Kitty Moore - 3-12-2018 12-54 p.m. AppendixAppendix
City Attorney's Ballot Title and Summary for Proposed Initiative Submitted on March 3, 2016
"Measure Y
RECEIVED
MAR 18 2016
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY'S BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE
SUBMITTED ON MARCH 3, 2016
TITLE: Initiative adopting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan to (1) provide that the Vallco
Shopping District Special Area ("Area") contains a mixture of residential, office, retail, civic and
education uses; (2) require any development to fund or provide community benefits such as
transit, schools, a green roof, and recycled water; and (3) grant the property owner initial
entitlements to develop in accordance with the Initiative and establish a process for future
approvals; and making related amendments to Cupertino's General Plan and Municipal Code.
SUMMARY: The Initiative involves the property designated in Cupertino's General Plan
(Community Vision 2015 — 2040) as the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. Fifty-one acres
of the 58 -acre property are currently occupied by the Vallco Shopping Mall. The General Pian
envisions redevelopment of the Area as a mixed-use project, sets forth development allocations,
goals, policies and strategies, and requires adoption of a specific plan prior to any development.
The Initiative states that it implements and fulfills the requirements of the General Plan and the
vision of the community by approving the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan ("Specific Plan")
establishing a mix of retail, dining, entertainment, recreation, offices, housing, hotel, education,
civic, public open space, and amenities. The Initiative includes associated amendments to the
General Plan and City of Cupertino Municipal Code.
The Initiative:
(1) States that it would entitle the property owners to develop the Area in accordance
with the Specific Plan, exempt the Area from provisions of the Municipal Code not provided in
the Specific Plan, and establish process for future approvals;
(2) Adopts a Specific Plan establishing development features for the Area including:
(a) 389 msidentia[ units (minimum 20% senior apartments), which may be
increased through a Conditional Use Permit process up to the General Plan
allocations if there are no significant and unavoidable impacts beyond
those identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report;
(b) 2,900,000 square feet ("sf') of office space (minimum of 100,000 sf of
incubator space for businesses);
(c) 640,000 sf of commercial space (regional retail, entertainment, and
personal service);
(d) 100,000 (minimum 50,000) sf of public/civic space;
(e) Two Town Centers (3 -acre minimum);
(f) 30 acres minimum of Community Park and Nature Area or "green roof'
(3.8 miles minimum to be publicly accessible trails), with drought tolerant
landscaping and recycled water infrastructure;
(g) 9,060 parking spaces below, above, and at grade level;
(h) 80 feet (maximum) building height west of Wolfe Road and 95 feet
(maximum) building height east of Wolfe Road, scaled to minimize
impacts on residential; and
(i) 191 hotel rooms (in addition to a previously approved hotel).
(3) Requires any development, other than on two sites proposed for hotels, to fund
community benefits which may be incorporated into a development agreement, including
transportation improvements ($30 million for 1-280, a free shuttle, transit center, and
bike/pedestrian trails), 5,000 square feet of charitable civic space, and no less than 10 times what
is legally required for schools (approximately $40 million);
(4) Changes standards for "parcelization" (division of the property into smaller parcels);
and
(5) States that, until January 1, 2027, its provisions may only be amended or repealed by
the voters.
Traffic Studies
San Jose Envision 2040 General Plan TIA for the DEIR:
hqp://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/2198
• The broad -brush program -level traffic study shows 73% of Cupertino's lane miles are
impacted by San Jose's GP. Stevens Creek Blvd. will be deficient.
• San Jose indicates they altered their policy to no longer driver comfort and convenience,
yet this is not holding up to CEQA scrutiny due to other concerns such as greenhouse gas
emissions.
=4
Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan:
Transportation Impact Anatysls for the Draft Environmental Impact Report
October 2010
adjacent jurisdiction are attributable to San Jose. The 25 percent threshold represents what would be a
noticeable change in traffic by San Jose General Plan.
The follovAng roadways were analyzed to determine impacts presented in Table 15. CMP system
roadways are identified in italicized text. Minor arterials were also analyzed to determine impacts
presented in Table 15: however, they are not specifically identified below.
• Campbell: Hamiifon Avenue, Campbell Avenue, VVinchester Roulevard
• Cupertino: Homestead Road, Foothill Boulevard, Bubb Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Pruneddge Avenue, North Wolfe Road, DeAnza Boulevard, Stelling Road
• Gilroy: Monterey Street, Leavesley Road, Hecker Pass Highway, East 10`' Street, Monterey
Street, East Luchessa Avenue
FFHK &Z PEEKS
r1;A1N1J-1IflrYr14N LGN3Y17A4r3
OW
TABLE 15
ADJACENT JURISDICTION IMPACTS SUMMARY
(BASED ON AM PEAT( d -HOUR PERIOD VOLUMES)
Existing Conditions
Proposed General Plan Update
City
Total Lane
Miles with
Deficient
VIC Ratio1
Impacted
Lane Miles
(San Jose
traffic a: 10%
4f volume)
Percent of
Impacted
Lane
Miles
Affected
Total
Lane
Miles with
Deficient
VIC Ratio
Impacted
Lane Miles
(San Jose
Iraffic2 10%
of volume)
Percent of
Impacted Lane
Mlles Affected
Campbell
0.13
0.13
100
0.42
0.42
100
Cupertino
0,67
0.67
100
7.52
5.45
73
Gilroy
0.00
0.00
0
1.65
1.65
fog
Los Altos
638
0.78
100
2.52
2.52
leo
Los Altos Hills
0.17
0.42
14
3.61
3.00
83
Los Gatos
0,12
0.12
100
0.90
0.90
100
Milpitas
033
0.73
100
22.17
22.17
toe
Monte Sereno
0,00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0
Morgan Hill
0.00
0.00
0
1.97
1.97
100
Mountain View
0.72
0.65
90
11.76
10.83
92
Palo Alto
0.48
0.16
33
7.58
4.76
63
Santa Clara
0.17
0.17
100
1.95
1.95
100
Saratoga
1.26
1.26
100
5.71
5.71
Inc
Sunnyvale
0.00
0.00
13
1.45
1.42
98
Caltrans Fadlifies2
5,093.26
4,391.72
86
4,951.58
4,584.04
93
Santa Clara County
Facilities
3.01
3.01
100
21.33
21.33
100
Notes- Impacts are Identified In bold taxi.
1 Lane miles of less than 0.5 were rounded to 0. For e4alualing significant impacts. it impacted lane miles attributable to the Cit
are less than 0.5, impacts are considered lass rtianigniAcant_
2 Includes all Caltrans facilities with in Santa Clara County.
Source: Fehr& Peers. 2010.
The follovAng roadways were analyzed to determine impacts presented in Table 15. CMP system
roadways are identified in italicized text. Minor arterials were also analyzed to determine impacts
presented in Table 15: however, they are not specifically identified below.
• Campbell: Hamiifon Avenue, Campbell Avenue, VVinchester Roulevard
• Cupertino: Homestead Road, Foothill Boulevard, Bubb Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Pruneddge Avenue, North Wolfe Road, DeAnza Boulevard, Stelling Road
• Gilroy: Monterey Street, Leavesley Road, Hecker Pass Highway, East 10`' Street, Monterey
Street, East Luchessa Avenue
FFHK &Z PEEKS
r1;A1N1J-1IflrYr14N LGN3Y17A4r3
OW
Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan'
Transportation Impact Analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Report
October 2010
TABLE id
TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDOR IMPACT SUMMARY
Roadway Segment
Cross Street
Cross Street
Distance
(!Niles}
AM Peak Hour Travel Speed
(MPH)
Proposed
Existing General Plan
Conditions Conditions
Second St_
San Carlos St_
Sl _James St.
6.6
11.5 11.4
Alum Rock Ave.
Capitol Ave.
Us 101
3.4
20.0 12.9
Camden Ave_
SR 17
Meridian Ave_
5.2
24.0 180
Capital Ave_
S. Milpitas Blvd.
Capital Expwy.
7.B
24.1 17.5
Hillsdale AveJ
Capitol Expwy.
Capitol Ave.
Meridian Ave.
19.8
28.6 23.8
E_ Santa Clara St_
US 101
Delmas Ave.
4.6
20.4 16.2
Meridian Ave.
Park Ave.
Blossom Hill Rd.
12.2
25.5 19.6
Monterey Rd.
Keyes St_
Metcalf Rd.
18.2
20.5 17.0
First Sl.
CA 237
Keyes St.
17.2
22.6 13.4
San Carlos SL
Bascom Ave.
SR 87
4.2
24.3 19.7
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Bascom Ave.
Tan tau Ave.
8.2
23.1 16.8
Tasman Dr_
Lick Mill Blvd.
McCarthy Ln_
5.0
24.3 9A
The Alameda
Alameda Wy_
Delmas Ave.
4.2
22.5 14.2
IN. San Carlos St.
SR 87
Second St.
1.3
19.9 17.5
Nate_ The values shown have been rounded for presentation purposes.
Source: Fehr d Paars_ 2010.
g. Adjacent Jurisdictions
Operations of adjacent jurisdiction roadway segments outside the City of San Jose boundaries were
reviewed to determine the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. Table 15 summarizes
these results.
Given changes in land use, trip patterns, and behavior between the two scenarios, vehicular traffic on
roadway segments within several jurisdictions is projected to increase with the proposed General Plan
Update land uses as compared to existing conditions.
A roadway segment within adjacent jurisdictions is considered to be deficient if the future volume -to -
capacity (VJC) ratio is 1.0 or greater during the AM peak 4 -hour period in the year 2035_ Given the large
papulation and employment projected to reside in the region, and the complex travel patterns created by
the large population and employment numbers, only a portion of trips on any roadway segment in
adjacent jurisdictions are expected to have originated from a resident or jab within City of San Jose_
Therefore, a deficient roadway segment in adjacent jurisdictions is attributed to City of San Jose General
Plan when the trips from the City are 10 (ten) percent or more on the deficient segment. The impact to an
adjacent jurisdiction is considered significant when 25 percent or more of total deficient lane miles in that
-1151
rsA+fFRerATr6N f9blYO"F1
Adjacent Jurisdiction Impacts
Impact TRANSA. Motor vehicle traffic and congestion resulting from implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would increase on roadway segments outside
oft he City of San Jose. (Significant)
Roadways within adjacent jurisdictions are considered to be deficient if the volume to capacity (VIC) ratio
under proposed General Plan Update conditions is 1-0 or greater, and is considered an impact when the
trips from the City are 10 (ten) percent or more of the total traffic on these roadways- The impact is
considered significant when the impacted roadway lane miles are 25 percent of the deficient lane miles.
With implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, 15 adjacent jurisdictions would have impacts
on greater than one lane mile of roadways. These impacts are the aggregate of the major roadways
within the adjacent jurisdiction boundaries of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los
Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara, Caltrans
facilities, and Santa Clara Cou nty facilities.
The traditional response to mitigate significant traffic -related impacts, or increases in automobile trips on
street segments, is to increase roadway capacity by providing additional lanes or facilities- In Santa Clara
County, widening roads to provide additional travel lanes is no longer feasible in most cases because
available right-of-way is already constrained and utilized by other land uses or transportation facilities -
Dedication of additional land to paved roadways decreases landscaping, eliminates street treeslbus
stcpslbicycle lanes, reduces sidewalk widths, increases intersection sizes, and moves vehicular traffic
Mk (with associated noise and pollution) closer to residences and businesses -
The proposed General Plan Update recognizes and acknowledges that there will be increased levels of
congestion resulting from new development, both within San Jose and elsewhere in the Bay Area- This
reflects a change in policy for the City to acknowledge that transportation planning based solely on
oadway traffic operations (i -e- analysis based on traffic level of service and volume to capacity ratios),
which considers only driver comfort and convenience, is not desirable since it fails to acknowledge other
users of the circulation system and other community values. In evaluating the roadway system, an impact
to adjacent roadways may be desired when balanced against other community values related to resource
protection, social equity, economic development, and consideration of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
users.
Envision San Jose 2040 General Plana
Transportation Impact Analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Repot
October 2010
Widening a road to achieve a lower volume to capacity ratio results in higher expenditure of infrastructure
dollars for wider roadways that don of necessarily serve all users of the circulation system- Roadway
widening also provides capacity that is excess for the majority of the day outside the peak periods -
Furthermore wider roadways, in general, are inconsistent with goals promoting a more livable city, cause
greater impacts to biological resources and discourage roadway use by pedestrians and bicyclists. In
addition, mitigating impacts to affected roadway segments can have high infrastructure costs -
The proposed General Plan update contains several policies and actions that seek to reduce automobile
travel- They include TR 1.1 through TR -1-9, TR 2.1 through 2-11. TR -3-1 through 3-4, TR -4-1 through
4.4, and TR -8.1 through 8.4. Implementation of these policies and actions would help reduce the
magnitude of traffic impacts on adjacent jurisdictions.
The proposed General Plan update also includes an implementing action to encourage coordination with
other jurisdictions,
CR -1.8 Interagency Participation and Coordination. Actively coordinate with regional
transportation, land use planning, and transit agencies to ensure development and
maintenance of a t ransportation network with complementary land uses that
encourage travel by bicycle, walking, and transit, and ensure regional greenhouse
Based on the considerations above, no mitigation measures are feasible to reduce adjacent jurisdiction
impacts to a less than significant level. With adoption of the new policies and implementing actions
contained in the General Plan Update, this impact would be reduced but could remain significant.
Therefore, impacts to adjacent jurisdictions would remain significant and unavoidable -
City of Cupertino General Plan 2040 EIR
See Appendix G: Transportation and Traffic Data:
Cupertino presents that 1 I of 16 intersections would operate at unacceptable level of service due
to the proposed project. 9 out of 16 intersections are outside of Cupertino jurisdiction.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Cupertino City Council
Jennifer Griffin expressed her concern that the vacation of Finch Avenue would be
determined before an EIR is completed or permits for Main Street have been pulled. She said
that she felt Main Street and the vacation of Finch Avenue should be separate items.
Director of Public Works Timm Borden said that the vacation would not be approved until
Main Street is approved and that Council is only setting May 1 as the date for a public
hearing to coincide with the hearing regarding Main Street.
Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to adopt Resolution No. 12-029 as amended with the
correct hearing date of May 1. The motion carried unanimously.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
13. Subject, Annual Status report of the General Plan and Housing Element
Recommended Action- Approve for submission to the California Department of Housing &
Corn munity Development (HCD) by April 1, 2012
Description- Review of the General Plan progress and program implementation as required
by State Law
Community Development Director A.arti Shrivaslava reviewed the staff report.
Jennifer Griffin said that developments such as Main Street, Biltmore, Rose Bowl, Apple,
and the 1HOP development are coming up. She noted that the General Plan says the City
can't approve additional housing if road intersections can't maintain above a D grade level of
service. She said she is concerned that Stevens Creek Blvd. will take the brunt of the traffic
with these new developments. She urged Council to take a look at this when approving the
projects.
Shrivaslava explained that the General Plan does talk about maintaining a level of service D
for all intersections. She said that this will be looked at during the environmental review of
the projects. She noted that the City will review and get a chance to provide comments
regarding the IHOP development, but since it's in a different city, they can only comment_
She said that staff would make sure that none of Cupertino's intersections would be imnacted
above level service D when the projects are approved.
Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the submission of the General Plan and
Housing Element annual status report. The motion carried unanimously.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED RE20114ING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Five (S) of the -axteen ( lb) intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at least
one Freak hour under the pmpnsed Project vvere also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service
under the No Project cEnario.
The intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level of service are bolded and underlined in Table
4.13-13_ All other study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under the
propm.ed Project conditions. The LOS calculation sheetsare included in Appendix G. Trark-Tortation and
Traffic Data., of this Draft FIR_
TABLE 4.13-13 PROPOSED PROJECT I NTER5EC]lON LEVELS OF SERVICE TABLE
No P50a Prapo5ed Projert
LOS Peak ft Avg. Change In Change In
R InUT-ettion Standard Flour Dft LOS Delay LOS CrIL yX Crit. Delay
1 SR 85 SB Ramps and Stevens D AM 29.2 C 31.2- C 0.127 4.6
Creek Blvd.' PM 29.1 C 32.2 C- 0.103 4.4
4.13-50
a.
JUNE la, 2x14
SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens
AM
51.1
D-
65.1
E
0.084
253
2
Creek Blvd_'
D
PFA
20.9
C+
21.5
C+
0.110
2.2
Stelling Rd. and Stevens Creek
AM
46.2
D
47.7
D
0.050
-0.7
3
Blvd.'
E+
PM
52.9
D-
88.2
IF
0.240
71.7
Sunnyvale -Saratoga Rd. and
AM
42.8
D
445
D
0.054
3.1
4
Fremont Ave.
E
PM
52.5
D-
63.0
E
0.075
17.6
Sunnyvale -Saratoga Rd./De
AM
51.2
D-
1043
F
0.273
88.4
5
Ansa Blvd. and Homestead Rd.
D
PFA
616.1
E
181,8
F
0.486
214,8
tie Ansa Blvd_ and 1-280 NB
AM
46.4
D
10010
F
0.393
170.5
6
Ramp'
D
PM
71.7
6
162.2
F
0.523
274.1
De Ansa Blvd. and 1.280 S6
AM
47.0
D
1109
F
0.345
142.5
7
Ramp'
D
PM
353
D+
ggg
F
0.550
2373
De Anxa Blvd. and Stevens
AM
45.8
D
53.6
D-
0.079
10.8
8
Creek Blvd.'
E+
PM
76.2
E-
2ft4
F
0.445
1.88.9
De Anxa Blvd. and McClellan
AM
33.0
C-
39.3
❑
0.138
9.3
9
Rd,{
D
PariFira ❑r_
PM
70.7
E
108.8
F
0.153
573
AM
44.0
D
51.4
D-
0.067
10.7
10
De Ansa Blvd. and Bollinger Rd.'
E+
PM
25.1
C
22.6
C+
0.029
-1.3
De Anxa Blvd. and SR 85 N8
AM
32.9
C-
37.6
❑+
0.099
5.9
11
Ramp'
D
PM
16L4
B
27.8
C
0.130
18.2
De Anxa Blvd. and SR 85 S8
AM
23.9
C
26.2
C
0.063
3.6
12
Ramp'
D
PM
22.2
C+
29.5
C
0.148
13.7
AM
34.9
C-
52.9
D-
0.205
263
13
Blaney Awe. and Homestead Rd.
❑
PM
16.4
B
25.0
C
0.187
10.7
Wolfe Rd. and EI Camino Real
AM
47.6
D
419.0
❑
0.015
0.7
14
82)e
E
(SR
PM
51.8
D-
53.2
D-
0.027
1.4
AM
45.8
D
47.4
❑
0.045
-1.5
15
Wolfe Rd. and Fremont Ave.`
E
PM
51.8
D-
59.3
E+
0.060
7.1
4.13-50
a.
JUNE la, 2x14
The impacts are primarily on the east side of Cupertino compounding the effects of Apple Park
when it fully occupies with 14,200 employees.
i.Multiple projects including 239 acre "City Place" in Santa Clara, Valley Fair Expansion, Google
in Mountain View and Diridon Station have added tens of thousands of employees which were
not studied nor anticipated in the EIR.
San Jose's Envision 2040 EIR showed they would impact 73% of vehicle lane miles in
Cupertino. This was not studied in the Cupertino General Plan 2040 EIR.
County) (#32): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the LawTence Expressway
Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one through -movement lane, and one
exclu-sive right -turn lane may he required_ Right-of-way acquisition would he 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 he 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 transpnrtatien improvements identified above, among other thin q; that at the
time of potential future development may he warranted to mitigate traffic impacts.
While implementation of Mitigation Measure7RAF-I would secure a funding mechanist. for future
roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based
on then current standards, impacts would retrain xi8nTirant 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 under the jurisdictions of the Cities of
Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and Caltrans. 4pecifically, the following intersections are outside the jurisdiction
of Cupertino:
JR.r4mr. iA7:#1
4.13-55
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
■ SR R5 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#?)
■ De Anza Boulevard and I -2 R0 Northbrnind Ramp (#6)
■ Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16)
■ Wolfe Road and 1-290 Northbound Ramp (#19)
■ Wolfe Road and 1-290 Southhound Ramp (# 19)
■ NorthTantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (##24)
■ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30)
■ Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County)(##3I )
* Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CM?,, County) (#3))
However, 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 -
Sign ificance With
upertino_SignificanceWith Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable_
Letters to and from City and Developer
Page 1
From: "Reed Moulds" <rrnouldsf8shnco.com>
To: "Aarti Shrivastava" <AardSQcunertino.oro>
Date: 12123/2013 3:43:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: Height
This is one of our preferred office architects. He is doing our Netflix HQ expansion as well as our Stanford RP project. He is active in
the valley and in the city. As you can see, he suggests 159.5' all in below.
However, if I reduce the upper floors to 14' (as Jay Paul did) and use his shorter notion of a penthouse (13') 1 am down to 155'. Of
course, 9.5' of that penthouse is mechanical and elevator overrun screening, so the 3.5' parapet really is what gives the appearance
as the building's max height. So, if we don't have to include the rooftop elements in the height calc, we can live with 145.5' and up.
Of course 159.5' gives us the greatest flexibility for interesting design and tenant desired qualities
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Giannini <1bgiannirimi2form4inc.com>
Date: December 23, 2013 at 10:17:01 AM PST
To: Reed Moulds <rmouldsQshoco.com>
Subject: Re: Height
Hi Reed: Floors in a building like that can go anywhere from 13'-6" floor to floor, to 14'-6'. You can get about a 9'-6" floor in 13'-
6" which some developers are OK with (like Hines), but most like at least 10'.
So for your estimate we assumes this: 16' first floor (to give the building a good base proportion, and to accommodate some
higher uses on the ground floor), then 14'-6" upper floors, plus a 3.5 foot parapet, or 13' for a penthouse.
So: 16+9x14.5+13= 159'-6"
Trar s
Bee Glannlnl, AIA
Pr silos'
Fon4 Prcnitedura, Int.
126 Pah. Sblmt, 3rd?"
San Francl9 ,. Ca. 93109
4152537515
On Dec 20, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Reed Moulds <rmouldsQ0pco.com> wrote:
Bob, a seemingly random question for you for which I am hoping you can provide a quick answer.
If we asked you to design a first class office building in 10 stories, how tall would it be (at parapet and then all -in with
rooftop components)?
ReO MDukIS
■tanaging okeCtor
$and HE Pr(perlyowp"
2¢3114NOW 1140" Po"ay. $Litt 200
ik hood M. G 94065
653,, 41500x190
Octobex 13, 2014
Via Overnight Delivery and E -Mai i
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-32012
Re: General Plan Amendment: Office allocation for Vallco Shopping l)trtrict
Dem Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company ("Sand Hill") regarding the treatment
of the Vallco Shopping District ("Vallco") in the General Plan Amendment, Saud Hill is in
the midst of acquiring the Vallco 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 flan include an office allocation for Vallco of 2,000,000
square feet and the height limits set out in "Alternative C," as analysed 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.
Vallco presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched
in the City of Cupertino. The site sits at a prime location in the City, yet for many reasons, it
has long been neglected and numerous redevelopment efforts were either abandoned or have
failcd. Sand Hill has the fmaneial 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
curm nt derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, sustainable mixed-use neighborhood.
Our plain envisions a balanced mix of 600-740 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
.Iain Stmet.
sf-A67260
".882 SAND IlILL ROAD, SLUTC 241• MENLO PARK, CA 94425 • (650) 344-1500 -FAX (650) 344-0652
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 oornponent of the project would be the same size as Santana
Raw and would generate millions in sales tact revenues way in excess of what is being
collected today, Property taxes would also increase significantly, perhaps by 8001/1n, 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 Valles 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 facilityicommunity gathering place, crearinn 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 Vallco site is now. Sand Hill has a real plan, the
capabilities to implement it, and the history of working closely with die City and the
community. Prior attempts at Vallco redevelopment have all run into the same problem: full
ew-nership of the site is needed for a successful project, and the current split and passive
ownership structure has made parcel assemblage extremely difficult. After nearly three years
of intensive negotiations with the various Vallco ownership entities, Sand Hill is now in the
process of completing purchases for the entire mall. 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 rwomnmended in the Staff Report
precludes such a project, and thus, a feasible r(Aevelopment of the property. In particular,
the Staff Report's recommendations to limit office to 1,000,000 square feet and heights to 75
feet (west of Wolfe Road) and 90 feet {east of Wolfe Road} does not work for our plan, or
any plan for that matter.
Redevelopment of Vallco is a substwitial undertaking,. It entails demulitiun of approximately
1.2 rmlllien square feet of existing buildings and construction of an entire new downtown
over 50 acres. The General Plans vision for a -rudcveloped Vallco is ambitious: a "town
center'' layout, a newly configured struct grief, an expanded woife Road bridge of 1-280 to
accommodate a bikeable and walkable "boulr yard," a now town square and plazas
intorspersW throughout. The General Plan calls for high -duality arcNtecttue and materials
befitting a gateway site. Sand Hill shares this vision, but such elements are all very costly.
While retail uses are critical for oompleting the overall vision, such uses do not support the
type of amenities we and the City want to provide. Its order for coinplctc redc velupment to
sf-3467260
W SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 * MENLO PARK, CA 94425 • (650) 344-15DD' FAX (65 0) 3 44-0 65 2
Chair Brophy and Members of the 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 scltuare 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 reconuuend to the
City Council that the General Plan allocate r.o the Vallco Shopping District:
• 2,040,000 square feet of office space;
• Include the site in the He using Llcmcnt, including at least 600 units of housing;
• 600,000 square feet of retail; and
I lei ghts analyzed in "Alternative C" be permitted (i.e., ap 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 dom 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 priorprojects, we view Vallco as a long-term investment.
We are a local owner and take pride in our commitment tc the community and the City.
Main Street is now under construction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2416.
We look forward to continued collaboration with the City and community in the
redevelopment of Vallco.
Sand hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realizc a long-term Community
vision for a revitalized Vallco. The development tear) avid funding is in place to move
forward naw. However, we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City
Council that without the necessary office, residential and retail allocations outlined above,
we will not be in a position to redevelop Vallco and it will likely continue to languish for
decades to come.
tPetpau
f, your consideration.
ubmitted,
Principal and Founder
sf-3467260
82 .SAND HILL ROAD, SUI FE 241 ■ ME, NLG PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 • FAX (650) 344-0652
Apple Comments on DEIR to General Amendment:
COMMENT LETTER # 816
s
July 31, 2094
Piu Ghosh
Senior Planner
City&Cupertino
10300 Farre 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 Ceneral Plan Amendment. The positive impact of Apply-
Campus 2 on the area is already apparent. We believe Apple Campus 2 and
apple`s continued presence in the area wvill 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
BIG-01
cooperatively on a number of initiatives. We understand The Irvine Company's
desire to update and densif the Hamptons, and we are riot 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 LIR for the campus, have not been considered. We also
have concems about the impact buildings of this height +,vill have on view
corridors, sunlight and emission of light and glare. for the reasons outlined
below, we respectfully request that the updated General Flan maintain the
App la
a ,,,,,! 1e
longstanding height limit of 60 feet for the Hamptons site, ;For all structures
Cuper: nv.CrA9k;14
located within 50 feet of the parcel line abutting Apple Campus 2 or
r 4US 99e ,u,n
F 498)9x; -'X 5
Piu Ghosh
July 31, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Pruneridge. The height limit should remain at bra feet far the remainder of
the Hamptons site, unless the City makes special findings that an increased
height, up to 75 feet, would not infringe an the privacy and security needs of
Apple Campus 2, nor unreasonably impact view corridors or sunlight, or
create light at 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 extensiveJy 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 tete site, and protecting the perimeters against unauthorized
persons." AC 2 DEIR, page 63. The RC2 EIR followed this imperative in its analysis. For
example, It concluded that the Mobillity and Park alternative, which would have placed a
public trail along the southern portion of the site,vvas such a threat to security that it was
not even studi?d. According to the AC2 EIR, "[a] public trail traversing the project site and
Calabazas Crock would conflict with Apple's safety and security needs" and even security
measures would be insufficient "because Apple is under intense scrutiny: AC 2 QEIR, page
526. 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 Applc Campus ?. It's inconsistent
with the AC2. EIR's acknowlcdgment 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
B16-01
Dont.
916-02
While Apple's goals for the campus are hugely ambitious, Apple= carefully stayed within B16-43
the existing Genera` Plan development standards, and event to great Icngths to respect
our neighbors. None of the buildings exceed 60 feet, even though taller buildings would
have }leen a logical choice. The parking garage is setback from the Hamptons and
PiV Ghosh
July 31, 2014
Page 3 of 8
screened frorn 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.
Out- multi -billion doIlar investment was based on the good faith understanding that adjacent
land uses would not be dramarically 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 4Wo.
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 Cupertina. 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 1,152 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 allotived artywhere in the City is 35 units/acre; the proposal
would allow over three times that density an this single site. The Hamptans site is the
drily site in the City proposed for such a dramatic increase. The next densest sites under
the new General Plan would allov,, only 40 units/acre and most multi -family residential
sites are proposed at 25 to 35 unitslacre, In addition to density, the General Plan
Amendment would allow residential tourers of up to 85 feet at the Hamptons, an increase
of morethan 40% over the current 60 font 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 (toad curb line. General Plan,
Figure 2-17. 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
B'16-03
cont.
B16-04
Plu Ghosh
July 31, 2414
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 rommercial uses, There is nothing currently in the General Plan to prevent
approval of an 85 foot residential tower that immediately abuts Apple Campus 2.
The General Plan Amendment needs to better balance the desire for increased density at
the Hamptons with Apple's security needs and rational planning. Thc5c needs are well
documented in the AC2 EIR and in City findings forthe 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, Wve also request that the EIR impnse setbacks, transitions, landscaping
and other mitigations to reduce the cnvironmentail impacts of tall structures. The
following discusses areas of the EIR where this should beaddressed_
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 far
build! rigs along the public rights-of-way and appropriate buffers andJorheight transitions
adjacent to low-density residential development." EIR, at 4.130. 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
poteabof for setbacks as the basis for Its less than significant conclusion. Without an
actual setback requirement, the FFR 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 PlarY either
inciude policy language requiring adequate setbacks, to protect Apples privacy and
security needs, view corridors and sunlight, and eliminate light and glare trespass, or add
such requirements as mitigation.
1113116-04
Gant.
816-05
As for the analysis of impacts to Apple Campus 2 in particular, the OR is conclusory when
it simply SOWS 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 616.06
shade and Shadow study and analyze the impacts of light and glare from the Hamptons,
assuming a project buiitwithin the maximum envelope permitted. We believe these will
shove that 85 foot towers along the parcel lines would have significant impacts, which
could be mitigated by reasonable measures.
4
Piu Ghosh
July 31, 2014
Page 5 of 8
Impart AES -3 Is also candusory. 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 huiId out
the Hamptons site at the proposed density of 110 units/acre, the buildings must grow
taller, trust 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 5, View Preservation. That Strategy requires that the City °ldlevise 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 viC'%_Vsr but the EIR fails to even mention the
deletion. The EIR should be revised to either delete, or to acknmvledge and study, the
impact of this very significant policy change. Further, although the EIR recognizes that
the impact of sktadeand 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 world be threatened by new residential towers
casting long shadows across this Ivey campus feature. Apple's expectation of sunlight
clearly warrants at least the same attention as an outdoor restaurant, and the EIR should
address this puLential 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 e=nvironmental Impact Report
Lighting Technical Report, October 29, 2012, by Arup and AC2 EIR, Section V.6 -2.b.(4)). We
request the City to study this topic in connection with the proposed building envelope.
B1$-07
B1S-08
B16-00
3. Apple Requests Additional Changes and Corrections to the General Plan
Amendment H16-10
Piu Gho%h
July 31, 2414
Page 6 of 8
Below are minor additional changes that we request be made to the General Plan
Amendment and the Elia:
Remove Prunerid e. 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 N
in place, the priorGeneral 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 nmplrnrcrs" as tF145C "cgmpani['5 vith 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. Hc:wever,
vie think the deflrlltion could be further clarified. The purpose of the 'major
employer" categMillsto 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
cant.
• 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 Thal with mitigation, that intersection would operate at LOS
B (see MM TRANS -5, pg. 444) 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 421, Wolfe Road and 1-280 NB Ramps providing data for Cumulative
B16-12
Piu Ghosh
July 31, 2011
Page 7 of 3
plus Project conditions, for both JIM and PM traffic), but the General Plan
Amendment EIR assumed only two lanes for this approach ;see EIR, Appendix C;, 1316-12
pg. 231-76). Apple is, in fact, constructing this third northbound approach lane, so cont.
it should be assumed.
fridge Widening 5houlci Not be Assumed. Mitigation Measurc 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 816-13
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
paint 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. Vie respectfully
request that the City continue to collaborate with Apple and The Irvine Company to
identify appropriate development standards for the Hamptons site, including 64 -foot
height limits along the property lines, reasonable setbacks, transitions, landscaping or 816-14
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,
�rV
71)a$hisenhunt
eiorDnirector
Real Estate & Development
Apple
cc: Mayor and City Council of Cupertino
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti 5hrivastava, Director of Community Development
7
Future Noise Contours
W Ito] 011 V 111 P-1 410111 z k foilty
i=nsuring that future land Use and infrastructure decisions consider the potential
adverse impacts of noise is a key concern for the City of Cupertino. Figure 0-2
identifies future noise contours within the city. and in combination with the
policies included in the Health and Safety Element, will be used to help reduce
future noise impacts.
crly
lasAlms
r -11, rAECIEI
347nln f)arrr
�.a�rrlf y
k uq ar Sunnynwlc
0of
Hre
Lily of Stln lush
54d&4 CNFLton=
FS HRd[NFL m* lco,
rJBA CNFL qpuny-
City Boundary
City of Cupertino Noise and Land Use Compatibility
t apl.e v.,t-s: city at Cupernna Noise and Land Use uompattbtuty Ntandaras
Community Noise Exposure in Decibels (CNEL) or
MX/Night Average Noise level in Decibels (Lb)
Land Use Category 55 Stt 65 70 75 so
Residential — Law Density
(Single -Family, Duplex, Mobilc
Homes)
Re�idcn tial — M ul li-Farm ly
Hotels)
Schools, Libraries, Churches, hospitals,
Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Areata, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Ridmg Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
0 ffice 13ui[ding&, B Ll Li ness Commem i al
and Professional Centers
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities.
Agriculture
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the
assumption that any buildings involved Are of normal
convcntional venstruction, without any spccial noise
insulation requirements.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New consttuctiar, or develupmcln should be undcrlakcn
only after a derailed analysis of the noi¢C reduction
rc:quim-mun; , is murk and ncc&d Twisc rc:Jve ion features
included in the design_ Conventional construction, but
with windows closed and fresh air supply systems or air
c.onditioni" will normally suffice.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should generally
be discouraged. If new construction or development
dues proceed, a detailed analysis of the no6o
reduction requirements must be made and needed
rkoise insulation fcatures included in the design.
CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New cunsltuctmi ordavclopincnl should generally
not he undertaken -
Source: Cupertino, City of, 2005. Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020. Figure 6•L_ November 15_
Connection between CaVEPA Strategic Vision Goals and Goals in ARB's Strategic Plan
Goal i
Gaal 2
Goal 3
Gold 4
Coal 3
Girgf6
Goal 7
sow 8
Glean Air
Clean Rlvar,
Glean
comrnunitres
Reduce or
Efficient use
continuous
Efflciarn and
Lake, Esluary,
Dunking
Free from
Eliminate
of Naliural
Improvement
Effective
\CaUEPA
and Marine
Waler
Toxic Risk
Disproportion-
Resources
CaVEPA
Waters
ate Pollution
Imps is
Goof f
_
New
slratcgies to
Effacfively
x
Rs4 uce Air
Pollution
Gaal 2
Environmental
jkAti"
Printipfas
Goal 3
Zero -Emission
x
x
x
x
x
H
X
H
Technologies
Goal a
Effective
Compliance
x
x
k
Assista noe
and
Enforcement
Gaal a
Sound
Understand-
x
x
x
Ing of Fieallh
Effects
does
Sound
X
x
x
Y,
Technical
Tools
-
Goal T
Recogniaa
ARB's
x
Y,
Employee's
slm tfita