Loading...
Kitty Moore - 3-11-2018 9-56 a.m. - Apple July 2014 Letter related to GPACOMMENT LETTER # B16 July 31, 2014 Piu Ghosh Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Apple Comments on DEIR for General Plan Amendment Dear Piu This letter sets forth Apple's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project (collectively, the "General Plan Amendment"). Apple has a strong interest in the City's future growth and development. We are investing billions of dollars to remain in our hometown. As a general matter, Apple supports the increases in office and hotel development allocations in the General Plan Amendment. The positive impact of Apple Campus 2 on the area is already apparent. We believe Apple Campus 2 and Apple's continued presence in the area will continue to drive demand for new office space and generate additional visitors to the area. We support the City's efforts to accommodate economic development and reasonable growth. We also value our good relations with The Irvine Company. We have worked B16-01 cooperatively on a number of initiatives. We understand The Irvine Company's desire to update and densify the Hamptons, and we are not opposed to reasonable development on that site. However, we have grave concerns about the dramatic increases in density and height the General Plan Amendment would allow at the Hamptons. Such increases are unprecedented in Cupertino. The impact of these increases on the unique privacy and security needs of Apple Campus 2, which the City has acknowledged in the EIR for the campus, have not been considered. We also have concerns about the impact buildings of this height will have on view corridors, sunlight and emission of light and glare. For the reasons outlined below, we respectfully request that the updated General Plan maintain the Apple ,,1;;111 =L: -11 - :: ;longstanding longstandingheight limit of 60 feet for the Hamptons site, for all structures a pz .: . CA 9sCP located within 50 feet of the parcel line abutting Apple Campus 2 or =039. 6 1'110 F 403996 -;)LS Piu Ghosh July 31, 2014 Page 2 of 8 Pruneridge. The height limit should remain at 60 feet for the remainder of the Hamptons site, unless the City makes special findings that an increased height, up to 75 feet, would not infringe on the privacy and security needs of B16-01 Apple Campus 2, nor unreasonably impact view corridors or sunlight, or cont. create light or glare trespass. We also request that setbacks, transitions, landscaping, or other mitigations be imposed, unless the City makes the special findings specified above. 1. The Proposed Height Increase and Elimination of Setbacks for the Hamptons Site Threatens the Security of Apple Campus 2 As we have discussed extensively in the past, the key purpose of Apple Campus 2 is to provide a single, unified and secure campus where Apple will invent future generations of Apple products. The Apple Campus 2 Environmental Impact Report ("AC2 EIR") acknowledges that security is one of the Project's two "primary objectives": "[a]chiev[ing] the security and privacy required for the invention of new products by eliminating any public access through the site, and protecting the perimeters against unauthorized persons." AC 2 DEIR, page 63. The AC2 EIR followed this imperative in its analysis. For example, it concluded that the Mobility and Park alternative, which would have placed a public trail along the southern portion of the site, was such a threat to security that it was not even studied. According to the AC2 EIR, "[a] public trail traversing the project site and Calabazas Creek would conflict with Apple's safety and security needs" and even security measures would be insufficient "because Apple is under intense scrutiny." AC 2 DEIR, page 626. Likewise, the Pruneridge Open alternative was rejected because it posed too much of a security threat. Placing 85 -foot residential towers immediately adjacent to Apple Campus 2 poses the same security concerns as a trail through the site. A penthouse at that height along the perimeter of the campus would provide a direct view into the activities and patterns of behavior at the campus. Even allowing lower heights with no setbacks, transitions or landscaping jeopardizes the privacy and security of Apple Campus 2. It's inconsistent with the AC2 EIR's acknowledgment of Apple's security and privacy needs to permit a building envelope that would breach those needs. The only way to remedy the issue is to limit heights and impose setbacks, transitions, landscaping or other mitigations, and require special findings that security and privacy at Apple Campus 2 will not be compromised if the City approves a larger building envelope at the Hamptons site. 2. Apple Designed the Apple Campus 2 Project Assuming Compliance with Existing General Plan Policies 1-7iUfflya While Apple's goals for the campus are hugely ambitious, Apple carefully stayed within B16-03 the existing General Plan development standards, and went to great lengths to respect our neighbors. None of the buildings exceed 60 feet, even though taller buildings would have been a logical choice. The parking garage is setback from the Hamptons and 2 Piu Ghosh July 31, 2014 Page 3 of 8 screened from view. Other setbacks were greatly increased over the previously existing condition. Where our campus comes closest to residential neighbors - along the eastern boundary adjacent to Santa Clara - great attention has been paid to ensure that our neighbors' privacy is protected and impacts minimized. We made these investments at a considerable cost. Our multi -billion dollar investment was based on the good faith understanding that adjacent land uses would not be dramatically changed to the detriment of our campus. We recognize that land use policies may evolve, but we never anticipated a wholesale rewrite of the rules targeted solely for our most immediate neighbor, which would more than triple the permitted density and increase height limits by more than 40%. 3. The General Plan Amendment Proposes a Dramatic Increase in Density and Height at the Hamptons Site The Hamptons site currently is developed with 342 apartment units, built at a density of approximately 27 units/acre and at a height of about 45 feet. This is already considered high density in Cupertino. The General Plan Amendment proposes to dramatically increase the permitted density to 110 units/acre, which would allow up to 1,368 units, a 300% increase and over 1,000 new units. While the General Plan Amendment states that the "realistic" yield is 1,162 units, which would be an increase of 820, for EIR purposes the maximum, not the "realistic", density should be analyzed. Further, by taking advantage of the State Density Bonus Law, a project could exceed even this higher limit, and require the City to waive development standards, such as height, to achieve the desired density. Government Code § 65915. The result would be to take control of development on this site out of the City's hands. Currently, the greatest density allowed anywhere in the City is 35 units/acre; the proposal would allow over three times that density on this single site. The Hamptons site is the only site in the City proposed for such a dramatic increase. The next densest sites under the new General Plan would allow only 40 units/acre and most multi -family residential sites are proposed at 25 to 35 units/acre. In addition to density, the General Plan Amendment would allow residential towers of up to 85 feet at the Hamptons, an increase of more than 40% over the current 60 foot height limit. Further, unlike other areas in the City where a "bonus" height requires inclusion of a retail component and "community benefits," neither are required for the Hamptons. Finally, the General Plan Amendment appears to abandon longstanding setback requirements, and where setbacks may be required, they must account only for impacts to residential uses. For example, the current General Plan includes setback ratios in the Vallco area, including a 1:1 slope line drawn from the Wolfe Road curb line. General Plan, Figure 2-D. According to the EIR Appendix I, it appears the General Plan Amendment would delete the setback ratios, and instead require unspecified "appropriate setbacks" to promote active uses along street frontage and "minimize potential conflict with adjacent 3 B16-03 cont. 1-7i P- MLI Piu Ghosh July 31, 2014 Page 4 of 8 low-density single-family neighborhoods." Appendix I, Revised Policy 2-15. It appears that setbacks would be determined during the project entitlement process, yet there is no General Plan language that requires any consideration of impacts to or privacy concerns of adjacent commercial uses. There is nothing currently in the General Plan to prevent B16-04 approval of an 85 foot residential tower that immediately abuts Apple Campus 2. cont. The General Plan Amendment needs to better balance the desire for increased density at the Hamptons with Apple's security needs and rational planning. These needs are well documented in the AC2 EIR and in City findings for the campus, and must be respected. 4. The General Plan Amendment EIR Should Acknowledge the Environmental Impacts of the Increased Height and Density Greatly increasing height, and eliminating setbacks at The Hamptons would result in adverse environmental impacts. In addition to amending the General Plan to limit height, as described above, we also request that the EIR impose setbacks, transitions, landscaping and other mitigations to reduce the environmental impacts of tall structures. The following discusses areas of the EIR where this should be addressed. In the discussion of AES -2 (impacts to scenic resources), the EIR notes that as part of the Architecture and Site Approval process, the City "could" require "suitable setbacks for buildings along the public rights-of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions adjacent to low-density residential development" EIR, at 4.1-30. However, the General Plan does not mention the Hamptons' nearest neighbor, Apple, the party most likely to be impacted by the Hamptons' development. Moreover, the EIR appears to rely on the potential for setbacks as the basis for its less than significant conclusion. Without an actual setback requirement, the EIR should assume that residential buildings will be built to the maximum height on the parcel lines. For the EIR to rely on setbacks as mitigating the impact, it should in fact require setbacks. We request that the General Plan either include policy language requiring adequate setbacks, to protect Apple's privacy and security needs, view corridors and sunlight, and eliminate light and glare trespass, or add such requirements as mitigation. B16-05 As for the analysis of impacts to Apple Campus 2 in particular, the EIR is conclusory when it simply states that "the taller heights may marginally impede views of the Santa Cruz mountains for the users of the Apple Campus." EIR, at 4.1-30. There is no data or analysis to support this statement. The EIR contains no visual simulation, shade and shadow study, lighting study, or the like. We request that the City prepare a visual simulation and B16-06 shade and shadow study and analyze the impacts of light and glare from the Hamptons, assuming a project built within the maximum envelope permitted. We believe these will show that 85 -foot towers along the parcel lines would have significant impacts, which could be mitigated by reasonable measures. Id Piu Ghosh July 31, 2014 Page 5 of 8 Impact AES -3 is also conclusory. It states in a single sentence that the prior analysis in the EIR showed that future development in the North Vallco Park Special Area, as well as in several other large portions of the City, would not result in a substantial change to the existing visual character or its surroundings. However, the prior analysis did not look at this question. The discussion in AES -2, which is the only portion of the chapter with any substance, looked at impacts to scenic resources, not changes to the existing visual character or surroundings. These are distinct questions. We believe there will be a dramatic change in the existing visual character and surroundings. In order to build out the Hamptons site at the proposed density of 110 units/acre, the buildings must grow taller, must be closer together and must move closer to the lot lines. To fully appreciate the extent of the change to the existing visual character, we request that the City prepare visual simulations. We also note that the General Plan Amendment proposes to delete existing Policy 2-14, Strategy 6, View Preservation. That Strategy requires that the City "Mevise and implement a policy to encourage developers to limit building heights in order to preserve hillside views throughout the City." Deletion of Policy 2-14, Strategy 6 paves the way for allowing taller buildings that impede hillside views, but the EIR fails to even mention the deletion. The EIR should be revised to either delete, or to acknowledge and study, the impact of this very significant policy change. Further, although the EIR recognizes that the impact of shade and shadow "is an important environmental issue," it contains no analysis of such impacts. EIR, at 4.1-21. When describing this issue, the EIR identifies certain land uses as being "shadow -sensitive" because they have "expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun." EIR, at 4.1-21. The list of such sensitive uses includes private enterprises, such as outdoor restaurants. However, it fails to recognize that corporate campuses, such as Apple Campus 2, may similarly be "shadow -sensitive" and have an expectation of sunlight. One of the signature features of Apple Campus 2 is its extensive outdoor space. This space is designed to invite employees to interact in a relaxed, park -like setting. Creating this open space comes at an enormous cost, particularly the elimination of impervious spaces for surface parking by constructing high cost underground and structured parking. The value of that investment and the healthy lifestyle amenity to Apple employees would be threatened by new residential towers casting long shadows across this key campus feature. Apple's expectation of sunlight clearly warrants at least the same attention as an outdoor restaurant, and the EIR should address this potential impact. Likewise, the EIR doesn't mention the light and glare trespass resulting from residential towers within this building envelope. We were very careful to avoid any light or glare trespass from Apple Campus 2 (see Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report Lighting Technical Report, October 29, 2012, by Arup and AC2 EIR, Section V.13.2.b.(4)). We request the City to study this topic in connection with the proposed building envelope. 5. Apple Requests Additional Changes and Corrections to the General Plan Amendment 5 B16-07 B16-08 B16-09 B16-10 Piu Ghosh July 31, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Below are minor additional changes that we request be made to the General Plan Amendment and the EIR: Remove Pruneridge. The EIR acknowledges that Pruneridge has been vacated for Apple Campus 2, but it remains depicted in all figures. The General Plan and its figures should reflect the vacation of Pruneridge and the amendment to the General Plan's Circulation Element effected as part of the Apple Campus 2 approvals. Acknowledge the Development Agreement. A key entitlement for Apple Campus 2 is the Development Agreement, which vested Apple's right to build out the campus under the policies, plans and regulations that were in place at the time of the Development Agreement, including the General Plan. This General Plan Amendment should acknowledge that, so long as the Development Agreement is in place, the prior General Plan policies apply to Apple Campus 2. We note that the current General Plan takes this approach with respect to Hewlett-Packard's development agreement. Clarify "Major Employer." We believe the entities that qualify for the "major employer" pool of development allocations should be clarified. First, we note that Appendix I mistranscribes the existing General Plan language. Policy 2-44 describes"major employers" as those "companies with sales offices and corporate headquarters in Cupertino," but EIR Appendix I shows this as companies with "sales offices or corporate headquarters." This needs to be corrected. However, we think the definition could be further clarified. The purpose of the "major employer" category is to encourage large, established companies to stay and grow in Cupertino. We believe that only requiring a sales office and corporate headquarters is too broad. B16-10 cont. • Assumption for Hamptons. Table 3-5 indicates a net increase of 528 units within the North Vallco Special Area, but elsewhere the EIR states that redevelopment of The Hamptons will result in a net increase of 820 units. The full density anticipated B16-11 in the EIR should be assumed. Further, we were unable to determine in the traffic section how many units were assumed at that site. Please clarify this issue. 1-280 Northbound Ramp Improvements. It appears that the EIR does not assume some of the improvements Apple is making to the Wolfe Road and 1-280 northbound ramp. We believe this accounts for the discrepancy between the finding in the AC2 EIR that with mitigation, that intersection would operate at LOS B (see MM TRANS -5, pg. 404) and the finding in the General Plan Amendment EIR that the same intersection would operate at LOS F in the "no project" scenario. In particular, the Transportation Impact Analysis for Apple Campus 2 assumed widening the northbound Wolfe approach to three lanes (see AC2 TIA, pg. 3-10, Intersection #21, Wolfe Road and 1-280 NB Ramps providing data for Cumulative B16-12 Piu Ghosh July 31, 2014 Page 7 of 8 plus Project conditions, for both AM and PM traffic), but the General Plan Amendment EIR assumed only two lanes for this approach (see EIR, Appendix G, pg. 231-76). Apple is, in fact, constructing this third northbound approach lane, so it should be assumed. • Bridge Widening Should Not be Assumed. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 commits the City to preparing and implementing a Traffic Mitigation Fee Program and then identifies several improvements that would mitigate the impacts. EIR, at 4.13-53. Several of these improvements are ambitious, particularly the potential for widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. These very substantial improvements have not been studied. Please clarify in the text of the EIR that there may be other solutions available and that any mitigation measures will be identified and fully studied when preparing the Fee Program. There should be no assumption at this point that the bridge may need to be widened. Apple has made an unprecedented investment in Cupertino and the decision to do so was based on certain understandings about our neighborhood. We respectfully request that the City continue to collaborate with Apple and The Imine Company to identify appropriate development standards for the Hamptons site, including 60 -foot height limits along the property lines, reasonable setbacks, transitions, landscaping or other mitigations, and findings that any structure will not breach the privacy and security needs of Apple Campus 2, and that the impacts of any project on view corridors, sunlight, and emission of light and glare will be thoroughly studied and adverse impacts mitigated. Sincerely, Da hisenhunt enior Director Real Estate & Development Apple cc: Mayor and City Council of Cupertino David Brandt, City Manager Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development 7 B16-12 cont. -IUSICI B16-14