
f
e
e
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
3
,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
3
-
4
9
.
Th
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
I
R
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
gr
o
w
t
h
.
S
e
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
,
p
p
.
4
-
4
t
o
4
-
5
.
W
i
t
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
t
o
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
T
i
t
l
e
1
9
,
Z
o
n
i
n
g
,
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
9
.
1
2
4
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
th
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
.
9
B
L
C
-
0
9
S
t
e
v
e
H
i
l
l
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
s
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
3
,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
3
-
4
9
.
Th
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
I
R
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
gr
o
w
t
h
.
S
e
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
,
p
p
.
4
-
4
t
o
4
-
5
.
10
B
L
C
-
1
0
P
h
y
l
l
i
s
D
i
c
k
s
t
e
i
n
1
0
/
6
/
2
0
1
4
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
E
I
R
,
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
Wa
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
,
E
I
R
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
4
,
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
4
-
1
3
.
T
h
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
I
R
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
.
S
e
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
,
p
a
g
e
s
4-
4
t
o
4
-
5
.
W
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
w
e
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
11
B
L
C
-
1
1
K
a
i
W
e
t
l
e
s
e
n
10
/
6
/
2
0
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
T
a
b
l
e
4
.
1
3
-
1
5
i
s
e
d
i
t
e
d
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
.
12
A
L
C
-
1
2
M
a
r
k
A
l
l
g
i
r
e
,
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
Un
i
f
i
e
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
A
i
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
,
No
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
a
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
2
,
A
i
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
.
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
.
2
.
3
.
3
,
Se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
R
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
o
n
p
a
g
e
s
4
.
2
-
1
8
t
o
4
.
2
-
1
9
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
A
i
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
r
e
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
2
-
2
2
.
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
Q
-
4
,
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4.
2
-
5
7
,
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
s
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
o
n
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
A
Q
-
4
a
an
d
A
Q
-
4
b
.
T
h
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
I
R
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
i
r
b
o
r
n
e
14
2
6
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 4
TAB
L
E
1:
LAT
E
COM
M
E
N
T
S
AN
D
RES
P
O
N
S
E
S
T
y
p
e
1 N
u
m
b
e
r
2 N
a
m
e
Da
t
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
T
o
p
i
c
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
3
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
2
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
w
e
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
u
e
to
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
ma
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
50
(
S
B
5
0
)
.
A
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
,
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
a
t
e
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
,
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
5
0
,
h
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
a
t
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
sc
h
o
o
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
e
m
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
l
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
sc
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
th
e
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
a
y
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
im
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
S
C
U
S
D
,
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
f
u
l
l
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
sc
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
w
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
s
no
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
3
,
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
I
m
p
a
c
t
T
R
A
F
-
3
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
13
B
L
C
-
1
3
I
v
o
r
E
.
S
a
m
s
o
n
,
D
e
n
t
o
n
s
US
L
L
P
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,
No
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
n
.
S
e
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
L
C
-
1
6
b
e
l
o
w
.
14
B
L
C
-
1
4
C
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
e
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
1
0
/
1
0
/
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
N
o
i
s
e
,
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
Li
f
e
,
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
s
u
p
e
r
s
e
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
i
r
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
n
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
3
,
2
0
1
4
.
S
e
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
L
C
-
15
b
e
l
o
w
.
14
2
7
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 5
TAB
L
E
1:
LAT
E
COM
M
E
N
T
S
AN
D
RES
P
O
N
S
E
S
T
y
p
e
1 N
u
m
b
e
r
2 N
a
m
e
Da
t
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
T
o
p
i
c
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
3
15
B
L
C
-
1
5
C
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
e
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
1
0
/
1
3
/
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
N
o
i
s
e
,
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
Li
f
e
,
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
3
,
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
3
-
4
9
.
T
h
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
a
s
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
s
e
t
fo
r
t
h
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
a
n
d
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
V
T
A
.
No
i
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
n
o
i
s
e
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
0
,
N
o
i
s
e
,
o
f
t
h
e
Dr
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
0
-
2
7
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
2
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
.
Pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
C
E
Q
A
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
5
1
3
1
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
E
f
f
e
c
t
s
,
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
o
r
s
o
c
i
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
va
l
u
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ef
f
e
c
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
y
l
e
a
d
t
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
ef
f
e
c
t
s
.
16
B
L
C
-
1
6
I
v
o
r
E
.
S
a
m
s
o
n
,
D
e
n
t
o
n
s
US
L
L
P
10
/
1
3
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
’
s
f
o
r
m
a
l
w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
i
s
ac
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
17
B
L
C
-
1
7
P
e
t
e
r
P
a
u
,
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
a
n
d
Fo
u
n
d
e
r
,
S
a
n
d
H
i
l
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
10
/
1
3
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
18
B
L
C
-
1
8
C
a
r
l
e
n
e
M
a
t
c
h
n
i
f
f
1
0
/
1
4
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
19
B
L
C
-
1
9
D
a
r
r
e
l
L
u
m
10
/
1
6
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
20
B
L
C
-
2
0
J
.
B
l
a
i
r
V
o
l
c
k
m
a
n
n
1
0
/
1
6
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
21
B
L
C
-
2
1
J
o
h
n
F
.
W
a
r
d
a
1
0
/
1
7
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
22
B
L
C
-
2
2
T
o
m
a
n
d
E
l
e
a
n
e
H
a
l
l
1
0
/
2
3
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
23
B
L
C
-
2
3
A
l
v
i
n
a
n
d
S
h
i
r
l
e
y
D
e
Ri
d
d
e
r
10
/
2
4
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
14
2
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 6
TAB
L
E
1:
LAT
E
COM
M
E
N
T
S
AN
D
RES
P
O
N
S
E
S
T
y
p
e
1 N
u
m
b
e
r
2 N
a
m
e
Da
t
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
T
o
p
i
c
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
3
24
B
L
C
-
2
4
A
n
o
n
y
m
o
u
s
10
/
2
5
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
25
B
L
C
-
2
5
U
r
s
M
a
d
e
r
10
/
2
5
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
26
B
L
C
-
2
6
M
a
r
k
T
e
r
s
i
n
i
10
/
2
7
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
27
B
L
C
-
2
7
M
a
x
K
.
A
g
o
s
t
o
n
1
0
/
2
7
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
28
B
L
C
-
2
8
P
a
u
l
B
r
o
p
h
y
10
/
2
7
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
29
B
L
C
-
2
9
C
l
a
i
r
e
A
r
n
o
l
d
10
/
3
0
/
1
4
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
2
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
w
e
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
u
e
to
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
ma
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
50
(
S
B
5
0
)
.
A
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
,
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
a
t
e
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
,
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
5
0
,
h
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
a
t
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
sc
h
o
o
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
e
m
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
l
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
sc
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
30
B
L
C
-
3
0
C
l
a
u
d
i
o
B
o
n
o
10
/
3
1
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
31
B
L
C
-
3
1
C
l
a
u
d
i
o
B
o
n
o
10
/
3
1
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
32
B
L
C
-
3
2
C
l
a
u
d
i
o
B
o
n
o
10
/
3
1
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
33
B
L
C
-
3
3
C
l
a
u
d
i
o
B
o
n
o
10
/
3
1
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
34
B
L
C
-
3
4
S
t
e
v
e
G
a
z
z
e
r
a
1
0
/
3
1
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
14
2
9
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 7
TAB
L
E
1:
LAT
E
COM
M
E
N
T
S
AN
D
RES
P
O
N
S
E
S
T
y
p
e
1 N
u
m
b
e
r
2 N
a
m
e
Da
t
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
T
o
p
i
c
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
3
35
B
L
C
-
3
5
G
e
o
r
g
e
A
n
d
e
r
l
1
0
/
3
1
/
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
3
,
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
3
-
4
9
.
T
h
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
a
s
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
s
e
t
fo
r
t
h
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
a
n
d
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
V
T
A
.
36
B
L
C
-
3
6
J
i
a
l
i
n
S
o
n
g
a
n
d
Ho
n
g
l
i
a
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
10
/
3
1
/
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
4
.
1
2
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
w
e
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
u
e
to
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
ma
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
50
(
S
B
5
0
)
.
A
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
o
n
p
a
g
e
4
.
1
2
-
1
8
,
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
a
t
e
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
,
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
5
0
,
h
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
a
t
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
sc
h
o
o
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
e
m
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
l
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
sc
h
o
o
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
37
B
L
C
-
3
7
K
a
r
e
n
F
a
r
r
e
l
l
y
1
1
/
0
1
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
38
B
L
C
-
3
8
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
T
a
m
b
l
y
n
1
1
/
0
1
/
1
4
N
o
n
-
E
I
R
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
.
No
t
e
s
:
1.
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
“
t
y
p
e
”
p
e
r
t
a
i
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
i
n
t
h
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
C
o
mm
e
n
t
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
.
T
y
p
e
A
=
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
r
o
v
i
de
r
s
a
n
d
T
y
p
e
B
=
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
a
n
d
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
2.
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
L
C
=
L
a
t
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
La
t
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
a
r
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
t
h
i
s
m
e
m
o
.
3.
T
h
e
“
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
”
c
o
l
u
m
n
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
r
e
sp
o
n
s
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
C
o
m
m
en
t
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
o
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
8
,
2
0
1
4
.
14
3
0
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
3, 2014 | Page 8
14
3
1
From: John Frey [mailto:johnfreyca@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Growth and the straining of our services .
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing you on my concerns about our growth and straining of our services. I have
lived in Cupertino for approximately 22 years and grew up in Mtn. View / Palo Alto. I have
firsthand witnessed how Silicon Valley changed from the orchards I rode my bike though to the
concrete jungle we now live in. I truly understand businesses need to grow and that they
provide valuable tax revenue to Cupertino. But when I see our businesses being bulldozed then
replaced with buildings with businesses on the bottom and APARTMENTS / CONDOS above
them, it is a bit upsetting.
Is our City Planning strategy to become like San Francisco or San Jose? Or are we going to
make Cupertino one of the most balanced Cities in Santa Clara? Where businesses are
welcomed and residents have a safe beautiful neighborhood to raise their children in. When we
approve plans to build these high rises we take away from this. We put more cars on our roads,
more calls for service from our Deputies and Fire / Paramedics, and more children in our
schools. All but one of which, I have not seen any growth in. Our roads have not gotten wider,
there are no more Deputies patrolling though their beats have increased. This also can be said
about our Fire / Paramedics too. We do have construction on new classrooms (etc.) in our
schools but these school are in established neighborhoods that were designed for single family
homes back in 60's, 70's, and part of the 80's. Traffic around these schools are becoming a
parking lot. Blocking city residents from being able to exit their neighborhoods and sometime
their own driveways.
I have personally talked to Deputies who have stated to me that if they work in the west
end of Cupertino and a call comes out on the east end of Cupertino, they know it can take up to
30 mins. or more depending on the time of day. When you approve apartments / condos above
old businesses, you indirectly create a whole new beat for each floor added. This adds many
more calls for service with the same amount of Deputies we have had since I moved here back
in 90's with no one to replacing the vacuum. We need more Deputies!
I know we are building a "new downtown" off of Stevens Creek Blvd. I also know we are
building the new Apple 2 building off of Wolfe. These are hugh projects and will bring more
strain on our services and way of life here in Cupertino. Some for the good and I feel more for
the bad. The bad is the high density housing and traffic! It really has to stop, we cannot support
any more of these projects without destroying our way of life here in Cupertino. If a single
family home has to cost 2 million dollars, then unfortunately it is the cost of living here in
Cupertino. We have no more room for this type of high density growth! Or are we going the
way of being the San Francisco of the South Bay? I know every one of my neighbors feel the
same way about limiting the growth. I know a few years ago we had a petition passed that City
Hall cannot approve any construction above 3 stories without voter approval (correct me if I am
wrong). That was due to the big eye sore at the Crossroads (Stevens Creek and De Anza) being
built with high density housing. Please, don't make the citizens of Cupertino have to speak up
again.
1432
All of you live here and represent us. Control the Planning Commission and preserve what is left
of our city community!
Thank you for your consideration to this matter!
Respectfully,
John Frey
1433
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:04 PM
To: Christopher Valenzuela
Subject: Re: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting
Hi, C.J. and thanks for your courtesy.
I'm sorry I didn't see reference to senior housing in the staff report.
But glad it was there--and not surprised that it would have been included.
As the City is fortunate to have excellent members of staff.
Please accept my apologies for not reading well enough to find the staff reference.
And extend my apologies, as appropriate.
Thnx, again, C.J. Love, BR
On Aug 25, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Christopher Valenzuela <ChristopherV@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Barbara, I have forwarded your comment below to the Housing Commission as I didn't see the
Housing Commission included on your prior e-mail. Thank you.
Christopher "C.J." Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner City Hall
Community Development Department
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-777-3251 (Phone)
christopherv@cupertino.org (E-mail)
www.cupertino.org (Website)
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:03 PM
To: Christopher Valenzuela; City of Cupertino Fine Arts
Cc: Gary Chao; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting
To: Housing Commission Chair Raman and Members Wilson, Barnett, Chu, and Maroko—
I am very sorry to not be able to attend your meeting this Thurs. Aug. 28 at 9:00.
I have a conflict on 2nd and also on 4th Thurs. mornings, unfortunately.
Therefore, I'm emailing my input which I hope you will adopt in some form in your
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
1434
Specifically, I look at the Housing Element section of the staff report for your meeting this Thurs.
morning.
I find no reference to older adult (senior) housing an the need for it.
Perhaps I may have overlooked something in the long, well-written report.
I did testify at several of the workshops where it seemed to me that my comments were welcomed
and would be included.
I ask that you include some reference to the need for older adult housing in Cupertino, as well as
housing for all segments of the population, in your recommendations to the Planning Commission.
And not just below-market-rate and subsidized housing but also for-profit units.
There is ample documentation of this need which exists all over the country and is growing.
I've made available to staff material relative to successful for-profit and subsized senior housing
projects constructed in the Bay Area, across the U.S. and world-wide.
This need for senior housing, both government-assisted and also for profit, is growing in
Cupertino, as elsewhere, as the senior demographic is burgeoning.
I hope that in recognizing this need in Cupertino you will recommend for the City of Cupertino to
increase the housing available in Cupertino for older adults.
Thanks, again, for all you do to benefit our community and its residents-- that you care enough to
give of your time and expertise and make a difference for the better.
I look forward to welcoming you to the Sept. 30 Forum Aging-in-Place.
Thnx, again, Love, BR
1435
~IRVINE COMPANY
Since 1864
September 4,2014
Ms.Piu Ghosh,Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
Dear Ms.Ghosh,
The intent of this letter is to reinforce that The Irvine Company (TIC)has a strong desire to plan the
future redevelopment of the Hamptons in full cooperation with Apple,including but not limited to
security,height,landscape buffering,and amenities that could serve possible future Apple employees that
may choose to reside within close proximity of their employment.
From the beginning of our dialogue with Apple,we were encouraged that providing additional housing
near the Apple Campus 2 (AC2)would create an opportunity to reduce auto trips for employees living
within walking and bicycling distance to AC2.In fact,the AC2 EIR includes a mitigation measure,
which requires Apple to expand the Transportation Demand Management (TOM)Program to reduce
traffic impacts.This TOM Program expansionrequires implementation ofTDM measures that increase
Apple's non-single occupant vehicle mode to 34%at full occupancy of the site.The GPA's proposed
increase of housing units for the Hamptons site will provide a significant increase in housing within a
short walking!bicycling distance to AC2,helping Apple achieve this TOM requirement.
Recently,management at TIC were surprised to read the letter Apple sent to the City,since prior to that,
the two companies had an otherwise amicable and cooperative relationship over the years.
That cooperation began with a significant amount of coordination between TIC and Apple during the
period in which the AC2 OEIR was being prepared,circulated for public comment,and certified by the
City of Cupertino.This coordination took place between 2011 and 2013 and culminated with the
execution oftwo separate agreements between Apple and TIC (a Land Swap Agreement and a
Construction Impact Mitigation Agreement).
During the winter of2011,Apple approached TIC regarding the expected need to mitigate the traffic
impacts associated with development of AC2.They expected that EIR mitigation for the project would
include the widening of North Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and 1~280,requiring right of way
from the Hamptons.In addition,their proposed AC2 development included the closure of Pruneridge
Avenue between the Hampton's access and North Tantau Avenue.Apple communicated to the Company
that it was their desire,as well as the City of Cupertino's,that the Company and Apple reach agreement
on this North Wolfe Road widening and Pruneridge Avenue closure prior to the City Council's approval
of the AC2 project and certification of their project EIR.
690 N.McCarthy Blvd.,Suite 100 I Milpitas,CA 95035
1436
Over the course of nearly t\vo years,Apple and TIC resolved a number of issues to address the impacts
associated with the NOIth Wolfe Road widening and the vacation of Pruneridge Avenue.These included
the design parameters of the North Wolfe roadway widening (i.e.number and width of lanes),the design
parameters ofthat portion of Pruneridge Avenue that would remain between the Hamptons access and
North Wolfe Road,review offuture landscaping plans for the edge conditions surrounding the
Hamptons,trail and sidewalk requirements,and right of way compensation.These discussions concluded
with execution of a Land Swap Agreement bet\veen the parties in November 2013 and eliminated any
need for the City of Cupertino to use its powers of eminent domain to acquire the needed right of way
along North Wolfe Road.In the end,TIC agreed to dedicate access to Apple,Inc.in a Land Swap for the
price of $1 00.
Our cooperation also went beyond the issue of required access.In May 2013,the DEIR for AC2 was
circulated to the public.After TIC's review of the DEIR,we believed that a number of environmental
issues had not been adequately addressed.TIC informed Apple of our concerns three weeks prior to the
close of the DEIR review period.Apple requested that TIC and Apple execute a side agreement to address
our concerns in lieu of submitting a formal DEIR comment letter to the City of Cupertino.Over the next
three weeks,we engaged in a series of communications with Apple to discuss our issues.This
coordination culminated in the execution ofa Construction Impact Mitigation Agreement between the
parties in July 2013.This Agreement dealt with a number of issues including:
•Commitment by TIC to not write a DEIR comment letter
•Spillover parking into Hamptons
•Maintaining emergency access to the Hamptons site at all time
•Uses permitted in nearby Landscape Maintenance Building on AC2 site
•Noise limits from Central Plant
•Limitations on use of Pruneridge for construction traffic
•Weekend construction impacts,Dust control
•Design of temporary noise wall and Lighting shields
Despite TIC's general concern about the increased traffic associated with the AC2 project and the impacts
associated with reduced accessibility to the Hamptons site caused by the closure of a section of
Pruneridge,TIC was willing to work with Apple to eliminate the need to raise concerns during the DEIR
and hearing process.Even though our residents are inconvenienced on a daily basis by the noise,truck
traffic,dust,and general inconvenience of the construction,we have honored all prior agreements.
Now,as we explore future redevelopment of our site,and prior to filing plans fora specific project,Apple
has expressed concern in writing to the City,and also testified against redevelopment of our site at a
recent Housing Commission meeting.We wish to assure the City that TIC is willing to reduce heights to
60 feet along the Apple boundary and will design the future proposal within a 60 to 75 foot range with
taller heights along the freeway and stepping down the heights on Wolfe Road and along Apple's
boundary.With respect to Apple's privacy concerns,TIC is committed to incorporating appropriate
setbacks,landscape buffering,and design features into the design of the Hamptons redevelopment,in
order to respect the privacy of AC2.In fact,we have already engaged Apple's landscape architect,Olin,
with Apple's pernlission,to assure Apple that we would plant adequate trees and foliage to screen and
buffer views from AC2 to the I-Iamplons site and vice versa.
1437
Regarding traffic,it is worth noting,a positive community benefit of redevelopment of tile Hamptons,is
related to Section 3.14 of the Apple Development Agreement.This section requires their payment of
$1,000,000 towards a transportation study of Wolfe Road between Homestead and Stevens Creek
including widening of the Wolfe Road overcrossing at 1-280.(Apple told us that they had already paid the
City this study funding).However,subject to the outcome of the study,the City and Apple are to
detennine funding options to implement the recommended improvements from this transportation study.
One of those funding options is recognized in Section 3.14 to be a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District (CFD).Further,Section 3.14 gives the City sole discretion in making the findings with the study
and the funding mechanisms.In light of this requirement,any development in the Wolfe corridor,
including redevelopment of the Hamptons will necessitate the preparation of the Wolfe interchange study
and will kick off the process for forming the potential funding mechanism for the improvements in this
area.This is a positive benefit for the community as the Wolfe interchange is in need of study.TIC
recognizes that our project,should it move forward,would be subject to an appropriate contribution to
this funding district.
Our goal is to continue towork with Apple on a myriad of issues that require cooperation between our
two adjacent property owners,and to do so in a professional manner.We appreciate the considerable
efforts of the City to develop the General Plan Amendment,Housing Element update,related zoning
changes,and EIR,as well as your consideration of the facts presented in this letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information.
Sincerely,
~~~
Carlene Matchniff
Vice President Entitlements &Public Affairs
The Irvine Company
cc:Mayor and City Council of Cupertino
David Brandt,City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager &Director of Community Development
1438
September 8,2014
Piu Ghosh
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
RE:Citywide General Plan Amendment Proposed Resolution-Hamptons Site
Dear Piu,
We were pleased to read the letter from The Irvine Company ("TI(,,)confirming its
intent to respect Apple's privacy and security needs in any future redevelopment
of the Hamptons site.The language quoted below from TIC's letter also confirms
that TIC does not want the 8S foot height limit,with no setbacks,as currently
drafted in the General Plan Amendment ("GPA"):
"We wish to assure the City that TIC is willing to reduce heights to 60 feet
along the Apple boundary and will design the future proposal with a 60 to 75
foot range with taller heights along the freeway and stepping down the
heights on Wolfe Road and along Apple's boundary.With respect to Apple's
privacy concerns,TIC is committed to incorporating appropriate setbacks,
landscaped buffering,and design features into the then design of the
Hamptons redevelopment,in order to respect the privacy of AG."
The bottom line is that Apple and TIC are on the same page,but this isn't yet
reflected in the current draft of the GPA.As currently proposed,the GPA permits
heights up to 8S feet with no requirement for setbacks or other buffers.This
seriously damages Apple,and doesn't benefit TIC,since TIC does not require the
additional height to redevelop the Hamptons site.We appreciate that the City
recognized Apple's multi-billion dollar investment in Cupertino and respected
our security and privacy requirements during the approval process for AC2,as
reflected in the EIR and project approval findings.The City should continue to
live up to that commitment by revising the GPA and adopting the specific
language we previously proposed,and shown below.
'The height limit for the structures located within 50 feet of the parcel line
abutting adjacent commercial properties or Pruneridge shall not exceed 60
feet.The height limit shall not exceed 60 feet for the remainder of the
Hamptons site,unless the City makes special findings that an increased
height,up to a maximum of 75 feet,would not infringe on the privacy and
security needs of adjacent neighbors,nor unreasonably impact view corridors
or sunlight,or create light or glare trespass.This may require any future
development of the site to include transitions,landscaping,or other
mitigations,so that the City can make the special findings specified above."
Apple
1 Infinite Loop
MS 21-1AC2
Cupertino,CA 95014
T 408 996-1010
F 408996-0275
wwwapple.com
1439
Piu Ghosh
September 8,2014
Page 2 of 2
Irs vital for tne City to a dreSsthls Issue now.Otnerwlse,the City may have unintentionally
limited its discretion to address project-level concerns after adopting higher density limits in
the GPA.For example,California law provides that the density of a proposed project
complying with the applicable General Plan,zoning and development policies cannot be
reduced unless the City makes specific written findings that a reduction in density is needed to
avoid health or safety effects.Gov.Code sec.65589.5(j).There is also a streamlined CEQA
review for residential projects that are consistent with the General Plan,in which only impacts
that are "peculiar"to the project are analyzed.Pub.Res.Code sec.21083.3.Therefore,the City
should set forth in the GPA the key issues that need to be taken into account in considering
potential redevelopment of the Hamptons site,since deferring this step may unduly bind the
City in the future.We believe the language we proposed does that,and is consistent with
TIC's statements regarding its plans for the Hamptons site.
Kind regards,
Dan Whisenhunt
Senior Director
Real Estate &Development
Apple
cc:Mayor and City Council of Cupertino
Planning Commission of Cupertino
David Brandt,City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava,Director of Community Development
2
1440
From: Ruby Elbogen <rgelbogen@aol.com>
Date: September 12, 2014 at 8:06:04 AM PDT
To: gwong212@aol.com
Subject: Mr. Mayor - "Hell No, I Won't Go"
Dear Mr. Mayor - As I watched the Planning Commission meeting last
evening, and assumed the Irvine Company was pulling a prank on the
Commissioners by telling them that the Company from The OC is planning to
add 800-ish (give or take 3) apartments to what they already have
here--I laughed and waited for the punch line. Little did I know the
joke is on us. So, when this is approved--are we expected to give up
OUR water for them, as well as for Apple--so they can flush their
thousands of new toilets? If not, where will the water come
from? And, where will their kids go to school--even though it's not
the City Council's problem, so to speak, you will still be blamed for
letting it happen. You could tell the Irvine Company to go back to
Disneyland. Thanks, Ruby
Thanks & Regards,
Ruby Elbogen,
Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & Cupertino-News.com
408/355-0575
1441
From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:54 AM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: The Fence Between Vallco & Our Neighborhood
Hi, George ‐ Rumor has it that Apple, the City and/or some other entity wants to take down the
fence between Vallco and our neighborhood. Our home is on No. Portal. I can only assume that
all the people involved, who are fairly new to Cupertino are unaware of Propositions D & E‐‐and
the fact that our neighborhood fought a huge war to keep that fence up. And, does the City and
Apple, etc. realize how dumb the premise is that in order to promote Walkability those who
want to turn our area of Cupertino into what it doesn't want to be‐‐a friggin' Pass Through for
Apple employees ‐‐who profess Walkability, but who can't or won't walk around our very nice
quiet area? We want to nip this in the bud early, but we can gather a crowd to make it an issue.
What is your advice? Cheers, Ruby
Thanks & Regards,
Ruby Elbogen,
Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & CMagazineOnline.com
408/355‐0575
1442
1443
1444
1445
From: Dicksteinp@aol.com [mailto:Dicksteinp@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:17 AM
To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro
Cc: travigne‐villas‐hoa@googlegroups.com; faridakhan123@yahoo.com;
pamcafee1942@yahoo.com; betspix@gmail.com; amars10@hotmail.com; rgelbogen@aol.com
Subject: Council EIR session Tue Oct 7 4‐6:30pm
Gentlemen:
Since I will probably be late for tomorrow's meeting, which is beginning rather early, I
am submitting, or reiterating, some comments in advance.
1) The EIR is a bit of a whitewash. That is, the facts are there but the conclusions need to
be taken with a large grain of salt. Impacts on traffic, air pollution and water supply that
are reported as "less than significant" by the authors may not be so regarded by the
ordinary residents of Cupertino.
2) The responses to the comments on the EIR are a series of justifications ‐‐ was there
ever any acknowledgement that in a particular instance the commenter might be right
and therefore something ought to be scaled back?
3) I have already spoken at length about the impact on traffic and air quality of further
housing development on Blaney Avenue, but now, once again, I wish to address water
supply.
4) Water is already being rationed north of here, while the latest issue of Cupertino
Scene is urging residents to conserve water and suggesting several ways to do so. Yet
what good does it do for us to take shorter showers if in the end water is not being
conserved but simply transferred to thousands of new apartments and offices? Climate
change is not going way and the figures provided in the EIR for a five‐year drought
situation belie their sanguine conclusions.
5) I am unclear as to what will happen on November 3. I hope that the final Plan will not
be adopted the day before the elections! Many Silicon Valley residents work long hours
and cannot attend an endless series of meetings but they do vote. Any final decisions
should wait.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Dickstein
Travigne Villas
1446
From: <info@cupertinogpa.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website
To: info@cupertinogpa.org
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Kai Wetlesen
Organization: None Given
Email: kwetlesen@mac.com
Possibly Regarding Page:
/documents/view/195
Subject:
Error in General Plan Amendment, page 4.13-25
Comment:
regarding:
The General Plan
Hello,
The headways cited in 4.13-15 are not correct according to VTA
timetables within the Cupertino city limits. The following corrections
should be made to the headways table:
23: 10 to 12 minutes
25: 20 to 30 minutes
26: 30 minutes
55: 30 minutes
Regards,
Kai Wetlesen
1447
14
4
8
14
4
9
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1
From: Catherine Alexander [mailto:
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 2:47 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update ‐ Planning
Commission
Thanks, George.
I have a board meeting that night at one of the non‐profits whose Web site I write/manage, and
can't attend.
My comments for the record:
In my opinion, new, dense housing complexes will ruin property values for single‐family homeowners
and impact the historic safety of our Cupertino neighborhoods, overcrowd our struggling schools
(Building up is not a viable solution) and increase traffic and parking problems to unbearable levels.
Residents who pay property taxes here are already struggling with traffic congestion and parking
problems at shopping areas due to downsized parking lots designed to increase acreage available for
development. Many residents now shop and dine in other cities where parking and congestion is
more manageable, as was mentioned more than once by residents during the hearings, yet
apparently not recorded in the minutes by consultants working for developers and the City.
In my opinion, our Cupertino City Council and the current Community Development manager seem
to care about housing Apple employees who bike and walk to work and are not working for long
term residents who own single family homes here and want to preserve their quality of life.
Seniors, residents with small children and those who are disabled are not able bike or walk to shops
or restaurants in overdeveloped areas of Cupertino. These physically‐impacted groups seem to have
no place in the City of Cupertino envisioned by the manager of the Cupertino Community
Development team, who seems unwilling to hear any actual opinions and experiences from residents
which differ from her own somewhat rigid futuristic vision and theories of how we should want to
live here. Her goals for our City seem to be based on her cited and compiled, theoretical planning
statistics, not what residents want.
The Cupertino Community Development manager apparently was part of the team who created the
current traffic and parking mess in downtown Mountain View, based on the same bike and public
transit theories and statistics she seems to using now, to envision the Cupertino she feels would be
best for residents. Despite the feedback that most residents disagree with her, these theories trump
actual residents views, so some of us have stopped attending public hearings because she and the
City Council don't seem to be willing to hear that residents don't want any of the changes planned
for Cupertino and its posse of consultants and developers. Residents are interrupted or cut off at
hearings and some of our anti‐growth views don't seem to be recorded by the consultants working
for developers and City.
The Cupertino Community Development manager was apparently one of the city planning team who
created the "new Mountain View," where travel and parking is now almost inaccessible, where
Mountain View residents and business owners must now purchase $300 annual parking permits to
visit shops and restaurants or park near their own downtown businesses.
Downtown Mountain View restaurants and shops on Castro Street are now almost inaccessible to
residents, based on severe traffic and parking problems every evening. City visitors now attempt to
1455
2
park in front of resident's homes in those residential areas several blocks deep surrounding Castro
Street, since the same, "everyone will bike and take public transit" thinking, apparently by this
Cupertino planning manager during her tenure in Mountain View, was used to tell residents what
they should want in their City based on statistical models which were unrealistic, so vastly
inadequate and poorly planned parking, has become the new norm in Mountain View.
Now, Mountain View residents are living in a civic nightmare of continual congestion, with residents
and visitors circling blocks in every direction for over 30 minutes most evenings, just to find one
parking spot. This is not safe for families, children, the elderly, or the disabled, who use cross walks
and need parking in front of their own homes, and who absolutely need their cars and parking spots
near Mountain View's Kaiser facility, City Hall, Library, pharmacies, grocery stores and other shops.
Cupertino residents do not want to see our City condense itself to a limited bike/mass transit‐
centered future, where every foot of our City is not just developed, but over developed, and the
elderly and disabled, or those with small children are disenfranchised.
Long‐time residents don't want their community to become a series of high‐rise apartment
complexes and condos over businesses, or of shopping areas, parks and libraries which no longer
have adequate parking and green space for residents. High‐density developments age and degrade
over time and look shabby, and they are hard to remove once they are in place because they make
money for the owners, who most often do not live in Cupertino themselves and don't have to live
near them or deal with the traffic, health and safety problems they create.
Protect Cupertino property for those home and business owners who actually live in our City and
who care about its long term quality of life, its history, its safety, its schools, and our families,
seniors, and disabled. Create a balanced City which is not overly focused on one business or one
demographic, at the expense of everyone else in the City.
Residents with single family homes who moved here expecting their neighborhoods to exist of other
families in similar single family homes, who were told Cupertino had a "no‐growth" policy when they
moved here, do not to be overlooked by apartment and condo complexes, multistory garages, or
Santana Row‐like developments that, let's face it, no matter how fancy they are, are fake re‐
creations of historic buildings and look fake and tacky.
Cupertino demolished (and should have preserved) its own historic buildings, and lost what could
have been its own Los Gatos‐like authentic Santa Cruz/University Avenue quaint downtown area
with a planned civic center park at the corner of Stevens Creek and Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Road (as it
was called then).
Instead, as it always has since the 1970's, Cupertino City Council members chased the development
and industry dollar, believing the large industry du jour (remember Varian Associates/Valco Park,
Hewlett Packard, Sunsweet, Gemco, and all of the other businesses which were the answer for
Cupertino, yet have since fled) were the answer to Cupertino's future. Even now, Apple is moving to
a complex bordering Santa Clara, and my guess is that the dated and run‐down light industry
buildings it uses near Bandley Avenue, Lazaneo Avenue, and Mariani Drive, will be abandoned in the
next 5 years, with no industry filling those office space leasing gaps.
Those industries mentioned above moved away after Cupertino had already destroyed plans for
parks, Civic Centers and museums using historic buildings on those properties, which had been
previously preserved in no‐growth plans to benefit residents and our history. Sadly, we can't bring
1456
3
our historic structures back. Even the historic Cali Brothers grain silo, left to the City and destined to
become a historic park relic, since it was beloved by many here as the town's own Eiffel Tower‐like
monument when it was decorated with lights and a tree every holiday season, somehow was
mysteriously destroyed when it was entrusted to the City of Cupertino, and Apple wanted to develop
that corner lot.
Let's face it, Cupertino has apparently been for sale to the latest developer for many years now,
based on greed for revenue at City hall, with its posse of Chamber allies, consultants and developers.
What Cupertino could have been, if creating a city which respected our history, environment (while
refusing funding for civic life projects and programs from our greatest local polluter, Lehigh Cement),
neighborhoods, green space and quality of life for residents and families, was lost long ago.
The latest consultant and developer‐based dance around producing an Amended City Plan, is just
another step towards turning Cupertino into Mountain View, where there is little parking, cramped
residential areas and schools, and where some historic structures have been destroyed to create
fake, new buildings with an historic look, to jump on the current Santana Row‐themed fad of fake
historic Victorian or Mediterranean‐like architecture, for those who want to feel like they are in
historic Los Gatos or San Francsico, yet don't want to make the effort to drive there to experience
real respect for history and authentic architectural preservation.
Folks, you can't sell phony, high‐density Victorian and Mediterranean architecture to high tech
workers. These workers are highly educated and know the difference between fake Victorian and
Mediterranean cheap residential reproductions, which is why many of them choose to live in Los
Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos and Palo Alto, where actual historical homes and structures were
thoughtfully preserved by those cities and still exist as businesses and single family homes. High
density housing in those cities is not crammed in among single family neighborhoods, but limited to
light industrial areas, so home values and the quality of life in city centers, is not impacted by less
desirable combined residential and business developments.
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/
From: Catherine Alexander [mailto:cdjalexander@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:58 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: PS ‐ Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update ‐ Planning
Commission
Hello George,
Please also add this to the record:
As a Cupertino resident, my single family home, which used to be inside and surrounded by orchards,
was allowed, through re‐zoning and City Plan amendments, to sit beside a huge apartment complex
and its entry lane, once our neighbor sold his orchard land to developers.
1457
4
In what once was a clean and quiet neighborhood of single family homes, my home and front yard
now and for many years since the apartment development was built, has had chronic:
* Car alarms at all hours.
* Traffic at all hours.
* Honking at all hours.
* Dogs barking and cats howling at all hours.
* Cats defecating in my back yard at night. (I don't have pets.)
* Cats having kittens in my yard.
* Rats regularly coming under my fence, since the trash bins in the complex parking area are
directly across the entry lane from my back yard.
* Conversations and car key electronic beeping noises at all hours on the entry lane near the
bedroom windows of my home.
* People trespassing and walking under my bedroom windows at all hours. (the City will not allow
a fence to be built near the property line.)
* Loitering running vehicles and parked vehicles in no‐parking areas in front of my home, with
people using phones, talking, visiting, eating and smoking in illegally parked cars, since the
apartment complex is non‐smoking.
* People parked across the street from my driveway (in a no parking area) and taking photos of my
home and garage, when I have my garage doors open.
* Apartment managers (male) who watched me through their tall shrubs, when I mowed my lawn
or trimmed my plants.
* Cigarettes, cigarette butts, food, cups, wrappers, used and unused condoms, and used and
unused sanitary napkins/tampons, and other food related and personal trash, which is regularly
tossed in my yard and under my 50‐year‐old redwood trees, which I have to clean up.
* Weeds and quince apples left behind apartment complex bushes at their property line, which are
never removed by apartment yard maintenance workers (I have asked) so I am left to remove them
myself to prevent the spread of seeds/weeds into my yard, or rodents and pests near, in or under my
home.
* People regularly smoking near my historic trees without any apparent common sense or respect
for my property or fire safety, flicking their live ashes and butts in my yard on dry mulch under my
dry trees, which I can't water during this drought.
* People also smoking and flicking live ash and butts under dry trees, leaves and needles, on the
state property across the street from my home, creating ongoing neighborhood fire danger, despite
4 years of requesting that the apartment complex create a smoking area on its own property, to
improve chronic littering problems and fire safety in the neighborhood.
* People sitting under the trees on my property, in my front yard, without respect to property
boundaries.
* Workers from the complex, parking in my driveway to make phone calls and eat lunch.
* Repossession car haulers parking across my driveway as they quietly walk through apartment
complex parking areas to repossess cars from delinquent car buyers, usually between midnight and
1:30 a.m. on work nights, with their pulleys and hydraulics running the entire time outside my
bedroom windows.
* Moving vans, tractors and construction crews parked across my driveway for several hours, as
work takes place in the apartments during the year.
* Tractors and trailers left parked in front of my home for days in no parking areas, as construction
takes place in the apartments.
* Devaluation of my home and property, due to all of the above from the existence of apartments
next door to my home, as reported in my last property evaluation.
1458
5
When the City says there will be no impact to existing single family homeowners from new high‐
density residential developments, that is not accurate nor honest, in my opinion and based on my
real life experience.
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/
From: Catherine Alexander [mailto:
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:20 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: PS again comments to add to the bulleted list ‐ Cupertino General Plan Amendment and
Housing Element Update ‐ Planning Commission
Since apartments went in next door to my home, I can no longer sleep in my my master
bedroom. I have to sleep in a small bedroom on the other side of my home, due to the
constant car alarms, early morning honking, and car key electronic beeps in the parking area
of the complex, which is directly across their entry lane from the windows of two of the
bedrooms in my home, once of which happens to be my master bedroom.
I hear a steady stream of talking and slamming car doors, if I try to use my own master
bedroom, since apartment residents also park along the lane along my bedroom windows,
and sometimes have prolonged loud conversations near their cars. I have literally been
jolted awake at 1 or 2 a.m., nearly every day of the week, until I gave up and slept in another
room in my house.
Likewise, residents leave their apartment unit windows open at night and crank up their
music and televisions, so it is impossible to use my master bedroom in summer months,
since I hear all of their music, movies and programs.
I am also woken at 6 a.m. on weekdays from apartment noise (I worked some nights on my
job with the County, so this was a real problem), which including slamming car doors,
yelling, and people honking several times directly outside my bedroom windows, while
picking others up at the complex or dropping them off late at night.
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/
1459
1
From: George Schroeder [mailto:GeorgeS@cupertino.org]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:57 AM
To: Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino; Terri McCracken; Dan Amsden
Subject: Catherine Alexander Comments on GPA/HE - SUPERSEDES OTHERS
Good Morning,
I received these comments from Catherine Alexander over the weekend. and she said to let
these supersede the 2 or 3 others she sent on Friday. Thank you, and see below:
My comments for the GPA hearing record:
In my opinion, new, dense housing complexes will ruin property values for single‐family
homeowners, impact the historic safety of our Cupertino neighborhoods, overcrowd our
struggling schools (adding new stories to existing schools is not a viable solution, since city
streets are already impassible for parents and residents who live near schools) and dense
development of any type will increase traffic and parking problems to more unbearable levels.
Residents who pay property taxes here are already struggling with traffic congestion and parking
at shopping areas, due to downsized parking lots designed to increase acreage available for
development. Many residents now shop and dine in other cities where parking and traffic
congestion is more manageable, as was mentioned more than once by residents during the GPA
hearings, yet was apparently not summarized in the report of overly‐favorable resident
feedback found in the proceeding materials as produced by developer‐paid consultants funded
by interested business owners and the City.
In my opinion, our Cupertino City Council and the current Cupertino Community Development
manager seem to care only about courting and housing local tech employees who bike and walk
to work. Our City Council and Community Development manager no longer seem to be working
for (nor really considering the interests of) long term and new Cupertino residents who pay their
salaries through taxes, nor residents who own single family homes here who also want to
preserve their quality of life, having made a significant financial investment in our community
and its welfare.
Seniors, residents with small children and those who are disabled are not able to bus, bike or
walk to shops or restaurants in Cupertino. Those physically‐impacted groups seem to have no
place in the City of Cupertino envisioned by the manager of the Cupertino Community
Development team, who seems unwilling to hear any actual opinions and experiences from
residents which differ from her own somewhat rigid futuristic vision and academic theories of
how we "should" want to live here. She repeatedly seems to not hear or acknowledge what
residents have stated they want for Cupertino's future, if those comments and wishes do not
1460
2
agree with her projected models and research statistics, based on popular urban planning
theory.
The Cupertino Community Development manager apparently was part of the team which
created the current traffic and parking mess in downtown Mountain View, all based on the same
bike, pedestrian and public transit theories and statistics she seems to be using now, to envision
the Cupertino she feels would be best for residents.
Some residents have stopped attending public hearings because they don't want any of the
changes planned for Cupertino by its posse of urban planners, consultants and developers.
Residents expressing opposition have been interrupted or cut off at hearings, and some of our
anti‐growth views don't seem to be recorded by the consultants working for stakeholder
developers, business owners and the City, or found in those glossy General Plan Amendment
brochures the City posts online, which residents often can't access or print, due to heavy
graphics usage which eats up home ink cartridges and takes huge chunks of Internet bandwidth
to download.
The Cupertino Community Development manager was apparently one of the city planning team
who created the "new downtown Mountain View," where car travel and parking has become
almost impossible. Mountain View residents, workers and business owners must now purchase
$300 annual parking permits to visit shops and restaurants, to park near jobs, or to park near
their own downtown businesses.
Visitors to downtown Mountain View now attempt to park in front of resident's homes in
residential areas surrounding Castro Street, since the same, "everyone will bike, walk and take
public transit" thinking, apparently from this Cupertino Community Development manager
during her tenure in Mountain View, was used to tell residents what they should want in their
City, based on the same unrealistic statistical models now being used in the City of Cupertino.
Apparently, as a result, vastly inadequate surface road access and poorly planned City‐wide
parking levels, pedestrian safety and access for seniors and the disabled, or families with small
children, have become the new norm in Mountain View, after their downtown was repurposed.
Mountain View residents near Castro Street live in a civic nightmare of continual congestion,
with residents and visitors circling blocks in every direction for nearly 30 minutes most evenings,
just to find one parking spot. This is not safe for families, children, the elderly, or the disabled,
who need safe cross walks and easy parking in front of their own homes, plus easily accessible
parking near Mountain View's Kaiser facility, City Hall, Library, pharmacies, grocery stores and
other shops. One wonders if their stories now appear in the statistical models recalculated or
revised by the City of Mountain View, once the real‐life effects of poor planning became
apparent years later.
1461
3
Cupertino residents do not want to continue to see our City condense itself into a limited
bike/mass transit‐centered future, where every foot of our City is not just developed, but
overdeveloped, and the elderly and disabled, or those with small children, continue to
beforgotten in favor or tech workers' habits and preferences.
Residents do not want our City to become so densely occupied that normal living becomes even
more impossible, due to the already extremely poor City Community Development management
planning used in the location of civic buildings, parks and the parking lots adjacent to them,
notably our Cupertino City Hall, the Library, the Cupertino Community Hall and Memorial Park,
which residents are often unable to access or use, due to the ongoing lack of parking during
events and programs.
Ironically, Cupertino residents are unable to attend civic hearings on the proposed City General
Plan Amendment, because there is such inadequate parking near the combined City Council
Chamber/Community Hall, located between the library and City Hall. The fancy, online City Plan
General Amendment consultant‐produced documents and promotional booklets do not
mention that each public General Plan Amendment‐related hearing has had maybe 2‐5
residents present in recent months, due to inability of residents to park nearby to attend these
meetings, or the fact that some hearings were held during normal 9‐5 business hours, when
most Cupertino residents were either at work or busy with childcare.
There seems to be a sad lack of transparency and honesty in the online General Plan
Amendment documents, since they were produced to push residents towards approving new
high density housing and multiuse developments, and to make it appear that residents were
really behind the move towards new high‐density, when in reality, the same flotilla of
businesses and their developers, consultants and the Chamber of Commerce, seem to really be
behind the move to continually sell out and increase the density of Cupertino's residential
landscape, continuing to try to turn us into one large, ongoing strip mall like the now ubiquitous
Santana Row model, in hopes that they may make $ millions off of new and existing tech
workers.
Long‐time residents don't want their community to become a series of high‐rise apartment
complexes or condos over businesses, or of shopping areas, parks and libraries which continue
to have completely inadequate parking with shrinking green spaces for residents.
High‐density developments age and degrade over time then look dated and shabby. High‐
density developments are also hard to remove once they are in place (visit the blocks of empty
condos near Target in downtown Sunnyvale, which have remained unoccupied for many, many
years now since they were built, after that City demolished the quaint Town and Country
downtown area for Santana Row‐like "improvements.")
1462
4
The owners of these high‐density multiuse monstrosities most often do not live in the
complexes or the cities where they have been built, so they do not have to deal with the traffic,
health, safety and blight problems they create. Just like in Cupertino, in downtown Sunnyvale,
the Farmers' Markets and street fairs are no longer easily accessible to all residents because
parking and walking distance to fairs and markets has increased, disenfranchising the elderly
and disabled. Close parking that was available previously, was removed in favor or multi‐story
developments through rezoning. And, again, in Sunnyvale, the Target/condos high rise blocks
are ugly and detract from the many well‐maintained bungalows and 1930's‐style historic homes
and buildings, thankfully left untouched in nearby residential streets, which now suffer from
constant commercial transient traffic through formerly quiet neighborhoods. Anyone want to
guess what that has done to the property values of those historic homes now bordering a giant
Target store and parking garage, or several huge nearly abandoned condo complexes?
Protect Cupertino property for those home and business owners who actually live in our City
and who care about its long term quality of life, its history, its safety, its schools, and our
families, seniors, kids and the disabled. Create a balanced City which is not overly focused on
one business, one industry, or one demographic, at the expense of everyone else living in the
City and our quality of life.
Residents with very expensive single family homes moved here expecting their neighborhood to
co‐exist among other family neighborhoods with similar single family homes. They were told
that Cupertino has always had an historic "no‐growth" policy, before they decided to move
here. Those single family home dwellers do not want to be overlooked by apartment and condo
complexes, by multistory garages, or by Santana Row‐like developments. Let's face it, no matter
how many pre‐fab cupolas, vinyl bay windows and fake fiberboard cornices these Santana Row‐
like developments employ, nor how many extruded plastic artificial stucco trellises with newly
planted roses and vines they are decorated with, they are still blatantly fake re‐creations of
historic Victorian and Mediterranean buildings, and look as fake and phony as lipstick on a pig,
as they age over time.
Cupertino demolished (and should have preserved) its own historic buildings, losing what could
have been its own Los Gatos‐like quaint downtown area, sacrificing a planned historic civic
center and park at the corner of Stevens Creek and Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Road (as it was called
then), trading all of that for pseudo‐Italianate high‐rise condos and a hotel with no parking for
guests, a quasi‐modern yet bland Seagate building at odds with the architecture which
surrounds it (who approved that?), street‐side bistro‐like mini strip malls (again with no
apparent parking visible for customers along a tremendously busy road where no one would
want to sit outside to relax or dine) and a southwest BBQ joint which most health‐conscious
residents don't use near the corner.
The bifurcated Apple headquarters which deep‐sixed the planned historic civic center, is now
being moved to an area boarding Santa Clara. Where have we seen this, "if we built it they will
1463
5
come" development dance before in Cupertino? That's right, when Hewlett Packard, Gemco,
Vallco Park and Seagate developers first came to town. Once again, residents' quality of life,
parks, green space, civic areas, shopping centers and neighborhoods, were on the chopping
block, in trade for the next big financial carrot dangled in front of the City Council as the next
main meal for our City economy, by developers, their PR staff and their consultants, all spinning
their glittering, new bottle of snake oil with a promise to cure all of our civic ills (which were far
fewer than they than are now, by the way).
Since the 1970's, Cupertino's City Council members have chased the development and industry
dollar, believing each large industry du jour was the fiduciary answer for Cupertino. Each new
City Council panel forgets to review how many past major industries have fled Cupertino, failed
or are building elsewhere, whose pre‐development zoning and permitting, promised to be the
answer to Cupertino's future. Even now, Apple is moving to a complex bordering Santa Clara,
and the dated light industry buildings it uses near Bandley Avenue, Lazaneo Avenue, and
Mariani Drive, I predict, will be abandoned in the next 5 years, with no industries filling those
aging office spaces, which will impact our city tax levels and reduce tech employee use of city
area businesses and restaurants.
The lost industries mentioned above, moved away after Cupertino had already destroyed plans
for parks, Civic Centers and museums using historic buildings on those properties, which had
been previously preserved in no‐growth plans to benefit residents and honor our history and
founding residents with a large green space and gathering spaces for residents.
Sadly, we can't bring our historic structures back. Even the historic Cali Brothers Grain Silo,
willed to the City and destined to become a historic civic park monument, since it was beloved
by many here as the town's own Eiffel Tower‐like center when its peak was decorated with
lights and a tree every holiday season, acting as the center of the City in some respects,
somehow was mysteriously destroyed when it was entrusted to the City of Cupertino, after
Apple wanted to develop the corner lot which was earmarked to be our historic civic center park
in the future. Instead, we got Memorial Park, duck poop, drained lagoons, and no place for
residents to park for civic events.
Unfortunately, this "oops, we accidentally destroyed that historic (_Your name here_)" artifact
or structure, or "we accidentally lost it," or "we sold it to someone else," mantra, has been
common in Cupertino over the years, unlike the surrounding cities of Santa Clara, Niles, San
Jose, Saratoga, Los Gatos and Los Altos, which had community development leadership which
understood that preserving history and historic buildings creates tangible civic value, not only in
terms of pride of place with residents and visitors, but in terms of City property values as well.
Cupertino leadership has always been too transient and too focused on the short‐term financial
bump of new industry to realize two simple urban development maxims: 1) historic preservation
adds destination city Gold to local businesses, and 2) apartments, condos and light industry may
1464
6
co‐exist only in designated areas far from historic landmarks, single family residences, and
historic downtown tourism destinations. So, although we could have been awesome, we have
lost any chance of being an historic destination City with a high tech heart, and as a result, have
demeaned the quality of our City life and its essence. We could have been amazing. Instead, our
Council wants to fabricate a phony destination pseudo‐downtown here, there, anywhere, to
replace that which in its infinite wisdom, it chose to tear down for "progress," years ago.
Let's face it, Cupertino has apparently been for sale to the latest developer for many years now,
based on a greed for revenue and the steady posse of Chamber allies, consultants and
developers trying to manipulate City Councils and voters to sell out their own no‐growth best
interests to prop‐up tacky high density projects.
Residents are increasingly disgusted with Community Development management which forgets
to value residential life in favor of pie‐in‐the‐sky theories of utopian living/working/dining
developments favoring pedestrians, bike lanes and mass transit, which almost no resident will
use who isn't employed by Apple or attending De Anza College. Parents, granny's, teens, seniors,
and most adults here, prefer to drive and park close to destinations, it's that simple folks,
despite what urban planning academic thinkers (or developers PR staff) believe, we drive here,
so a balance has to be found which does not solely court young tech workers.
Want an example? Okay. Let's look at that Mary Avenue Pedestrian Bridge. How much did that
cost? Holy smokes, are you kidding me, that much? Um, but I never see anyone actually using it.
Ever. In theory, with the high school and De Anza at either ends, it should be hopping all day if
people are truly walking and riding bikes at the levels predicted by our Community Development
manager. In theory. Wow, wrong urban planning theories and inaccurate usage statistics can be
really expensive, can't they? Like in $ millions of dollars expensive. The bridge looks kind of
pretty at night, though, I mean, if you look at it like a sculpture or something. Me? No, I've never
used it. You have to park on Homestead and walk behind the high school to get to it, then it
ends up near a mini storage unit on the other side of the freeway‐‐way too to far from
anywhere I'd like to walk and absolutely nothing interesting near by.
Whatever Cupertino could have been, if correctly developed by a City team which respected
our history and environment (refusing civic funding for projects and programs from our greatest
local polluter, Lehigh Cement) and honoring the needs of families, the disabled and seniors
seeking low‐density neighborhoods, shopping areas and parks, all adding to the quality of life for
residents and families, was lost long ago.
Folks, you can't sell phony, high‐density Victorian and pseudo‐Mediterranean architecture to
high tech workers. These workers are highly educated and know the difference between
fiberboard cookie‐cutter condo residential reproductions coated with a stucco effect, which is
why many of them choose to live in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos and Palo Alto, where actual
historical homes, heritage trees and structures were thoughtfully preserved by those cities and
1465
7
still exist as businesses and single family homes. High density housing in those cities is not
crammed in among heritage single family neighborhoods, but limited to light industrial areas, so
home values and the quality of life in city centers, are not impacted by less desirable combined
high‐rise residential and business developments.
As a Cupertino resident, my single family home, formerly inside an orchard and surrounded by
other orchards, farms and hothouses, was allowed, through re‐zoning and City General Plan
Amendments, to sit adjacent to a huge apartment complex and its entry lane, after our neighbor
sold his orchard land to high density apartment complex developers. At that time, it was the
only apartment complex within blocks of older residential single family homes. It has been
downhill since near my home, due to that apartment complex and its residents.
In what once was a clean and quiet neighborhood of single family homes, my home currently
and over many years has experienced, from that apartment complex next door:
Car alarms at all hours.
Traffic at all hours.
Honking at all hours.
Dogs barking and cats howling and fighting at all hours.
Cats defecating in my back yard at night. (I don't have pets.)
Cats having kittens in my yard.
A dog whose owner, an apartment resident, allowed him to keep urinating on two of my
older roses until they died and nothing would grow where they stood. When I asked him
to please keep the dog out of my yard, he allowed his dog to walk and pee on my
neighbor's landscaping, killing a large area of their groundcover plantings, which had
been healthy, lush and green for many years before this apartment resident and his
uncurbed dog, moved in.
Rats regularly coming under my fence, since the huge industrial‐sized trash bins in the
complex parking area are directly across from my back yard.
Conversations and car key electronic beeping noises at all hours from the cars parked
along the entry lane and in the complex parking garage, which faces the bedroom
windows of my home.
People trespassing and walking under the bedroom windows of my home. (the City will
not allow more than a 3 foot fence to be built near the property line, however there is a
power pole requiring utility access.)
Loitering, running vehicles and parked vehicles in no‐parking areas in front of my home,
with people using cell phones, talking, visiting, eating, smoking, pacing and apparently
having sex in illegally parked cars, at all hours.
People parked across the street from my driveway (in a no parking area) and taking
photos of my home and garage, when I have my garage doors open.
Apartment managers (male) who watched me through their tall shrubs, when I mowed
my lawn or trimmed my plants.
Cigarettes, cigarette butts, food, cups, wrappers, used and unused condoms, used and
unused sanitary napkins/tampons, and other food‐related and personal trash, which is
regularly tossed into my yard and under my 50‐year‐old trees, which I have to clean up.
1466
8
Weeds and quince apples left near apartment complex bushes inside their property line,
which are never removed by apartment yard maintenance workers (I have asked), so I
am left to remove them myself to prevent the spread of seeds/weeds into my yard, or
rodents and pests near, in or under my home.
People regularly smoking near my historic trees without any apparent common sense or
respect for my property or fire safety, flicking their live ashes and butts in my yard under
my mulched large trees (which I am unable to water during the drought).
People also smoking and flicking live ash and butts under dry trees, leaves and needles,
on the state property across the street from my home, creating ongoing neighborhood
fire danger, despite 4 years of my requests asking that the apartment complex create a
smoking area on its own property, to improve chronic littering problems and fire safety
in the neighborhood.
People sitting or talking under the trees in my front yard, without respect to property
boundaries or my privacy.
Workers hired by the complex parking in my driveway to make phone calls and eat
lunch.
Repossession company huge multi‐car, multi‐trailer haulers parking directly across my
driveway (and blocking access to or from my home) as they quietly walk through
apartment complex parking areas to repossess cars from delinquent car buyers, usually
between 11:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. on Sunday nights, with their pulleys and hydraulics
running on noisy truck generators outside my bedroom windows.
Moving vans, tractors and construction equipment parked in front of my home for days
or weeks, as work takes place in the apartments during the year.
Tractors and trailers left parked in front of my home for days in no parking areas, as
construction takes place in the apartments. Sometimes the construction engines are hot
and oily and parked under dry neighborhood trees.
Devaluation of my home and property due to all of the above, from the existence of
apartments next door to my single family home.
Loss of use of my home. Since high‐density apartments were built next door to my
home, I can no longer sleep in my master bedroom. I have to sleep in a small bedroom
on the other side of my home, due to the constant car alarms, early morning honking,
late night conversations, and noise in the parking garage of the complex.
Loss of sleep. I hear a steady stream of talking and slamming car doors, if I try to use my
own master bedroom, since apartment residents also park along the entry lane near my
bedroom windows, and sometimes have prolonged loud conversations near their cars. I
have literally been jolted awake at 1 or 2 a.m. by slamming car doors and trunks, nearly
every day of the week, until I gave up and began sleeping in another room in my house.
Noise at all hours. Likewise, residents leave their apartment unit windows open at night
and crank up their music and televisions during warmer weather, so it is impossible to
use my master bedroom in summer months, since I hear apartment dwellers' music,
movies and programs, and the steady boom, boom, boom of mega‐bass speakers, until
1 or 1:30 a.m. almost every summer weekend night. If I call the Sheriff's office, they
want me to go out there and find out which apartment is making the noise. As a senior
woman, I am unwilling to do that.
Broken sleep. I am also jarred awake at 6:30 a.m. on weekdays from apartment noise (I
regularly worked some consecutive late nights on my job with the County, so this was a
real problem when I had a short turnaround). Noises include slamming car doors,
yelling, and people honking several times directly outside my master bedroom windows
1467
9
to pick up late apartment carpoolers. If apartment carpoolers did not come after one or
two honks, the drivers just keep honking, not thinking that there might be night workers
in the area.
After the two‐story apartments were built, their residents' windows overlooked my
master bedroom, and another bedroom, and my bathroom windows, as well as my front
and back yard. My privacy was completely lost.
Like many Cupertino single family homeowners who have been here for many years, as a
retiree I can't just pack up and sell my home, since I have Prop. 13 property tax relief on my
home, which makes my home affordable on my pension. I am stuck with the mess the City
created with my custom‐designed home when it allowed re‐zoning for high‐density apartment
units next door, practically under my bedroom windows, and reduced not only my quality of life
and ability to sleep in my master bedroom or enjoy my backyard, but the appreciation values on
my home as a result. As I have said, everything has been downhill since the apartments were
built next to me.
When the City says there will be no impact to existing single family homeowners or area schools
from new high‐density multiuse or residential developments near current single family home
neighborhoods, that statement seems neither realistic, accurate, nor honest, based on any of
my real life experience, having had a high density development built next door to my formerly
peaceful and private single family home.
Catherine Alexander
Cupertino, California
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/
1468
1469
SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY
October 13, 2014
Via Overnight Delivery and E-Mail
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Re: General Plan Amendment: Office Allocation for Vallco Shopping District
Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company ("Sand Hill") regarding the treatment
of the V allco Shopping District ("Vall co") in the General Plan Amendment. Sand Hill is in
the midst of acquiring the Vall co parcels for potential redevelopment, so we are keenly
interested in working with the City of Cupertino ("City") to develop a feasible plan that can
benefit all stakeholders. I am writing to request that the Planning Commission recommends
to the City Council that the General Plan include an office allocation for Vall co of 2 ,000,000
square feet and the height limits set out in "Alternative C," as analyzed in the draft General
Plan's environmental review. Without this specific office allocation, as well as the necessary
retail and housing components, there will not be adequate critical mass to make it possible
for Sand Hill, or any other prospective developer, to successfully redevelop Vallco.
Vall co presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched
in the City of Cupertino. The site sits at a prime location in the City, yet for many reasons, it
has long been neglected and numerous redevelopment efforts were either abandoned or have
failed. Sand Hill has the financial capacity and proven track record with such projects and is
poised to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for: a dynamic downtown
where the community can live, work and play. Sand Hill plans to completely transform the
current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, sustainable mixed-use neighborhood.
Our plan envisions a balanced mix of 600-700 residential units, approximately 600,000
square feet of retail, a full service hotel , and 2,000,000 square feet of office space. The
overarching vision is to create a pedestrian oriented "town center" consistent with the
General Plan vision that will have synergies between the uses and nearby projects, such as
Main Stree t.
sf-3467260
2882 SAND IDLL ROAD, SUITE 241• MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 •FAX (650) 344-0652
1470
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Two
The benefits to the City of such a project go well beyond creating a sense of place. With
600,000 square feet, the retail component of the project would be the same size as Santana
Row and would generate millions in sales tax revenues way in excess of what is being
collected today. Property taxes would also increase significantly, perhaps by 800%, given
the billion-dollar plus investment Sand Hill is prepared to make in the City of Cupertino. In
addition, we recognize that in order to obtain increased height limits for Vallco under
Alternative C, projects must comply with the new General Plan's community benefits
program. Although our specific project plans are still developing, the community benefits
we anticipate providing include ground floor retail components and [transit improvements
and amenities, space for public entities, senior housing, construction of a new, or expansion
to, a community facility/community gathering place, creation or dedication of new or
expanded park, cash in-lieu contribution for such community benefits]. We would also be
amenable to exploring, with other property developers, the potential of providing a
community shuttle program in order to provide transportation between employment and
community centers. As required by the General Plan, these community benefits will be
equivalent to at least 15 percent in value of the parcel attributed to the increase in height.
The opportunity to transform the Vall co site is now. Sand Hill has a real plan, the
capabilities to implement it, and the history of working closely with the City and the
community. Prior attempts at Vallco redevelopment have all run into the same problem: full
ownership of the site is needed for a successful project, and the current split and passive
ownership structure has made parcel assemblage extremely difficult. After nearly three years
of intensive negotiations with the various V allco ownership entities, Sand Hill is now in the
process of completing purchases for the entire mall. Single ownership will remove the key
barrier to redevelopment that has hampered the site for decades. However, in order to close
on the Vallco parcels, Sand Hill needs assurance now that it can build a project that is
financially viable. At present, the development allocation recommended in the Staff Report
precludes such a project, and thus, a feasible redevelopment of the property. In particular,
the StaffReport's recommendations to limit office to 1,000,000 square feet and heights to 75
feet (west of Wolfe Road) and 90 feet (east of Wolfe Road) does not work for our plan, or
any plan for that matter.
Redevelopment of V allco is a substantial undertaking. It entails demolition of approximately
1.2 million square feet of existing buildings and construction of an entire new downtown
over 50 acres. The General Plan's vision for a redeveloped Vallco is ambitious: a ''town
center" layout, a newly configured street grid, an expanded Wolfe Road bridge ofl-280 to
accommodate a bikeable and walkable "boulevard," a new town square and plazas
interspersed throughout. The General Plan calls for high-quality architecture and materials
befitting a gateway site. Sand Hill shares this vision, but such elements are all very costly.
While retail uses are critical for completing the overall vision, such uses do not support the
type of amenities we and the City want to provide. In order for complete redevelopment to
sf-3467260
2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241• MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 •FAX (650) 344-0652
1471
Chair Brophy and Members ofthe Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Three
be financially feasible, the project must include 2,000,000 square feet of office already
studied in the EIR. Further, in order to provide this office square footage, while also
respecting the neighborhoods to the west, increased height must be allowed, including up to
160 feet on the east side of Wolfe Road.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that the General Plan allocate to the Vall co Shopping District:
• 2,000,000 square feet of office space;
• Include the site in the Housing Element, including at least 600 units of housing;
• 600,000 square feet of retail; and
• Heights analyzed in "Alternative C" be permitted (i.e., up to 85 feet west of Wolfe
Road and up to 160 feet east of Wolfe Road, with community benefits).
******
Sand Hill is proud of what it has done in the City of Cupertino. We have partnered with the
City and the community on a number of successful commercial, retail and residential projects
since the 1990's. As with those prior projects, we view Vallco as a long-term investment.
We are a local owner and take pride in our commitment to the community and the City.
Main Street is now under construction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2016.
We look forward to continued collaboration with the City and community in the
redevelopment ofVallco.
Sand Hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realize a long-term community
vision for a revitalized V allco. The development team and funding is in place to move
forward now. However, we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City
Council that without the necessary office, residential and retail allocations outlined above,
we will not be in a position to redevelop Vall co and it will likely continue to languish for
decades to come.
your consideration.
Principal and Founder
sf-3467260
2882 SAND IDLL ROAD, SUITE 241• MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 •FAX (650) 344-0652
1472
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Four
Sand Hill Property Company
cc: Mayor Gilbert Wong
Vice Mayor Rod Sinks
Councilmember Barry Chang
Councilmember Orrin Mahoney
Councilmember Mark Santoro
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director
Reed Moulds, Sand Hill Property Company
sf-3467260
2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SU1TE 241• MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 •FAX (650) 344-0652
1473
14
7
4
14
7
5
From: Darrel Lum [mailto:drlum@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:56 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: 2014 General Plan Amendment & Housing Element
Concerned Citizens of Cupertino has submitted 2 comprehensive documents
of its concerns about the 2014 General Plan Amendment and Housing Element,
at the beginning and at the end the Environment Impact Report comment period;
since many of the comments were not responded to in the final Environmental
Impact Report by your consultants because they were not directly related to the
environment, we suggested that you read our comments because they deal with
the direct impacts on the City and its residents.
A late entry into this discussion is the recent disclosure of the change of
ownership of Vallco. The City of Cupertino seems to be having the property
owners master plan projects without the input of its residents; has a specific
Vallco Specific Plan been discussed yet?
1476
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20863 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 480 Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: (408) 252-7902 Fax: (408) 252-1233
J. VOLCKMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Real Estate Investments and Development
October 16, 2014
City Council & Planning Commission of Cupertino:
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
We appreciate the substantial efforts of the City of Cupertino and all those that have been
involved in the General Plan Amendment & Housing Element over the last year and a half. We
feel as if a tremendous amount of thought and work have gone into the process and hope the
ultimate decision reflects both what is good for residents/neighborhoods, as well as the city and
its economy.
For 40 years, our family has owned Stevens Creek Office & Retail Center and been an occupant
of the building. We have seen both difficult and prosperous times at the property and have been
dedicated to reinvesting and maintaining it to high standards. The property shows well, but as we
saw with the Good Earth Restaurant, sometimes preferences change and upgrades must be made
(Peets & Panera). We are determined to hold the property in our family for another 40 years, but
there will come a time when the property has outlived its useful life and needs to be redeveloped,
which we believe to be within the 25 Year Plan. Already, tenant preferences have shifted away
from dated buildings such as ours, but we have been fortunate that in prosperous times, Apple
has occupied enough of the existing Cupertino real estate that demand remains high. This is not
always guaranteed and definitely felt in down markets, which is why we are urging the City to
allow for a 60 foot height limit at the site. In today’s market where high ceilings are demanded,
this would equate to a four story building and is the lowest height required to make a
redevelopment economically feasible. We intentionally did not propose the larger height
increases other sites/areas requested and instead focused on what the minimum requirement
would be to allow eventual redevelopment. We feel as if our site is well located for a future
redevelopment given it sits in the Heart of the City, is bordered to the east by a new retail
development and Target, west by Whole Foods, south by Cupertino Crossroads retail center, and
north by neighborhood housing, which affects to residents can be mitigated given the depth of
the site. Given there is an existing center, it will also allow us to take our time and thoughtfully
plan the redevelopment, working with both the city and neighborhoods. Finally, it would make
the conversion of the existing office building along Stevens Creek to retail/open space feasible,
promoting the Heart of the City Plan and improving the pedestrian environment.
1477
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20863 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 480 Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: (408) 252-7902 Fax: (408) 252-1233
We absolutely believe in a “Balanced Plan” and respect everyone’s opinions, but given our long
term ownership and close involvement in the real estate economy, must think about the future.
Limiting future office growth over the next 25 years to 0-500,000 square feet will discourage
redevelopment and ultimately companies from staying in or moving to Cupertino, as seen by
Amazon’s move to Sunnyvale. Our worry is this could be absorbed by one development, as seen
before or with Vallco’s future, eliminating any allocation for long term owners such as ourselves
to improve our properties. We are definitely not lobbying for large scale development throughout
the city or even massive allocations as seen in other cities throughout Silicon Valley, but a
thoughtful approach to growth that will allow certain sites to keep up with the times.
Again, we greatly appreciate the thought and consideration that has gone into these initiatives
and respectfully ask that you take the above into account.
Please do not hesitate to contact us, as we would be more than happy to sit down and further
explain our reasoning or answer questions from the community.
Regards,
STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER ASSOCIATES
By: J. Blair Volckmann
By: John Volckmann
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
Resent-From: <GilbertWongDistributionList@cupertino.org>
From: "aderidder@juno.com" <aderidder@juno.com>
Date: October 24, 2014 at 5:25:16 PM PDT
To: <gwong@cupertino.org>
Cc: <rsinks@cupertino.org>, <omahoney@cupertino.org>, <msantoro@cupertino.org>,
<bchang@cupertino.org>
Subject: new developments
To: the City council of Cupertino
We found a paper on our doorstep about additional developments scheduled to be
heard at the November 3rd meeting of the council.
We were shocked to hear you would even consider adding another 1451 new
residential units to our already burdened infrastructure. We have been warned by an
environmental impact report of the monumental traffic problems we would have with the
new Apple facility. This was approved after the Main Street development was
approved. Add to this the impact of the Rose Bowl development impact and we have a
real problem on our hands.
One real big problem will be the Hamptons redevelopment. The council approved a
massive left turn access from Apple onto Wolfe Road. and Pruneridge Ave will be the
only way out of this redevelopment. This will result in a massive headache for anyone
who would be foolish enough to live in that development.
The development behind Vallco was denied a few years ago as foolish because the
only access to the area is via the Vallco parkng lot. I just hope you do not approve this
request, but consider a previous council' decision a valid one.
Finally, why do we need to demolish a business site and replace it with residences? If
that business is not profitable, you should try to find another tenant. This is commercial
property and should not be rezoned and cause more impact to our fine city.
In closing I would like to remind you that this city is Cuppertino, not San Francisco or
downtown San Jose. Please listen to the people and keep Cupertino a place where we
have some open space, where we do not feel crowded and we can feel safe.
Thank You for reading this whole letter
Sincerely
Alvin and Shirley De Ridder
19146 Anne Lane
Cupertino
1484
1485
Resent‐From:
<GilbertWongDistributionList@cupertino.org<mailto:GilbertWongDistributionList@cupertino.or
g>>
From: Urs Mader
<Urs.Mader@maximintegrated.com<mailto:Urs.Mader@maximintegrated.com>>
Date: October 25, 2014 at 10:03:41 AM PDT
To: "gwong@cupertino.org<mailto:gwong@cupertino.org>"
<gwong@cupertino.org<mailto:gwong@cupertino.org>>,
"rsinks@cupertino.org<mailto:rsinks@cupertino.org>"
<rsinks@cupertino.org<mailto:rsinks@cupertino.org>>,
"omahoney@cupertino.org<mailto:omahoney@cupertino.org>"
<omahoney@cupertino.org<mailto:omahoney@cupertino.org>>,
"msantoro@cupertino.org<mailto:msantoro@cupertino.org>"
<msantoro@cupertino.org<mailto:msantoro@cupertino.org>>,
"bchang@cupertino.org<mailto:bchang@cupertino.org>"
<bchang@cupertino.org<mailto:bchang@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Nov 3rd City Council on new Development Units
Dear City Council:
I have known Cupertino since there were still fruit trees along DeAnza and 280 was still being
built. I have lived here for 14 years. I am not against development and consider it an inevitable
part of living here. I think the city needs to become smarter about development to be sure that
developers don’t leave the rest of the city holding the bag once they are done.
Please consider a $500‐$1000 bedroom development fee as condition for allowing these
developments from now on. This would be to help pay down the new bond debt on the ballot
this election for School Infrastructure. It is not right that new classroom development is paid for
by all, it should come from those that add more bedrooms to the city.
Traffic Light Synchronization on Wolfe. A single pedestrian can cause so much havoc and traffic
slowdown and there are more pedestrians in the area with the incoming Apple busses. I like
that people walk and bike, but the city should be able to do more to make things smoother.
Apple Busses. They are good, but they are also too aggressive on the road for their size.
Trouble spots for my bike commute on Tantau are the right turn on Valco Parkway and Busses
entering and exiting parking lots on Tantau. It’s not clear what to do here… I imagine that there
is trouble in other areas of the city too. I rarely see these busses filled even through the
darkened windows. Perhaps it would be good for the city to ask for occupancy on these busses
to see if smaller busses could be used. They are just too big.
Open up Rodriquez Creek for bikes and joggers. This will just improve quality of life and actually
do more than just literally paint our streets green. It will create a good east‐west corridor for
bikes to the city hall/library from the eastern neighborhoods to avoid traffic on Steven’s Creek. I
have already sent a comment to your bike planner. I know this requires cross‐agency
coordination. Please staff that effort with the $$$ you now have.
1486
Also, please consider that Apple may or may not be here in 10 years. Silicon valley companies
don’t have a good track record once the corporate palace is erected. All of this newer higher
density housing without regard for quality of life has high risk of creating a long term problem.
Young professionals paying off student loans will be willing to accept noisy neighbors for the
chance to put Apple on their resume, but once the boom town phase is over, it will become low‐
rent or convert from Condo to rent and has the potential for increased trouble if the city is not
careful. Please be sure the building codes are such that the construction has extra noise
proofing and other higher end construction codes so that what is being built today will also be
desirable down the road even if Apple isn’t here. Don’t build housing next to freeways; keep
this for office space as a buffer. Mandate laundry inside the units. Also mandate children’s play
areas and small parks. Simple things can make a big difference. Cheap construction is only
desirable for the first 5‐10 years after which the demographic will slowly change. At that point
the developer has already made his cash and the city is left dealing with the aftermath.
Developer’s profits conflict with quality housing in the current situation. It will need a strong
city council to make sure things are done right and I do think the city is watching. Please be sure
you leave a legacy that you can be proud of.
Urs
Urs Mader
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff IC Design
Office: +1 (408) 601‐5878
Maxim Integrated | www.maximintegrated.com<http://www.maximintegrated.com>
1487
1488
From: Max K. Agoston <mkagoston@msn.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Subject: New Developments
To: "gwong@cupertino.org" <gwong@cupertino.org>
To council member Gilbert Wong:
I moved to Cupertino in 1976 and bought my house here in 1981. It was a nice quiet town
in those days, but since then I have seen a lot of changes to the city. All the open space
is gone and the traffic can be bad at times. Yet the city councils have kept voting for
more and more developments. I have watched these developments with disgust but since
there is never an option to vote for "none of the above" I have been helpless to prevent
the move to make Cupertino into a little "metropolis." Now that there is essentially no
more open space, I suppose the next thrust (if not by this council then by future ones) will
be to move up and to create more high-rise buildings.
I am not a politically active person and have not been involved in Cupertino politics;
however, things have gone too far for me to continue watching passively from the byline.
I am really fed up.
I hope you will REJECT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT for Cupertino that increases the
building density or creates more housing; otherwise, I would very much like to have
answers to the following questions:
1. Please tell me who (aside from developers and the planning department who would
have less planning to do) is actually clamoring for all this new development? Are these
people here for the long term or are they planning to move in a few years hoping to cash
in on increases in property values?
Maybe all non-trivial changes to the master plans for the city should be put up for an
explicit city-wide vote. People do not always have a real choice when voting for
council members and just because he/she was elected does not prove that all their favorite
development projects were supported.
2. Do you think that traffic has gotten better in recent years? Is there not enough traffic,
or do you believe that building more has no effect on traffic, or you do not mind the
increase?
Stevens Creek Boulevard is getting very congested. Highway 280 is the last good
highway on the peninsula, although it also has gotten worse. Do you think that
contributing to increasing the traffic congestion on our roads is a price "worth" paying?
In election after election candidates have mouthed platitudes about being for
"controlled" growth and "managing" traffic congestion. The result of years of such
"controlling" and "management" is clear! I can do without it.
3. Do you think that Cupertino is too small population-wise and would you like to have
more people move here? Again, who is clamoring for that?
1489
4. Have you given any consideration to people who have lived here a long time and who
intend to stay here? Shouldn't they have more to say about what happens than those who
are only passing through? What actual percentage of ALL voters in Cupertino have
actually supported all the new building over the years? I do not know anybody who wants
the city to keep growing and growing.
Finally, how do you think that new developments would change the issues raised in the
above questions? You probably have heard the statement that an insane person is one
who keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. I hope
therefore that your response is not going to be that your plans for more development will
have no or little bearing on traffic and population. Just exactly who supports your vision
of a "greater" Cupertino?
It feels like a case of the dog biting the hand that feeds it, in that people are "allowed" to
move here and then they take over and screw the long-time residents that were here long
before them and will be here long after them.
Sometimes the justification that is given for more developments is that the city needs the
money that it provides, but why don't we just make do with the money that we have and
see what happens. It is said that people want to move here because of our good school
system. Let's maintain our schools but we don't need more people moving here. Let's not
get into the cycle where spend more money on schools, which has more people moving
here, which requires more money for schools, which ...
I have always supported our schools in the past and voted for all school bond issues and
taxes. I will stop doing that in the future if the need for school money is used as an excuse
for more housing and businesses!
If new developments raise property values, that is only an issue for those who move here
for financial reasons. I want to stay here and could not care less about those who want to
make money and then move away, leaving people like me behind with the mess.
Thank you for your response,
Max K Agoston
19787 La Mar Drive
1490
From: Paul Brophy <pauldbrophy@yahoo.com>
Date: October 27, 2014 at 6:22:40 PM PDT
To: Gilbert Wong <gwong@cupertino.org>, Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>, Mark Santoro
<msantoro@cupertino.org>, Orrin Mahoney <omahoney@cupertino.org>, Rod Sinks
<rsinks@cupertino.org>
Cc: Aarti Shrivastava <aartis@cupertino.org>, Gary Chao <garyc@cupertino.org>, Winnie Lee
<winnieleedds@yahoo.com>, Alan Takahashi <alantcup@gmail.com>, Don Sun <book.sun@gmail.com>,
Margaret Gong <margiegong@icloud.com>
Subject: General Plan Amendment under consideration
Reply-To: Paul Brophy <pauldbrophy@yahoo.com>
Dear Mayor Wong and Council members,
During the almost seven years that I have been privileged to serve on our Planning Commission,
I have always taken the position that I should not lobby Council members on matters that have
come before us. The minutes of our meetings and the votes taken should stand by themselves
for you to consider when making up your minds on planning and land use items.
However, given the importance that possible General Plan Amendment increase in allowable
additional office space development would have on the long term quality of life in Cupertino and
because my views are at variance with the Planning Department's recommendations, I am writing
you today to argue that I strongly believe that no additional office space above that existing in the
existing General Plan (540,000 sq. ft.) should be approved. If you believe that is too restrictive, I
would urge you not to increase the amount of allowable office space beyond that in Alternative A,
which would provide an additional 500,000 sq. ft, for a total of 1,040,000 sq. ft. Alternative A is
the compromise amount that was supported by three Commission members (Winnie Lee, Don
Sun, and myself), as compared to the staff recommendation of 2,540,000 sq. ft.
The EIR for the Housing Element/General Plan Amendment points out that the city already has
an excess of jobs above our residential labor force. This is before the Apple 2 campus opens
with an additional 14,000 jobs. The Apple 2 EIR was clear in saying that the traffic to be
generated by that project would have significant and unavoidable impact upon traffic congestion,
despite the tens of millions of dollars that Apple has committed to spending on mitigation
measures. The Apple campus was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by both Planning
Commission and City Council because we recognized that the benefits for our community from
supporting the company's growth outweighed the adverse impacts.
It needs to be remembered, though, that we have not yet experienced the increased traffic and
congestion from that project. Also there will be an additional 1500 to 2000 employees who will be
commuting to the office component of Main Street plus the second office building that will be
placed on the IHOP site, immediately adjacent to Cupertino (I am using 4 employees/1000 sq. ft.
for this and future calculations). Unhappiness in our community over traffic congestion will only
grow just from the projects already in the pipeline.
Under our existing General Plan, an additional 540,000 sq. ft. is still available, which would house
2000 employees above all that. If the Alternative A option is approved, we will need to support
over 4000 additional employees. And if the Planning Department's "Balanced Plan" preferred
alternative of over 2.5 Million additional square feet of allowable office space is approved, the
EIR's proposed "mitigation" measures will not begin to address the nightmare traffic conditions on
Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd., as well as secondary roads such as McClellan, Stelling,
Wolfe and Tantau as drivers desperately look for alternatives to gridlocked arterial streets caused
by the addition of over 10,000 more employees working here.
In a city with lots of vacant land in which to expand both office and residential development, an
increase such as that proposed by the Planning Department might well make sense. However,
Cupertino is fully built out. Yes, there are some sites that were developed 30, 40, or more years
1491
ago that could be redeveloped at higher densities. However, given that we have limited ability to
add residential units (and great concern in the community about the impact of the few units we
can add upon school enrollment and increased congestion), allowing substantially more office
space means that we will take a city that is already unbalanced as to the relationship between
jobs and housing and make it much more so.
Let there be no mistake. A vote for adding large amounts of additional office space in our
General Plan is a vote against sustainable development. It is a vote that goes against the
principles of AB 32 and SB 375 as employees commuting to Cupertino will have to live in distant
towns, since the nearby municipalities are also approving large scale office projects without the
willingness or ability to approve offsetting homes. Most of all, it will degrade the quality of life in
our community that is already stressed by traffic congestion and will be more so just from existing
development underway.
I would like to end by saying that while I strongly disagree with staff recommendations on this
General Plan change that I have treated only with personal and professional respect by Planning
Department staff, just as I have been during my entire tenure on the Planning Commission. It has
been a pleasure to work with them and occasionally, for us to disagree over various matters
before us. The arguments made in favor of permitting far more intensive development than is
currently permitted has been echoed by planners and elected officials in many other communities
in the Santa Clara Valley and the Peninsula. I believe that they are almost all wrong. I know that
they are wrong in the case of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Paul Brophy
1492
From: Claire Arnold <clairea_2006@hotmail.com>
Date: October 30, 2014 at 12:47:45 PM PDT
To: <manager@cupertino.org>
Subject: Schools
HI There,
Could you tell me how space for schools are being fitted into planning for Cupertino?
Thanks,
Claire Arnold
1493
From: Claudio Bono [mailto:cbono@cghotelgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 3:06 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Subject: Letter to be added for November 10th
Dear Piu;
It was a pleasure meeting you on Wednesday, October 29th 2014. Thank you for taking the time
to meet with me.
As promised, attach, please find the letter/reasoning regarding our request for a 110 Ft height
versus 90 feet.
Please confirm you received this email with attachment and that it will be included on the
November 10th hearing.
Wishing you a great weekend!
Thank you,
Best regards,
Claudio
Claudio Bono
Area General Manager
The Cupertino Inn & The Grand Hotel Sunnyvale
www.Cupertinoinn.com
www.svgrandhotel.com
Tel : 408.996.7700
Cell:305.450.0215
1494
Friday, October 31, 2014
Good Year Tire conversion to Hotel use
This letter contains reasoning to the proposed height and use of the Goodyear site:
The Goodyear site is unique. It is on the transit corridor from Sunnyvale to De Anza
Boulevard or 280 north and south. So here is the importance of the site to Cupertino:
1. This hotel site compliments the existing Cupertino Inn so that enough mass of rooms can
support a regional function. The Cupertino Inn has 128 rooms and the new Hotel at 9 stories
tall has almost 280 rooms allowing for a base of 400 rooms which puts it in the category to
handle regional events and allow Cupertino to received bids on Citywide conventions.
2. The road system allows transit travelers as well as event guests to not impact the City
Street system for their Hotel arrival, stay, and departure. Visits to the city of Cupertino
proper are just as is needed or for restaurant use.
3. The Retail shopping center is complimented by the extra traveler business and this helps
the viability of the retail center.
4. The property itself has a relatively small foot print so in order to have enough rooms, it
needs to have 9 floors
5. The Hotel is committed to the entire first floor and one third of the second floor all to
conference event, restaurant and basically all community services of banquet, meeting or
any other event with the rooms to make it work. We are attempting to make the hotel 5
star and in order to do so in the style it needs to be requires higher plate heights. The Nine
floors if build as ALoft would be easily under 90 feet but with the great high ceilings of the
first floor and guest rooms with high quality we are asking that the floors be taller. A limit of
9 stories is more appropriate than a limit of 90 feet.
6. Floor plans and elevations are available.
1495
From: Claudio Bono <cbono@cghotelgroup.com<mailto:cbono@cghotelgroup.com>>
Date: October 31, 2014 at 6:43:50 PM PDT
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Revised attachment
Piu;
I apologize for the revised version but had omitted the conclusion of the email.
In all, we are asking for 108 feet to the top of the parapet screening. 102 to the top of the roof.
Let me know if you have questions.
Thank you;
Claudio
Claudio Bono
Area General Manager
Cupertino Inn & Grand Hotel
www.cupertinoinn.com<http://www.cupertinoinn.com>
www.svgrandhotel.com<http://www.svgrandhotel.com>
Cell :305.450.0215
1496
Friday, October 31, 2014
Good Year Tire conversion to Hotel use
This letter contains reasoning to the proposed height and use of the Goodyear site:
The Goodyear site is unique. It is on the transit corridor from Sunnyvale to De Anza
Boulevard or 280 north and south. So here is the importance of the site to Cupertino:
1. This hotel site compliments the existing Cupertino Inn so that enough mass of rooms can
support a regional function. The Cupertino Inn has 128 rooms and the new Hotel at 9 stories
tall has almost 280 rooms allowing for a base of 400 rooms which puts it in the category to
handle regional events and allow Cupertino to received bids on Citywide conventions.
2. The road system allows transit travelers as well as event guests to not impact the City
Street system for their Hotel arrival, stay, and departure. Visits to the city of Cupertino
proper are just as is needed or for restaurant use.
3. The Retail shopping center is complimented by the extra traveler business and this helps
the viability of the retail center.
4. The property itself has a relatively small foot print so in order to have enough rooms, it
needs to have 9 floors
5. The Hotel is committed to the entire first floor and one third of the second floor all to
conference event, restaurant and basically all community services of banquet, meeting or
any other event with the rooms to make it work. We are attempting to make the hotel 5
star and in order to do so in the style it needs to be requires higher plate heights. The Nine
floors if build as ALoft would be easily under 90 feet but with the great high ceilings of the
first floor and guest rooms with high quality we are asking that the floors be taller. A limit of
9 stories is more appropriate than a limit of 90 feet.
6. Floor plans and elevations are available.
In all, we are asking for 108 feet to the top of the parapet screening. 102 to the top of the
Roof. Thank you for your consideration.
1497
From: Steve Gazzera [mailto:steve.gazzera@SRSRE.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 4:04 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Cc: 'sgazzera@yahoo.com' (sgazzera@yahoo.com)
Subject: 19930-19936 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino
Hi Piu: Thank for taking the time to meet with me yesterday. I appreciate it.
At this time, I would prefer that our site be removed from the Housing Element designation list.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Thank you.
Stephen P. Gazzera
Senior Vice President
SRS Real Estate Partners
1871 The Alameda, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95126
408.216.2319 Direct
408.553.6135
Fax 408.553.0896 | Cell 415.699.5445
DRE #00859021
Steve.Gazzera@srsre.com | www.srsre.com
1498
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:38 PM, George Anderl
<george_25056@msn.com<mailto:george_25056@msn.com>> wrote:
already the traffic is awful without Apple and Main Street being open‐‐how can these
additional cars move on these already clogged roads and where will their kids go to school? I
cant believe you are already planning on more residences and business when we already have
full roads full roads and freeway access. when I moved to cupertino in the 70's, I wanted then
and now a nice residential community; not one that would be controlled by developers with
traffic so bad that that one is limited when and where he can go.
I hope that you exercise restraint in further high density development arround stevens creek
and wolf‐‐‐‐I live behind Elephant Bar and am already affected by the traffic increase!
George Anderl
1499
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Jialin Song
<jialinsong@gmail.com<mailto:jialinsong@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear City Councilmen,
We were shocked reading from the letter and Cupertino general planning website that
Cupertino city council are considering approving 600 new residents in Vallco, 1090 new
residents in Hamptons and 103 new residents at United Furniture site, especially, given that this
is on top of current 300+ condo project on Rose Bown and Main street! We strongly oppose the
residential development plan near Wolfe Road for the following reasons.
Cupertino citizens are proud of our good schools. However in rencent years, as we all know, our
elementary, middle and high schools are already overcrowded and the student to teacher ratio
are much higher than before. Our library is always packed with people. Our streets are seeing
more and more daily congestion especially close to the current Apple campus on De Anza and
new Apple II campus on Wolfe Road. The 1800 new residents along Wolfe Road will further
congest Wolfe Road, HW 280 and Stevens Creek. They will also add large number of new
students to the nearby elementary, middle and high schools, which are already seeing
overflows. The new residential development along Wolfe will just make schooling unacceptable
for the existing Cupertino residents.
The residential project may create short term revenue for the City of Cupertino. However, for
the long term, since property tax goes to the county, Cupertino will lose revenue comparing to
making these sites for commercial use. Cupertino citizens are proud of living near the head
quarter of Apple. Other than that, we don't really have very big company, decent downtown,
shopping center, hospitals, medical facilities in our city. We believe it's more beneficial for
Cupertino to develop those site for commercial use and attract more business like great
companies, stores, restaurants and medical clinics and boost long term city revenue.
Please vote NO to the residential development plan.
Thanks very much for your dedicated work for the people of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jialin Song and Hongliang Chang
10218 Cold Harbor Ave, Cupertino.
1500
From: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>>
Date: November 1, 2014 at 10:28:22 PM PDT
To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>>
Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website
Reply‐To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>>
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Karen Farrelly
Organization: resident
Email: karenfarrelly@hotmail.com<mailto:karenfarrelly@hotmail.com>
Possibly Regarding Page:
/app_pages/view/10
Subject:
multi unit condos
Comment:
regarding:
The Housing Element
It seems like more and more, that multi‐unit apartments or condos under construction are
being built very close to main streets with just a little bit of sidewalk separating the building
from the street. They also seem very boxy and similar from city to city. The close proximity to
streets and boxy shape creates a congested or very urban feeling, in my opinion, and one in
which less sun can make its way down to the public space. I have seen this with recent
construction on Stevens Creek in Cupertino and other nearby cities like along El Camino. I wish
there would be more consideration for more separation between street and new housing (and
commercial) buildings ‐‐ room where more soft scape can exist and more natural light can shine
through.
1501
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:39 PM, <vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net<mailto:vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net>>
wrote:
Dear Councilman Wong,
I, Virginia Tamblyn, have participated in many meetings regarding the future of Cupertino. I am
alarmed at the present plans for the future of the city. If approved, the city will suffer from
overbuilding , congested traffic, and a damage to the quality of life as we know it. The present
citizens of Cupertino deserve better than this.
The letters in the packet from Apple representatives, and citizens express my concerns.
Sincerely,
Virginia Tamblyn
vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net<mailto:vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net>
19721 Bixby Dr. Cupertino
1502
1503
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
October 2, 2014
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project wasreviewed by the
Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on October 2, 2014.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:EA-2013-03(GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, MCA-2014-01, SPA-2014-01, Z-2013-01)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Certification of Environmental Impact ReportforaGeneral Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update
and Associated Rezoning;
General Plan Amendmentto establish citywide development allocations for commercial, office, hotel
and residential uses and development parameters for key study areas (including the Vallco Shopping
district);
General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022 Housing Element as required by State Law;
Rezoning of certain parcels in conjunction with the citywide General Plan Amendment;
Specific Plan Amendmentto the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to maximum residential yield
calculations and an updated map to conform with the General Plan;
Municipal Code Amendmentto comply with State Housing Law and the Housing Element of the
General Plan and other zoning code amendments for clean-up and consistency
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committeefinds that upon concurrent approval of theGeneral Plan
Amendmentsfor the project as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report,the projects(MCA-
2014-01, SPA-2014-01 and Z-2013-01) would be consistent with the General Plan and recommends that
the City Councilapprove the Resolution recommending Certification of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
/s/Aarti Shrivastava
Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant City Manager
g/erc/REC EA-2013-03
1504
-1-
Public Comments Related to the General Plan and Housing Element
The following is a general list of comments received. Staff comments are provided in italics.
• Were respondents on the Community Design Survey residents of the City? – The participants
included residents, members of various City Commissions, and property owners.
• Photographs in the Community Design Survey should have included more developments in
the City, to solicit opinions – The photographs included a number of project types in varying
heights and intensities including those in the City.
• Based on the number of employees resulting due to increase in office allocations and ABAG
requirements, will the City have enough infrastructure; housing, transportation, etc., to
accommodate the increase of employees? – The population and housing impacts of the Proposed
Project and alternatives are discussed in detail in the EIR and no significant impacts were found.
The recommended Balanced Plan provides a balance of land uses, including meeting residential
targets in the 2040 Plan Bay Area. It also proposes locating growth near transportation corridors and
improving connectivity to reduce transportation impacts.
• The Market Study did not provide comparable data for some categories. Also, in the past,
mixed-use residential projects have not been approved with enough retail or have not
provided the approved amount of retail when constructed – The Market Study data could not
provide comparable data for certain years due to a major change in categorization of data at the
collection stage. In terms of project approvals, the “mixed-use village” concept in Community Vision
2040 addresses the provision of retail in mixed-use residential projects.
• In the past, mixed-use projects have not provided adequate parking – Recent projects, such as
Main Street and the Biltmore have improved parking layouts and parking ratios.
• Concerns related to schools, parks, etc. with housing projects – State law prevents a
jurisdiction from denying a project based on school impacts. The school impact fee is considered
adequate mitigation for the impacts of any development. All developments will continue to be
required to pay school impact fees, and either dedicate parkland or pay park in-lieu fees, depending on
the size and location of the project.
• What is the ratio of ownership and rental units? The Housing Element and the Market Study
provides this information. It should be noted that parcelization is highly discouraged in major mixed-
use corridors to allow redevelopment of key parcels over time.
• Good design is essential, particularly for high-density projects – The City has taken a very
proactive approach in ensuring the projects are built to high design standards. The project review
process also encourages extensive community input.
• How are community benefits defined? The proposed Community Benefit Program is discussed in
detail earlier in this report.
• What is the status of money received for trail and park improvements from Main Street and
Apple? The money from projects for trails has been programmed for a future study and
improvements, which is expected to begin after the adoption of the General Plan. A Parks and
1505
-2-
Recreation Master Plan is proposed to be prepared for the next fiscal year. The Master Plan will
identify improvements and land acquisition needed to meet City goals.
• There should be a hotel allocation that requires a five-star hotel with 200-250 rooms and 400-
person facility for meeting, conference and dining – Per the recommendation, additional height
allowed requires a convention center and community benefits in two hotel locations in the City. As
part of the project review, additional items can be required.
• The Heart of the City will be superseded by the General Plan one year after adoption. There
is no Crossroads Streetscape Plan – Amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan are related
to the Housing Element and the removal of the Vallco Shopping District (which will have its own
Specific Plan). No amendments are being proposed to the 35-foot front setback. The Crossroads
Streetscape plan and updates to relevant conceptual plans will be conformance action items in the
General Plan.
• Heart of the City corner lot setback – This is expected to be brought to the Council in Spring
2015.
• The South Vallco Area and the Vallco Shopping District should be clearly defined – A clear
map and description of all the Planning Areas is provided in the Draft General Plan.
• Define the 1:1 and 1:1.5 building setbacks in the General Plan. Are there changes
recommended? – Currently, all major corridors require 1:1 have building setback lines with 1:1.5
setback lines required for only a small portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road (both
between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue) in the North Vallco and South Vallco areas. These are
building plane requirements rather than setbacks, where primary building bulk (except for
architectural features and eaves) has to be within the plane. The recommendation is to make all the
building plane requirements 1:1 in order to maintain consistency of buildings along all the major
corridors.
• Provide pedestrian-friendly design and improvements to bicycle and transit infrastructure –
This is a part of the “Complete Streets” recommendation in the Draft General Plan.
• General comments on study areas and suitability for Housing Element sites. Cupertino
residents prefer a suburban lifestyle – The Draft General Plan takes into account the importance
of neighborhood preservation, economic and fiscal stability of the City, focusing growth in major
transportation corridors, connectivity, and ensuring that an adequate number of sites are identified to
meet the City’s RHNA allocation, HCD and other criteria, and affordability requirements.
• Provide affordable housing and options for seniors – Recommended in the Draft General Plan
and Housing Element.
• Specify retail requirements in areas where retail is required for additional height – The Draft
General Plan provides additional guidance as it relates to viable retail and substantial amount of
retail on the ground floor along the street.
• Cupertino needs vibrant retail and places where the community can visit and shop –
Recommendations included in the Draft General Plan.
1506
-3-
• Don’t specify Green requirements (green roofs, etc.) – The Draft General Plan encourages, but
does not require Green elements beyond those required by the City’s Green Building Ordinance and
the Building Code.
• Community shuttle – This is an element of the Community Benefits Program.
• Concerns from Apple related to heights on the Hamptons site – Addressed in the General Plan
in conjunction with input from Apple and the Hamptons.
• Residential density should not include any rights-of-way – Revised in the Zoning Ordinance
and Heart of the City Specific Plan.
• The City’s vision and General Plan should direct the design of large projects rather than the
at the individual project level – The Draft General Plan provides more guidance on the
expectations of projects and the streetscape in order to provide more guidance for individual projects.
• General discussion on zoning of industrial sites to residential – Since the 2007-2014 Housing
Element was adopted, no such rezoning has occurred. The Draft General Plan clearly outlines
Housing Element sites, where residential development would be a permitted use. Residential on
mixed-use sites would be conditional uses.
• Fiscal impact of rezoning should be discussed – These can be discussed as part of the rezoning.
At this time, the only sites that are proposed for residential rezoning are Housing Element sites,
which are mandate by the State. Most of these are mixed-use sites, which require a substantial retail
component per the Draft General Plan.
• In the past, General Plan amendments have been made to allow height exceptions for an
apartment building and hotel. Only hotels should be allowed to have the maximum height
– Per the recommended heights in the Draft General Plan, no exceptions are allowed. However, base
and maximum heights are defined clearly for each area. The tallest heights are reserved only for four
areas, two of which are hotels – provided they provide Community Benefits as outlined.
• Ensure that projects meet conditions – Noted. Any revisions will be brought to the relevant body
for a decision. However, while the City can make a decision on the type and form of the land use and
zoning, it cannot make a decision on specific businesses.
1507