GPA 2013 Response to Comments DocumentPlaceWorks
August 28, 2014 | Response to Comments Document
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document
for the City of Cupertino
State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007
August 28, 2014 | Response to Comments Document
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document
for the City of Cupertino
State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007
Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego
www.placeworks.com
In association with:
BKF Engineering
Environmental Collaborative
Hexagon Transportation Consultants
Tom Origer & Associates
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
Prepared by
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ................................................................. 1-1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .............................................................................................. 1-1
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ............................................................. 2-3
2.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................... 2-5
2.6 AREAS OF CONCERN ......................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................... 2-7
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 3-1
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 2, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 3-2
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 3-2
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.9, LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 3-6 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.11, POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................... 3-7
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.12, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION ....................................................... 3-8
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.13, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................... 3-8
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.14, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 3-10 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.1, NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................ 3-15
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.2, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A .......................................................................... 3-16
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.3, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B .......................................................................... 3-20
REVISIONS TO APPENDIX F, PUBLIC SERVICES DATA ................................................................................ 3-27 REVISIONS TO APPENDIX G, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC DATA....................................................... 3-27
REVISIONS TO APPENDIX I, PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICY AMENDMENTS .................................. 3-40
4. LIST OF COMMENTERS ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1
AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS ............................................................................................................ 4-1
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................ 4-1
5. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
APPENDICES Appendix A: Comment Letters
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii AUGUST 28, 2014
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Alternatives Development Allocations Comparison Summary ............................................................... 2-6
Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................................... 2-8
Table 3-21 Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development Standards .............................................. 3-3
Table 4.14-6.1 Cal Water LAS District Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ................................................................ 3-11
Table 4.14-12.1 SJWC plus Cupertino Water Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ....................................................... 3-12
Table 4.14-13.1 Proposed Project Buildout Wastewater Generation – SJ/SCWPCP.................................................... 3-13
Table 4.14-13.2 Wastewater Generation – SJ/SCWPCP Remaining Development Allocation ..................................... 3-14
Table 4.14-13.3 Proposed Project Wastewater Generation - SWPCP .......................................................................... 3-14
Table 5.2-15.1 Cal Water LAS District Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ................................................................ 3-19
Table 5.2-15.2 SJWC plus Cupertino Water Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ....................................................... 3-19
Table 5.3-9 Land Use Alternative B Estimated Population, Household, and Employment ..................................... 3-22
Table 5.3-15.1 Cal Water LAS District Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ................................................................ 3-25
Table 5.3-21.1 SJWC plus Cupertino Water Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ....................................................... 3-26
Table 5-1 Response to Comments ........................................................................................................................ 5-2
PLACEWORKS 1-1
1. Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This Response to Comments document, which has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provides responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the adoption and implementation of the City of Cupertino’s General Plan
Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project, herein referred to as the
“proposed Project.” The Draft EIR identifies significant impacts associated with the proposed Project,
identifies and considers alternatives to the proposed Project, and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or
reduce the potentially significant environmental effects (“significant impacts”) of the proposed Project. This
document also contains text revisions to the Draft EIR.
This Response to Comments document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the
proposed Project.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a
proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. This
Final EIR responds to comments received on the Draft EIR. A Notice of Preparation of an EIR was issued by
the City on March 5, 2014. The Draft EIR was made available for public review from Wednesday, June 18,
2014 through Friday, August 1, 2014. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional and State agencies,
and the general public was advised of the availability of the Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR were made
available for review to interested parties at:
Cupertino Library at 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA, 95014
Sunnyvale Library at 665 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Central Park Library at 2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA 95051
Mission Library at 1098 Lexington Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Saratoga Library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Los Altos Library at 13 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94024
Woodland Library at 1975 Grant Road, Los Altos, CA 94024
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library at 150 East San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95112
San Jose Public Library West Valley Branch at 1243 San Tomas Aquino Road, San Jose, CA 95117
San Jose Public Library Calabazas Branch at 1230 South Blaney Avenue, San Jose, CA 95129
Cupertino City Hall at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
The City's website at: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/app_folders/view/177
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-2 AUGUST 28, 2014
The 45-day public comment period on the Draft EIR ended on Friday, August 1, 2014. Copies of all written
comments received on the Draft EIR are contained in this document. These comments are reproduced in
Chapter 5, Comments and Responses, of this Response to Comments document, and responses to
comments on environmental issues, are provided. Comments are presented in their original format in
Appendix A, Comment Letters, of this Response to Comments document.
This Final EIR will be presented at a Planning Commission hearing at which the Commission will advise the
City Council on certification of the EIR. The City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendations on the Final EIR and the proposed Project during a noticed public hearing, and will make
the final action with regard to certification of the Final EIR. The City Council is currently scheduled to
consider certifying the Final EIR in Fall 2014.
PLACEWORKS 2-1
2. Executive Summary
This chapter presents a summary of the conclusions of this EIR, which consists of Draft EIR Volumes I and II
and this Response to Comment Document.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an overview of the proposed Project, identifies areas of concern, and conclusions of
the analysis contained in Chapters 4.0 through 4.14 of the Draft EIR. For a complete description of the
proposed Project, please see Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. For a discussion of
alternatives to the proposed Project, please see Chapters 5.0 through 5.3, Alternatives to the Proposed
Project, of the Draft EIR.
This EIR addresses the significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed
Project. CEQA requires that public agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over
which they have discretionary approval authority prior to taking action. An EIR is a public document
designed to provide the public and local and State governmental agency decision-makers with an analysis of
potential environmental consequences to support informed decision-making.
This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA1 (and the CEQA Guidelines2) to
determine if approval of the identified discretionary actions and related subsequent development could have
a significant effect on the environment (i.e. significant impact). The City of Cupertino, as the Lead Agency,
has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own
independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel and review of all technical
subconsultant reports. Information for the Draft EIR was obtained from on-site field observations;
discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports,
data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g. air quality,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and traffic).
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
The six main purposes of this document as established by CEQA are:
To disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
1 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000-21177.
2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 AUGUST 28, 2014
To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures.
To disclose to the public the reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental
effects.
To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
To enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a
proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-
disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed Project that has the
potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-
making tools used by a lead agency to consider the environmental merits and disadvantages of a project that
is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must
consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in
accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of
the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts, mitigation
measures and Alternatives, and must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed
project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided.
2.2.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the Draft EIR document.
Chapter 2: Executive Summary. Summarizes the environmental consequences that would result
from implementation of the proposed Project, the alternatives to the proposed Project, the
recommended mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of environmental impacts
with and without mitigation.
Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed Project in detail, including the
characteristics, objectives, and the structural and technical elements of the proposed action.
Chapter 4: Environmental Evaluation. Organized into 14 sub-chapters corresponding to the
environmental resource categories identified in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA
Guidelines, this chapter provides a description of the physical environmental conditions in the City of
Cupertino as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and
regional perspective, as well as an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
Project, and recommended mitigation measures, if required, to reduce their significance. The
environmental setting included in each sub-chapter provides baseline physical conditions from which
the Lead Agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
Project. Each sub-chapter also includes a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant
impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed
Project; and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Organized into three sub-chapters, this chapter
considers three alternatives to the proposed Project, which are the CEQA-required “No Project”
Alternative, General Plan Land Use Alternative A, and General Plan Land Use Alternative B.
Chapter 6: CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions. Discusses growth inducement, cumulative
impacts, significant unavoidable effects, and significant irreversible changes as a result of the proposed
Project. Additionally, this chapter identifies environmental issues that were determined not to require
further environmental review during the scoping process pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128.
Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were
contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed Project.
Appendices: The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the
back cover) contain the following supporting documents:
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Comment Letters
Appendix B: Community Discussion Summaries
Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data and Calculation Sheet
Appendix D: Cultural Resources Data
Appendix E: Noise Data
Appendix F: Public Services Data
Appendix G: Transportation and Traffic Data
Appendix H: Utilities and Service System Data
Appendix I: Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments
2.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the use and organization of this Response to
Comments Document.
Chapter 2: Executive Summary. This chapter is a summary of the conclusions of the Draft EIR and
the Response to Comments Document.
Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR. Additional corrections to the text and graphics of the Draft
EIR are contained in this chapter. Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR;
text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.
Chapter 4: List of Commenters. Names of agencies and individuals who commented on the Draft
EIR are included in this chapter.
Chapter 5: Comments and Responses. This chapter lists the comments received from agencies and
the public on the Draft EIR, and provides responses to those comments.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 AUGUST 28, 2014
2.3.1 TYPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS EIR
According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to:
Inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project,
identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
Because of the long-term planning horizon of the proposed Project and the permitting, planning, and
development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated
actions for implementation, this EIR has been prepared as a program EIR for the proposed Project, pursuant
to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Once a program EIR has been certified, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to
determine whether additional CEQA review needs to be prepared. However, if the program EIR addresses
the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, subsequent activities could be found to
be within the program EIR scope, and additional environmental review may not be required (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency
must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and Alternatives developed in the program EIR into the
subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects
that are not within the scope of a program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a
Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. For these subsequent environmental
review documents, this Program EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis. This program EIR
can also serve to streamline future environmental review of subsequent projects.
2.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Cupertino has undertaken a community-based planning process to review land use alternatives
as part of a focused General Plan Amendment. Proposed alternatives include options for city-wide
development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities
for Special Areas along major transportation corridors, where Gateways/Nodes have been identified, seven
Study Areas, and Other Special Areas including Residential and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas.
These Project Component locations are shown in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR on
Figures 3-4, 3-10, and 3-19, respectively. The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the goals,
policies and strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan
adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005.
The City is also updating the General Plan’s Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and meet its fair-share housing obligation of 1,064
units. As part of this 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) and 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 and Recreation Zones), also in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code, will
be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining to the permanent emergency
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
shelters. Furthermore, Program 15 of the Housing Element addresses the potential loss of rental housing
and displacement of lower and moderate income households due to new development. The Zoning
Ordinance will also be amended to be consistent with the State Employee Housing Act with respect to
farmworker housing and employee housing. Under the proposed Project, the City may also consider
amending existing policies to be compliant with recent legislation and to mitigate the potential displacement
impacts to renters (e.g., tenant relocation benefits).
The proposed Project will also include changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance
(including Chapters listed above and 19.08 (Definitions) and 19.144 (Development Agreements) and
Zoning map for internal consistency as a result of changes to Housing Element policies that are required by
State Law3 or as adopted by the City Council as a result the Project, changes to General Plan Policy to
address changes required as a result of recently adopted State Law (such as Assembly Bill 1358, Complete
Streets) and as a result of bringing non-conforming land use into conformance with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
This EIR provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed
Project. Because of the comprehensive nature of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update,
and associated Rezoning, the Project Description is organized by the following five distinct Project
Components:
1. Special Areas, along major transportation corridors, including City Gateways/Nodes
2. Study Areas
3. Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas
4. Housing Element Sites
5. General Plan Land Use Map and, Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments
A detailed description of each of these proposed Project Components is provided in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this EIR.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed Project that are designed to reduce the significant
environmental impacts of the proposed Project and feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
proposed Project. There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining the
environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior
alternative involves comparing the environmental effects of the alternatives with the environmental effects
of the proposed Project. The following three alternatives to the proposed Project were considered and
analyzed in detail in Chapter 5, of this EIR.
No Project Alternative
General Plan Land Use Alternative A
General Plan Land Use Alternative B
3 Specific State Law includes, but is not limited to, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act, and the State’s Housing Element law.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 AUGUST 28, 2014
Table 2 -1 provides the development projections for each alternative that is analyzed in this EIR. As shown in
Table 2 -1, the proposed Project provides the most conservative and worst-case analysis for CEQA purposes.
TABLE 2-1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS COMPARISON SUMMARY
Category
Proposed
Projecta
No
Projectb
Land Use
Alternative A
Land Use
Alternative B
Office 4,040,231 sf 540,231 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
Note: sf = square feet
a. The proposed Project represents General Plan Land Use Alternative C.
b. No Project represents remaining development allocation under the existing 2005 General Plan.
c. Reflects the redevelopment of Vallco Mall (1,267,601 sf) with 625,335 sf reserved for the Vallco Mall and the remaining 642,266 sf reallocated
to other areas in the City.
Source: City of Cupertino.
Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR, includes a complete discussion of these
alternatives and alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis.
2.6 AREAS OF CONCERN
The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on March 5, 2014, and held a scoping meeting on March 11,
2014. The scoping period for this EIR was between March 5 and April 7, 2014, during which interested
agencies and the public could submit comments about the proposed Project. The following is a discussion of
issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the
environmental review process. While every environmental concern applicable to the CEQA process is
addressed in the Draft EIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive; rather, it attempts to capture those
concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the scoping
process.
Visual resources including the views of hillsides/skylines.
Emissions from exhaust of idling cars in need of parking.
Increased building height and density impacts on raptor/hawk populations.
Wildlife ecosystem including birds and squirrels.
Public health hazards from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
General impacts on seniors and children.
Noise from new sources, including restaurants.
Impacts to public service providers including police, libraries, schools, and the loss of playgrounds.
Water treatment and demand.
Sewer and water capacity along the Special Areas.
Solid waste capacity and service proximity to sites.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7
PG&E capacity.
Possibility of extending recycled water line into city from Wolfe/Homestead.
Overall impacts to transportation infrastructure, including congestion on Homestead Road.
Morning and afternoon traffic near schools.
Pedestrian safety for all ages including seniors and children.
Additional traffic generated by work, schools shopping.
Shuttles/alternative modes of transportation.
Vehicle miles traveled.
Meeting Association of Bay Areas Governments (ABAG) requirements and impacts of high-density
residential.
Impacts on neighboring cities.
Impacts of entitled projects.
2.7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment (i.e. significant impact) is defined as a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the Project Study Area ,
including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic
significance.
The proposed Project has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts in a number of areas.
As shown in Table 2-2, some significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the
mitigation measures identified in this EIR are adopted and implemented. However, pursuant to Section
15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot
be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, as shown in Table 2-2, significant
unavoidable impacts were identified in the areas of air quality, noise and transportation and traffic. For a
complete summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts, please see Section 6.2 in Chapter 6.0,
CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions, of this Draft EIR. As described in detail in Chapter 6.0, the
proposed Project would have no significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and mineral
resources due to existing conditions in the City of Cupertino. Accordingly, these topics have not been
analyzed further in this EIR.
Table 2-2 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this EIR and presents a
summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified. It is organized to correspond with the
environmental issues discussed in Chapters 4.1 through 4.14. The table is arranged in four columns: 1)
environmental impacts; 2) significance without mitigation; 3) mitigation measures; and 4) significance with
mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts, please refer to the specific discussions in
Chapters 4.1 through 4.14.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-8 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Aesthetics
AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
have an adverse effect on a scenic vista.
LTS N/A N/A
AES-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings,
within a State scenic highway.
LTS N/A N/A
AES-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the Site and its surroundings.
LTS N/A N/A
AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
LTS N/A N/A
AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to aesthetics.
LTS N/A N/A
Air Quality
AQ-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.
S There are no additional mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.2,
Air Quality, for a complete discussion.
SU
AQ-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would violate
any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation.
S 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. 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.
SU
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-9
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AQ-3: Implementation of the proposed 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).
S There are no additional mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.2,
Air Quality, for a complete discussion.
SU
AQ-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air
pollution.
S 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 proposed 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 proposed Project.
LTS/M
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-10 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 environmental document and/or
incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the
proposed 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.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-11
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AQ-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
create or expose a substantial number of people to
objectionable odors.
LTS N/A N/A
AQ-6: Implementation of the proposed Project would
cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
S There are no additional mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.2,
Air Quality, for a complete discussion.
SU
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Implementation of the proposed 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.
S 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
LTS/M
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-12 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
BIO-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community type.
LTS N/A N/A
BIO-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means.
LTS N/A N/A
BIO-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife
corridors or nursery sites.
LTS N/A N/A
BIO-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting
biological resources.
LTS N/A N/A
BIO-6: Implementation of the No Project alternative, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to biological resources.
LTS See Mitigation Measure BIO-1. LTS/M
Cultural Resources
CULT-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5.
LTS N/A N/A
CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
have the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-13
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
CULT-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature.
LTS N/A N/A
CULT-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
have the potential to disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
LTS N/A N/A
CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in cumulative impacts with respect
to cultural resources.
LTS N/A N/A
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
GEO-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
surface rupture along a known active fault; strong seismic
ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction; and landslides.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in a significant impact related to development on
unstable geologic units and soils or result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
create substantial risks to life or property as a result of its
location on expansive soil, as defined Section 1803.5.3 of the
California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or
property.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts with respect to geology and soils.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-14 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
LTS N/A N/A
GHG-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHGs.
LTS N/A N/A
GHG-3: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to GHG emissions.
LTS N/A N/A
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.
LTS N/A N/A
HAZ-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
LTS N/A N/A
HAZ-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school.
LTS N/A N/A
HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed 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.
S 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). 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
LTS/M
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-15
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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 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).
HAZ-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-16 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands.
LTS N/A N/A
HAZ-7: Implementation of the proposed 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.
LTS See Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b. LTS/M
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYDRO-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
LTS N/A N/A
HYDRO-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted).
LTS N/A N/A
HYDRO-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site.
LTS N/A N/A
HYDRO-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
LTS N/A N/A
HYDRO-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-17
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYDRO-6: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place
structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a
100-year flood hazard area.
LTS N/A N/A
HYDRO-7: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam.
LTS N/A N/A
HYDRO-8: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
be impacted by inundation as a result of a seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
LTS N/A N/A
HYDRO-9: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts with respect to water quality.
LTS N/A N/A
Land Use and Planning
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
physically divide an established community.
LTS N/A N/A
LU-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
LTS N/A N/A
LU-3: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to land use and planning.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-18 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise
NOISE-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local General
Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies.
LTS N/A N/A
NOISE-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
LTS N/A N/A
NOISE-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would
result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the
Project.
S No feasible mitigation measures were identified. A discussion of
mitigation measures considered but found to be infeasible is included in
Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR.
SU
NOISE-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would
result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project.
LTS N/A N/A
NOISE-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with
respect to noise.
S No feasible mitigation measures were identified. A discussion of
mitigation measures considered but found to be infeasible is included in
Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR.
SU
Population and Housing
POP-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure).
LTS N/A N/A
POP-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
displace substantial numbers of existing housing units,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-19
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
POP-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
LTS N/A N/A
POP-4: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts with respect to population and housing.
LTS N/A N/A
Public Services and Recreation
PS-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered
fire protection facilities, the construction or operation of
which could cause significant environmental impacts.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-2: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to fire protection service.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered
police protection facilities, the construction or operation of
which could cause significant environmental impacts.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-4: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts with respect to police protection service.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered
school facilities, the construction or operation of which could
cause significant environmental impacts.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-6: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts with respect to school service.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-20 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered
library facilities, the construction or operation of which could
cause significant environmental impacts.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts with respect to libraries.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-9: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur, or be accelerated.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-10: Implementation of the proposed Project would include
or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-11: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts with respect to parks and recreational facilities.
LTS N/A N/A
Transportation and Traffic
TRAF-1: Implementation of the proposed 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.
S 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
proposed 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 proposed
SU
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-21
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Project. The following examples of transportation improvements and
facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards
and these, among other improvements, including multimodal
improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion,
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.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-22 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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): An additional
northbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes
may be required. This will require widening the Wolfe Road
overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so
that there are a continuous three lanes northbound. Right-of-way
acquisition may be required. In addition to widening the overcrossing,
the City may wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-23
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-24 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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. Transportation
mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable
at the time the building permit is issued. The City shall use the
transportation 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 transportation impacts.
TRAF-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would
conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to, level of service standards and
S See Mitigation Measures under TRAF-1. SU
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-25
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways.
TRAF-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment).
LTS N/A N/A
TRAF-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in inadequate emergency access.
LTS N/A N/A
TRAF-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
LTS N/A N/A
TRAF-6: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in additional cumulatively considerable
impacts.
S See Mitigation Measure TRAF-1. SU
Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded
entitlements are not needed.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
require or result in the construction of new water facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
would cause significant environmental effects.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to water supply.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-4: Implementations of the proposed Project would not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-26 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
UTIL-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
require or result in the construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed 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.
S 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.
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.
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.
LTS/M
UTIL-7: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impacts
with respect to wastewater treatment.
LTS See Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c. LTS/M
UTIL-8: Implementation of the proposed Project would not be
served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the proposed Project’s solid waste disposal
S 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
LTS/M
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
PLACEWORKS 2-27
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
needs. 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.
UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed Project would not be
out of compliance with federal, State, and local statues and
regulations related to solid waste.
LTS
N/A
N/A
UTIL-10: Implementation of the proposed Project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with
respect to solid waste.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-11: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical
service demands, and would not require new energy supply
facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing
alterations to existing facilities.
LTS N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-28 AUGUST 28, 2014
PLACEWORKS 3-1
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
This chapter presents text revisions to the Draft EIR that have been made in response to public and
agency comments, as well as staff-directed changes. These text revisions include typographical
corrections, insignificant modification, amplifications and clarifications of the Draft EIR. In each case,
the revised page and location on the page is presented, followed by the textual, tabular, or graphical
revision. Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has
been deleted from the EIR.
None of the revisions constitutes significant new information as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5; therefore, this EIR does not need to be recirculated.
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION
The first paragraph on page 1-3 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
In this case, the proposed Project that is the subject of this EIR consists of long-term plans that will be
implemented over time as policy documents guiding future development activities and City actions. No
specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this EIR is a program-level
EIR that analyzes the potential significant environmental effects of the adoption of the proposed Project.
As a program EIR, it is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that
may be proposed under the General Plan. However, if the program EIR addresses the program’s effects
as specifically and comprehensively as is reasonably possible, and later activities are within scope of the
effects examined in the program EIR, then additional environmental review may not be required for
those future projects. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c] and CEQA streamlining provisions.)
When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible
mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into the subsequent activities
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within
the scope of the program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative
Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR unless the activity qualifies for an exemption.
For these subsequent environmental review documents, this Program EIR will serve as the first-tier
environmental analysis. The program EIR can also serve to streamline future environmental review of
subsequent projects. Such subsequent projects will require a separate environmental review, when
applicable as required by CEQA, which could be in the form of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent EIR, to secure the necessary development permits. Therefore,
while subsequent environmental review may be tiered from this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address
project-specific impacts of individual projects.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-2 AUGUST 28, 2014
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 2, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
All changes to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR, including changes to Table 2-2, Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures, are included in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, of this Final EIR.
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following is added to Section 3.7.4, Housing Element Sites, on page 3-67 as follows:
Housing Element law allows local governments to use “default” density standards determined by
HCD. In accordance with 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. For Cupertino’s last Housing Element (2007-2014), HCD accepted a realistic yield of 85
percent 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 times 85 percent) = 21 units. In
anticipation that HCD will continue to accept this realistic yield, most of the proposed Housing
Element sites are located in areas that would be at or above 25 dwelling units per acre.
Table 3-21, Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development Standards, on
pages 3-68 through 3-70 is hereby amended as shown on the following page:
Note “a” in Table 3-21, Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development
Standards, on page 3-70 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
a. While this table shows a realistic yield of 4,804 residential units (which is 85 percent of the maximum
5,651 units), as shown in Table 3-2 in Section 3.7 of this chapter, the proposed Project includes allows a
maximum of 4,421 residential units. The housing sites in this table are being evaluated in this Draft EIR
to provide a broad evaluation to aid in the City’s ultimate selection of housing sites to be included in the
Housing Element. The maximum housing that would be permitted under the proposed Project is 4,421
units.
The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element
Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) on page 3-80 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as
follows:
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation,
zoning, or density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result
in up to 93 new residential units added to the existing 517 units, for a total of 530 units.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-3
TABLE 3-21 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site
# Address APN
Lot Area
(acres)
Existing
Use
General Plan Zoning
Maximum Density
(du/ac)
Capacity
(du/ac)
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing
Realistic
Yield Net
1
20007 Stevens Creek Blvd. 316-23-093
1.7 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 36 36 10041 N. Blaney Ave 316-23-036
20021 Stevens Creek Blvd. 316-23-033
2
19930 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-05-009
2.83 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 58 58 19936 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-05-010
19900 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-05-038
3
10025 East Estates 369-06-002
4.86 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 103 103
10075 East Estates 369-06-003
10075 East Estates 369-06-004
19541 Richwood Dr. 369-06-005
19550 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-06-007
10055 Miller Ave. 369-06-011
4 19160 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-07-001 0.55 Vacant C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 11 11
5
10160 Parkwood 326-27-036
31.34 Residential
Med/High
Density
(10-20
du/ac)
Med/High
Density
(10-20
du/ac)
R3(10-20) R3(10-20) 20 20 517 610 93 21297 Parkwood 326-27-037
6
20800 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-040
27.1 Residential
Med/High
Density
(10-20
du/ac)
Med/High
Density
(10-20
du/ac)
R3 R3 20 20 468 530 62
20975 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-041
20990 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-053
20800 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-054
20875 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-064
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-4 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 3-21 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site
# Address APN
Lot Area
(acres)
Existing
Use
General Plan Zoning
Maximum Density
(du/ac)
Capacity
(du/ac)
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing
Realistic
Yield Net
7 20705 Valley Green Dr. 326-10-046 7.98
Office
Light
Industrial
O/I/C/R O/I/C/R P(CG, ML,
Res)
P(CG, ML,
Res) 25 25 0 169 169
8 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd. Various 0.67 Commercial C/R C/R P(CG) P(CG, Res) 15 35 0 19 19
9 10625 S. Foothill Blvd. 342-16-087 1.3 Commercial C/R C/R P(CG) P(CG, Res) 15 25 0 27 27
10
19500 Pruneridge Ave. 316-06-032
12.44 Residential
High
Density
(20-35
DU/Gr Ac)
High
Density
(Greater
than 35
du/ac)
P(Res)-70 P(Res) 25 110 342 1,162 820 19500 Pruneridge Ave. 316-06-037
11
10123 N. Wolfe Rd. Various 47.83 Commercial C/-/R C/O/R P(Regional
Shopping)
P(Regional
Shopping,
OP, Res)
35 35 0 800 800 10150 N. Wolfe Rd.
N. Wolfe Rd 316-20-092
12
20916 Homestead Rd. 326-09-052
5.1 Commercial C/R C/R
P(CG)
P (CG, Res) 35 35 0 151 151 20956 Homestead Rd. 326-09-061 P(CG)
20990 Homestead Rd. 326-09-060 P(Rec, Ent)
10990 N. Stelling Rd. 326-09-051 P(Rec, Ent)
13 10029 Judy Ave. 375-07-046 1.29 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 27 27 19060 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-07-045
14 10118 Bandley Ave. 326-34-066 6.86 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 40 0 232 232
15 20823 Stevens Creek Blvd. 326-32-053 6.31 Office C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, OP,
Res) 25 40 0 214 214
16
1471 S. De Anza Blvd. 366-19-055
4.46 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res
5-15) P(CG, Res) 15 40 0 154 154 1491 S. De Anza Blvd. 366-19-053
1505 S. De Anza Blvd. 366-19-054
1451 S. De Anza Boulevard 366-19-044
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-5
TABLE 3-21 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site
# Address APN
Lot Area
(acres)
Existing
Use
General Plan Zoning
Maximum Density
(du/ac)
Capacity
(du/ac)
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing
Realistic
Yield Net
17 21020, 21040, 21060,
21070 Homestead Rd.
326-07-020
5.42 Commercial
Office C/R C/R P(CG) P(CG, Res) 15 35 0 161 161
326-07-036
326-07-022
326-07-034
326-07-033
326-07-032
18 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd.
326-27-039
7.9 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG) P(CG, OP,
Res) 25 35 0 235 235 326-27-999
326-27-041
326-27-040
19
19200 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-06-005
4.98 Commercial
Office C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 105 105 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-06-007
19280 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-06-006
TOTAL 181.04 1,327 4,804a 3,477
Notes: APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number, du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Zoning Acronyms: P = Mixed-Use Planned Development, CG = General Commercial, Res = Residential, OP = Office/Planned Office:
General Plan Acronyms: C/R = Commercial/Residential, C/O/R = Commercial/Office/Residential
a. While this table shows a realistic yield of 4,804 residential units, as shown in Table 3-2 in Section 3.7 of this chapter, the proposed Project includes a maximum of 4,421 residential units. The housing sites in this
table are being evaluated in this Draft EIR to provide a broad evaluation to aid in the City’s ultimate selection of housing sites to be included in the Housing Element. The maximum housing that would be permitted
under the proposed Project is 4,421 units.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-6
The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element
Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) on page 3-82 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as
follows:
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation,
zoning, or density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result
in up to 62 net residential units added to the existing 468 units, for a total of 610 units.
The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element
Site 10 (The Hamptons) on page 3-90 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Under the proposed Project, the General Plan land use designation would be changed to High Density
with greater than 35 du/ac (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)) and the Zoning designation would
be amended to Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)). The permitted residential density
would increase to 110 du/ac and the maximum height would be 85 feet. As shown in Table 3-21,
future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 820 net residential units added to
the existing 342 units, for a total of 1,162 units.
The text under the subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element Site
18 (The Oaks) on page 3-106 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation;
however, the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General
Commercial, Residential, and Professional Office (P(CG, Res, OP)) to allow for future mixed-use
development including residential uses. Under the proposed Project, the permitted residential density
would be increased to 35 du/ac and building heights would range from be 60 feet or up to 75 feet with
a retail component. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could
result in up to 235 net residential units.
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.9, LAND USE AND PLANNING
The description of current zoning on Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) on page
4.9-20 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the
North Vallco Park Special Area (see Figure 3-6). The Site has two parcels totaling approximately 12.44
acres, is designated as High Density with up to 20 to 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (20-
35 DU/Gr. Ac.)) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with Residential
(P(Res)-70). The maximum density currently permitted on the Site 10 is 35 25 dwelling units per acre,
with a maximum height of 60 feet (see Figure 3-30).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-7
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.11, POPULATION AND HOUSING
The amendments to Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) on page 4.11-15 of the
Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons). The General Plan land use designation would be
changed to High Density with greater than 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (Greater than
35 DU/Gr. Ac)) and the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with
Residential (P(Res)). The permitted density would increase to 110 dwelling units per acre. Future
development under the proposed Project could result in up to 820 net residential units added to the
existing 342 units, for a total of 1,162 units.
The discussion of total units on Housing Element Site 10 in the last paragraph on page
4.11-16 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
In addition to the 342 existing dwelling units on Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons), Housing Element
Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) and Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) have 517 and 468 existing
dwelling units, respectively. However, Sites 5 and 6 are anticipated to be infill sites, therefore, no
demolition of existing residential units would occur at these locations. However, potential future
development under the proposed Project at Housing Element Site 10 could result in the temporary loss
of 342 residential units. If this Site were to be redeveloped, the existing units may need to be
demolished in order to redevelop the sites at their proposed maximum capacity. Nevertheless, the
resulting redevelopment at this site would provide a net increase of 820 units added to the existing 342
units, for a total of 1,162 units.
The first paragraph under Impact Statement POP-3 on page 4.11-17 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
As described under Impact POP-2 above, potential future development potential Housing Elements
Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments), Site 6 (The Villages Apartments), and Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons)
could involve the demolition and replacement of existing housing units, which could result in the
temporary displacement of some residents, but this would not result in displacement of substantial
numbers of people and housing necessitating more replacement housing than is already planned. For the
remainder of the Housing Element Sites 1 – through 4, 7, 10 and 11 – through 19, described in
Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, no displacement would occur because the increase in
housing would be accomplished by constructing infill units on portions of the Housing Element Sites
that are not currently developed with housing. For Housing Element Sites 10, redevelopment of the
site at its proposed maximum capacity would require demolishing existing units and would require the
occupants to move while the new residential project is under construction; however, there would be a
net increase in the number of housing units in Cupertino (4,421 units compared to 1,895 units).
Additionally, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons per household, the proposed net
increase of 820 housing units from redevelopment on Housing Element Site 10 would accommodate
approximately 2,411 new residents in the city.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-8 AUGUST 28, 2014
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.12, PUBLIC SERVICES AND
RECREATION
The third paragraph under subheading Santa Clara Unified School District on page 4.12-
18 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
The SCUSD is also not a revenue limit district; therefore, property tax revenues are sufficient for it not
to receive any additional funding from the State. The annual property taxes received by SCUSD from
the redevelopment of the Hamptons would generate approximately $4 over one million dollars.
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.13, TRANSPORTATION AND
TRAFFIC
The first and third bullets listed on page 4.13-42 under the subheading No Project
Roadway Network are hereby amended as follows:
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps: Add a westbound lane to create two left-turn lanes and
two right-turn lanes. Add a third northbound through lane.
Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps (west): Add an exclusive right turn lane to
eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard and construct a third eastbound lane along the Calvert
connector road connecting the free right-turn receiving lane from eastbound Stevens Creek
Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway.
The following has been added to page 4.13-42 after the bulleted list of improvements
that will be completed before 2040 in association with approval of the Apple Campus 2
project, which were included in the 2040 No Project roadway network as follows:
Following the Notice of Preparation for this EIR, Apple agreed to installation of a traffic signal at
Calvert Drive and the I-280 southbound connector ramp between Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Lawrence Expressway.
The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-53 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a
Traffic 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 Traffic 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 proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600
require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic transportation improvements
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-9
and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the
proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation improvements and facilities would
reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including
multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, could be included in the
development impact fees nexus study:
The fourth bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-53 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
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. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide
space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience.
The third bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-54 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane
for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. 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 will could require widening the Wolfe Road
overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a
continuous three lanes northbound. 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 In addition to widening the
overcrossing and may include, 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 heavy volumes in the
right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
The second bullet on page 4.13-55 of the Draft EIR under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 is
hereby removed as follows:
Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 SB Ramps/Calvert Drive (#29): Make the
eastbound to southbound right turn a free movement. This would require building an island and
separating the right turn from signal control. It also would require building a third southbound
lane on Calvert Drive to receive the right turn traffic.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-10 AUGUST 28, 2014
The last paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-55 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
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
Transportation 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 transportation 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 transportation impacts.
The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 4.13-59 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing
a Traffic 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, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 4.13-62 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic
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, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable.
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.14, UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
The third and fourth paragraphs under the subheading Cal Water on page 4.14-14 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is inserted below the
fourth paragraph:
Table 4.14-7 presents the combined projected water demand for the Cal Water LAS District and
proposed Project. The As shown in Table 4.14 -6.1, the WSE determined that the water demand at
buildout (2040) for the proposed Project in the Cal Water LAS District would be 2,137 afy. This water
demand projection consists of the total consumption from future residential, office space, commercial,
hotel, and landscape irrigation uses that could be developed under the proposed Project. The water
demand from each of these uses was calculated by multiplying each use’s 2040 buildout area by its
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-11
respective generation rate. No more specific breakdown of the 972,734 square feet for commercial uses
is available at this time. Therefore, the following mix of commercial uses was assumed for the proposed
Project:
Dry Goods and Services: 680,914 square feet (70 percent)
Restaurants: 145,910 square feet (15 percent)
Groceries and Supermarkets: 97,273 square feet (10 percent)
Sports or Athletic Clubs: 48,637 square feet (5 percent)
TABLE 4.14-6.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT
Units Generation Rate
Projected
Demand
(gpd)
Projected
Demand
(AFY)
Residential 3,484 dwelling units 137.2 gpd/
dwelling unit 478,000 536
Office Space 3,785,000 sq ft 300 sq ft/
employee
90 gpd/
employee 1,135,500 1,273
Commercial 972,734 sq ft
Dry Goods and Services 680,914 sq ft 0.11 gpd/sq ft 74,900 84
Restaurants 145,910 sq ft 1.10 gpd/sq ft 160,500 180
Groceries and
Supermarkets 97,273 sq ft 0.65 gpd/sq ft 63,230 71
Sports or Athletic Clubs 48,637 sq ft 0.85 gpd/sq ft 41,340 46
Hotels 1,339 rooms 390 sq ft/
room 0.50 gpd/sq ft 261,100 293
Landscape Irrigation 1,419,112 sq ft 43,560 sq ft/
acre 3,615 gpd/acre 117,850 132
Total 2,514
15% Reduction Factor -377
Total Water Demand at
Buildout 2,137
Note: afy = acre feet per year. gpd = gallons per day
Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
Table 4.14-7 presents the combined projected water demand for the Cal Water LAS District and
proposed Project. Using this information, it was determined that Therefore, the 5-year increase for
proposed Project water demand is 427 afy.18
The last paragraph on page 4.14-20 of the Draft EIR under the subheading Normal,
Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Hydrologic Years is hereby amended as follows:
The As shown in Table 4.14-12.1, the WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from the
proposed Project, based on the land use in the SJWC and Cupertino Water service areas. As reported in
the WSE, total projected water demand at build out of the proposed Project for the SJWC and leased
Cupertino Water service areas is estimated to be 399 afy without taking into account requirements for
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-12 AUGUST 28, 2014
water conservation measures that will be incorporated into new development. This water demand
projection consists of the total consumption from future residential, office space, commercial, hotel,
and landscape irrigation uses that could be developed under the proposed Project. The water demand
from each of these uses was reached by multiplying each use’s 2040 buildout area by its respective
generation rate. No specific breakdown of the 972,734 square feet for commercial uses is available at
this time. Therefore, the following mix is assumed for the General Plan Amendment:
Dry Goods and Services: 680,914 square feet (70 percent)
Restaurants: 145,910 square feet (15 percent)
Groceries and Supermarkets: 97,273 square feet (10 percent)
Sports or Athletic Clubs: 48,637 square feet (5 percent)
If these measures requirements for water conservation measures that will be incorporated into new
development are accounted for, the proposed Project water demand in the SJWC service area would be
339 afy.
TABLE 4.14-12.1 SJWC PLUS CUPERTINO WATER PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT
Units
Generation
Rate
Projected
Demand
(gpd)
Projected
Demand
(AFY)
Residential 937 dwelling units
137.2 gpd/
dwelling unit 128,560 144
Office Space 255,231 sq ft 300 sq ft/
employee
90 gpd/
employee 75,570 86
Commercial 370,945 sq ft
Dry Goods and Services 259,661 sq ft 0.11 gpd/sq ft 28,560 32
Restaurants 55,642 sq ft 1.10 gpd/sq ft 61,206 68
Groceries and Supermarkets 37,094 sq ft 0.65 gpd/sq ft 24,110 27
Sports or Athletic Clubs 18,547 sq ft 0.85 gpd/sq ft 15,765 18
Landscape Irrigation 262,586 sq ft 43,560 sq ft/
acre
3,615
gpd/acre 21,690 24
Total 399
15% Reduction Factor -60
Total Water Demand at Buildout 339
Note: afy = acre feet per year. gpd = gallons per day
Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-13
The following paragraph under the subheading San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution
Plant beginning at the bottom of page 4.14-37 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as
follows:
The CSD calculated wastewater flow associated with the 2020 General Plan development allocations,
together with existing flows at the time the General Plan was approved, to be 7.2 mgd. The As shown
in Table 4.14-13.1, the projected additional wastewater generated by buildout of the proposed Project,
over and above the current General Plan flows, are calculated to be 1.45 mgd. This projection was
calculated by adding the number of gallons of wastewater generated daily from office, commercial,
hotel, and residential uses (gallons per day, or gpd). The wastewater generated by each of these uses was
calculated by multiplying each use’s area increased by the proposed Project by its respective generation
rate (millions of gallons per day, or mgd). Adding the proposed Project buildout flows (1.45 mgd) to
the current General Plan flow (7.2 mgd) results in a total wastewater generation of 8.65 mgd. The total
contractual treatment allocation with the SJ/SC WPCP is 7.8 mgd. Thus, the proposed Project would
exceed the current contractually available treatment capacity by 0.85 mgd. The following discussion
identifies alternatives to increase treatment capacity, analyses to reduce projected treatment
requirements, and a tracking mechanism to allow development to occur up to such time as the
contractual treatment threshold is reached, at which time a development moratorium would be
implemented.
TABLE 4.14-13.1 PROPOSED PROJECT BUILDOUT WASTEWATER GENERATION – SJ/SCWPCP
Use Area Difference Generation Rate Wastewater
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Additional Buildout Sum
3,500,000 square feet
642,266 square feet
1,000 rooms
2,525 units
0.15 gpd per square foot
0.1 gpd per square foot
200 gpd per room
263.2 gpd per unit
525,000 gpd
64,227 gpd
200,000 gpd
664,580 gpd
1.45 MGD
Source: BKF Engineers, 2014.
The section under the subheading Monitoring on page 4.14-39 of the Draft EIR is hereby
amended as follows:
The CSD projects the remaining contractual treatment capacity at the SJ/SCWPCP to be 0.6 mgd (7.8
mgd minus 7.2 mgd) upon buildout of the 2020 General Plan. That projection includes the remaining
development allocation, which is also part of the Project. The As shown in Table 4.14-13.2, the
remaining development allocation is projected to generate 0.72 mgd. This projection was calculated by
adding the number of gallons of wastewater generated daily from office, commercial, hotel, and
residential uses. The wastewater generated by each of these uses was calculated by multiplying each use’s
area increased by the proposed Project by its respective generation rate., and the The remaining
contractual treatment capacity for the Project is 1.32 mgd (0.6 mgd plus 0.72 mgd). Based on the
conservative wastewater generation rates used by CSD, over half the proposed development allocation
under the proposed Project could be built before exceeding the contractual treatment threshold with
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-14 AUGUST 28, 2014
SJ/SCWPCP. A development monitoring system could be implemented to track the projected
wastewater generation as projects are approved.
Nevertheless, the proposed Project exceeds the current contractually available treatment capacity at
SJ/SCWPCP by 0.85 mgd. As a result, unless and until additional contractual capacity is achieved,
impacts on the contractual treatment capacity at SJ/SCWPCP would be significant.
TABLE 4.14-13.2 WASTEWATER GENERATION – SJ/SCWPCP REMAINING DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Use Area Difference Generation Rate Wastewater
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Remaining Allocation
540,231 square feet
701,413 square feet
339 rooms
1,895 units
0.15 gpd per square foot
0.1 gpd per square foot
200 gpd per room
263.2 gpd per unit
81,035 gpd
70,141 gpd
67,800 gpd
498,764 gpd
0.72 MGD
Source: BKF Engineers, 2014.
The first paragraph under the subheading City of Sunnyvale on page 4.14-39 of the Draft
EIR is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is added to the bottom of the
same paragraph:
The SWPCP has a capacity of 29.5 mgd and is currently operating at a daily treatment rate of less than
15 mgd. The As shown in Table 4.14-13.3, the projected wastewater generation for the entire Heart of
the City Special Area is 1.16 mgd. This projection was calculated by adding the number of gallons of
wastewater generated daily from office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses. The wastewater
generated by each of these uses was calculated by multiplying each use’s area increased by the proposed
Project by its respective generation rate. The portion of this Special Area served by the SWPCP is
4 percent of the total area of this Special Area. Assuming a uniform use distribution across the entire
Special Area, the wastewater flow to the City of Sunnyvale would be 0.05 mgd. This projected increase
amounts to 0.32 percent of the current daily treatment flow of 15 mgd, and 0.16 percent of the
SWPCP’s dry weather permitted capacity. Thus, the projected increase in wastewater is within the
available capacity, and impacts on the SWPCP would be less than significant.
TABLE 4.14-13.3 PROPOSED PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION - SWPCP
Use Area Difference Generation Rate Wastewater
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Total Generation
2,700,000 square feet
750,000 square feet
639 rooms
2,100 units
0.15 gpd per square foot
0.1 gpd per square foot
200 gpd per room
263.2 gpd per unit
405,000 gpd
75,000 gpd
127,800 gpd
552,720 gpd
1.16 MGD
Source: BKF Engineers, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-15
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.1, NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.1-130 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a
Traffic 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 Traffic 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 proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600
require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic transportation improvements
and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the
proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation improvements and facilities would
reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including
multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, could be included in the
development impact fees nexus study:
The second and fifth bullets under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.1-131 of the
Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
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. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide
space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience.
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane
for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. 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 will could require widening the Wolfe Road
overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a
continuous three lanes northbound. 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 In addition to widening the
overcrossing and may include, 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 heavy volumes in the
right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-16 AUGUST 28, 2014
The first paragraph on page 5.1-132 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
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 Transportation 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 transportation 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 transportation impacts.
The paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.1-135 of the Draft
EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic
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, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable.
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.2, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A
The paragraph under the subheading Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite
Rock) on page 5.2-15 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Under this Alternative, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation. The
permitted density would remain at increase from 15 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per
acre, no height increases would occur, and the land uses would generally remain the same; thus, future
development permitted under this Alternative would not adversely impact the visual character of the
Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant.
The paragraph under the subheading Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) on page 5.2-
15 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.)
Under this Alternative, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation to allow for
residential uses, and density would be increased to 35 dwelling units per acre, but no height increases
would occur and the land uses would remain the same; thus, future development permitted under this
Alternative would not adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts
would be less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-17
The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.2-150 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a
Traffic 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 Traffic 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 proposed Project. The established procedures
under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic
transportation improvements and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new
development pursuant to the proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation
improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these,
among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and
relieve congestion, could be included in the development impact fees nexus study:
The second bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.2-150 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
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. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide
space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience.
The fourth bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.2-150 and 5.1-151 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane
for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. 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 will could require widening the Wolfe Road
overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a
continuous three lanes northbound. 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 In addition to widening the
overcrossing and may include, 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 heavy volumes in the
right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-18 AUGUST 28, 2014
The first full paragraph on page 5.2-151 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
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 Transportation 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 transportation 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 transportation impacts.
The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.2-153 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing
a Traffic 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, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.2-157 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic
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, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable.
The second paragraph under the subheading Cal Water on page 5.2-161 of the Draft EIR
is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is added at the bottom of the same
paragraph:
For Land Use Alternative A, it is assumed that projected water demand would be added to the LAS
District and Apple Campus 2 demands. Also, it is assumed that development would occur at a relatively
constant rate over Land Use Alternative A’s 26-year horizon period. The WSE includes detailed
calculations of water demand from Land Use Alternative A, based on the land uses shown in Table 5.2-
13. The As shown in Table 5.2-15.1, the WSE determined the water demand at buildout (2040) for
Land Use Alternative A in the Cal Water LAS District would be 807 afy. This projection was calculated
using the reduced percentage of development for each land use classification and applying it to the
demand estimated for the proposed Project. Applying a 15 percent reduction factor due to water
conservation measures to be incorporated into new development, the total LAS GP amendment water
demand at buildout (2040) for Alternative A is estimated to be 85 percent of 949 afy, or 37.8 percent of
the proposed Project. Therefore, the five-year increase for Land Use Alternative A Project demand is
161 afy.42
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-19
TABLE 5.2-15.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT
Projected Demand –
Proposed Project
(AFY)
Alternative A
Reduced Percentage
Projected Demand –
Alternative A
(AFY)
Residential 536 36.5 196
Office Space 1,273 25 318
Commercial 381 64.8 247
Hotels 293 44.8 131
Landscape Irrigation 132 43 57
Total 949
15% Reduction Factor -142
Total Water Demand at Buildout 807
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
The second paragraph on page 5.2-168 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from Land Use Alternative A, based on the
land use in the SJWC (plus Cupertino Water) service area. As reported in the WSE, and as shown in
Table 5.2 -21.2, total projected water demand at build out of Land Use Alternative A for the SJWC and
leased Cupertino Water service areas is estimated to be 165 afy. This projection was calculated by using
the reduced percentage of development for each land use classification and applying it to the demand
estimated for the proposed Project. Applying a 15 percent reduction factor due to water conservation
measures to be incorporated into new development, the total LAS GP amendment water demand at
buildout (2040) for Alternative A is estimated to be 85 percent of 165 afy, or 41.3 percent of the
proposed Project. without taking into account requirements for water conservation measures to be
incorporated into new development. If these measures are accounted for, Land Use Alternative A water
demand in the SJWC service area is 140 afy.
TABLE 5.2-15.2 SJWC PLUS CUPERTINO WATER PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT
Projected Demand –
Proposed Project
(AFY)
Alternative A
Reduced Percentage
Projected Demand –
Alternative A
(AFY)
Residential 144 66 95
Office Space 86 37 32
Commercial 145 19.2 28
Landscape Irrigation 24 41 10
Total 165
15% Reduction Factor -25
Total Water Demand at Buildout 140
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-20 AUGUST 28, 2014
REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.3, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B
The first paragraph under Section 5.3.4, Housing Development Allocation, on page 5.3-3
of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Although the existing development allocations would limit overall development, the residential unit
development allocation under this Alternative would accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and allow the city to meet its fair-share housing
obligation of 1,064 units. As shown in Table 5.3-1, the residential allocation under this Alternative
would allow for the construction of up to 3,361 3,316 units, which represents 1,421 units above the
Cupertino’s fair-share housing obligation. The remaining housing development allocation would be
allocated throughout the city by reducing the total number of new housing in the Bubb Road Special
Area by 94 units and the South De Anza Special Area by 29 units. Under this Alternative, new
residential units would be distributed in the Special Areas and Neighborhoods as follows:
The last bulleted item on page 5.3-6 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center): Height would increase from 45 feet to 60
feet with a retail component. Density would increase from 25 du/ac to 35 du/ac. Zoning
designation would be changed from Planned Development with General Commercial and
Professional Office (P(CG, OP)) to Planned Development with General Commercial, and
Residential, (P(CG, Res)) to allow for future mixed-use development including residential uses.
The last paragraph on page 5.3-9, which continues onto page 5.3-10, of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
As described in detail in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft
EIR, the Project Component locations, where potential future development is expected to occur,
would be concentrated on a limited number of vacant parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on
sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential
and residential-serving development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic
vistas. Proposed changes under Land Use Alternative B consist primarily of increased development
intensities; however, some Project Component locations propose height increases at restricted areas
where increased height would allow for gradual height and bulk transitions and where abrupt changes in
building scale would not occur. The proposed increases would generally occur in the North De Anza
Special Area, and would be 15 feet (45 feet existing to 60 feet proposed), and in a few limited areas in
the Heart of the City would be 15 to 30 feet (up to 60 feet or 75 feet with a retail component and
additional height increases on specific parcels, if community benefits are provided), and in the North
Vallco Park Special Areas would range from 30 to 50 15 feet if a retail component is provided (up to 75
feet with a retail component) and to 35 feet additional height in certain areas of the North Vallco
Gateway if community benefits are provided (up to 95 feet).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-21
The first paragraph under the subheading North Vallco Gateway/Study Area 5
(Cupertino Village)/Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) beginning at the bottom
of page 5.3-13 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
There are no proposed changes to the current General Plan land use designation for the Study Area;
however, under the Land Use Alternative B, the General Plan land use designation for Housing Element
Site 10 would be changed to High Density with greater than 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High
Density (Greater than 35 DU/Gr. Ac)) and the Zoning designation for the Study Area would be changed
to Planned Development with General Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential uses P(CG,
OP, Res) to accommodate office uses. The Zoning designation for Housing Element Site 10 would be
amended to Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)). The proposed density in this Gateway and
Study Area would be 25 dwelling units per acre with the exception of Housing Element Site 10, which
would be 110 65 dwelling units per acre. Maximum building heights would range from 60 feet or 75
feet with a retail component along Wolfe Road (retail not required on east side of Wolfe Road) or up
to 95 feet with retail and community benefits in the North Vallco Gateway, with 95 75 feet permitted
on Housing Element Site 10.
The third paragraph on page 5.3-14 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
While these amendments represent greater intensity and building heights (1 story to 95 feet at Study
Area 5 (Cupertino Village) and North Vallco Gateway, and 60 feet to 95 75 feet at Housing Element
Site 10), given the surrounding land uses, and the nearby projects under construction, including the
Apple Campus 2 site, the City could, as part of its discretionary Architecture and Site Approval permit
process, require buildings to be set back from the public rights of way and adjacent residential
development.
The text regarding Housing Element Site 6 (The Village) on page 5.3-16 of the Draft EIR
is hereby amended as follows:
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) is not located within a Special Area; however, it will
be located in the Garden Gate Planning Area and is situated on the south side of I-280 south of the
Homestead Special area and west of the North De Anza Special Area and Housing Element Site 7 (Carl
Berg Property). Under Land Use Alternative B, there would be a 15-foot no increase (45 feet existing
to 60 feet proposed) in building height; however, given this site’s proximity to existing large-scale
residential developments and large format office buildings and parking lots along I-280, the potential
increase in building height and future development on this Site would not damage or obstruct a view of
a scenic resource from the I-208 viewshed. The foreground views would continue to be of the built
urban environment and the far-distant views to the Santa Cruz Mountains would remain; thus, impacts
would be less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-22 AUGUST 28, 2014
The text in the second paragraph under Impact AES-3 on page 5.3-17 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
Implementation of this Alternative would allow continued development and redevelopment throughout
the city. As discussed above under Impact AES-2, future development in the Homestead Special Area,
North Vallco Park Special Area, the North De Anza Special Area and Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg
Property) and the South Vallco Park West Gateway and South Vallco Park West Gateway in the Heart of
the City Special Area, would not result in a substantial change to the existing visual character of the Site
or its surroundings. Potential impacts to visual character from future development on the remaining
Project Component locations under Land Use Alternative B are discussed below.
Table 5.3-9, located on page 5.3-135 of the Draft EIR, is hereby amended as follows:
TABLE 5.3-9 LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B ESTIMATED POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, AND EMPLOYMENT
Land Use
Alternative B 2013 2040
Growth Rate
Percent
Population 9,749 58,302 68,051 17%
Households 3,361 3,316 21,399 24,715 15%
Jobs 11,705c 27,387 39,092 43%
a. Percent are rounded to the nearest whole number.
b. Population is calculated by 3,316 units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate.
c. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 2,540,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300
square feet equals 8,467 jobs; 1,343,670 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs; and
839 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 252 jobs for a total of 11,705 jobs.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara
County and the City of Cupertino, 2014.
The paragraph directly under Table 5.3-9 on page 5.3-135 of the Draft EIR is hereby
amended as follows:
As shown in Table 5.3-9, implementation of Land Use Alternative B would result in a total of 3,361
3,316 new households in the city for a total of 24,715 households for the buildout horizon year 2040.
Assuming the new dwelling units permitted under Land Use Alternative B would have the average 2.94
persons per household size as applied in ABAG Projections 2013, population in the city could increase
by 9,749 residents for a total of 68,051 residents by 2040. By comparison, ABAG anticipates 3,861
new households and 12,961 new residents in Cupertino, for a total of 24,180 households and 71,700
residents by 2040.36 While Land Use Alternative B would result in 3,649 fewer residents and 535 more
units, the rate of growth under the Land Use Alternative B and estimated by ABAG would be less for
population growth (i.e. 17 percent compared to 22 percent) and household growth (15 compared to 19
percent). Consequently, the additional housing units resulting from implementation of Land Use
Alternative B would not substantially exceed regional projections.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-23
The discussion of existing dwelling units on Housing Element Site 10 in the last
paragraph on page 5.3-138 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
In addition to the 820 342 existing dwelling units on Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons), Housing
Elements Site 5(Glenbrook Apartments) and Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) have 517 and 468
existing dwelling units, respectively. However, Sites 5 and 6 are anticipated to be infill sites, therefore,
no demolition of existing residential units would occur at these locations. However, potential future
development under Land Use Alternative B at Housing Element Site 10 could result in the temporary
loss of 820 342 residential units. If this Site were to be redeveloped, the existing units may need to be
demolished in order to redevelop the sites at their proposed maximum capacity. Nevertheless, the
resulting redevelopment at this site would provide a net increase of 342 344 units.
The first paragraph under Impact Statement POP-3 on page 5.3-139 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
As described under Impact POP-2 above, potential future development potential Housing Elements
Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments), Site 6 (The Villages Apartments), and Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons)
could involve the demolition and replacement of existing housing units, which could result in the
temporary displacement of some residents, but this would not result in displacement of substantial
numbers of people and housing necessitating more replacement housing than is already planned. For the
remainder of the Housing Element Sites 1 through 4, 7, 10 and 11 through 19, described in Chapter 3,
Project Description, of this Draft EIR, no displacement would occur because the increase in housing
would be accomplished by constructing infill units on portions of the Housing Element Sites that are
not currently developed with housing. For Housing Element Sites 10, redevelopment of the site at its
proposed maximum capacity would require demolishing existing units and would require the occupants
to move while the new residential project is under construction; however, there would be a net
increase in the number of housing units in Cupertino (3,3613,316 units compared to 1,895 units).
Additionally, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons per household, the proposed net
increase of 342 344 housing units from redevelopment on Housing Element Site 10 would
accommodate approximately 1,006 1,012 new residents in the city.
The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.3-155 of the Draft EIR
is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a
Traffic 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 Traffic 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 proposed Project. The established procedures
under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic
transportation improvements and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new
development pursuant to the proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-24 AUGUST 28, 2014
improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these,
among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and
relieve congestion, could be included in the development impact fees nexus study:
The fourth bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.3-155 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
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. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide
space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience.
The third bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.3-156 of the Draft EIR is
hereby amended as follows:
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane
for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. 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 will could require widening the Wolfe Road
overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a
continuous three lanes northbound. 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 In addition to widening the
overcrossing and may include, 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 heavy volumes in the
right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
The last paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on pages 5.3-156 and 5.3-157 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
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 Transportation 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 transportation 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 transportation impacts.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-25
The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.3-161 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing
a Traffic 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, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.3-163 of the
Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic
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, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable.
The second paragraph under the subheading Cal Water on page 5.3-167 of the Draft EIR
is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is added at the bottom of the same
paragraph:
For this Alternative, it is assumed that projected water demand would be added to the LAS District and
Apple Campus 2 demands. Also, it is assumed that development would occur at a relatively constant rate
over the 26-year horizon period. The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from this
Alternative, based on the land uses shown in Table 5.3-1. The As shown in Table 5.3-15.1, the WSE
determined the water demand at buildout (2040) for this Alternative in the Cal Water LAS District
would be 1560 afy. This projection was calculated by using the reduced percentage of development for
each land use classification and applying it to the demand estimated for the proposed Project. Applying
a 15 percent reduction factor due to water conservation measures to be incorporated into new
development, the total LAS GP amendment water demand at buildout (2040) for Alternative A is
estimated to be 85 percent of 949 afy, or 37.8 percent of the proposed Project. Therefore, the five-year
increase for Land Use Alternative B demand is 312 afy.46 Table 5.3-16 presents the combined projected
water demand for the Cal Water LAS District, Apple Campus 2 development and Land Use
Alternative B.
TABLE 5.3-15.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT
Projected Demand –
Proposed Project
(AFY)
Alternative B
Reduced Percentage
Projected Demand –
Alternative B
(AFY)
Residential 536 71.2 382
Office Space 1,273 62.2 792
Commercial 381 100 (no reduction) 381
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-26 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5.3-15.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT
Projected Demand –
Proposed Project
(AFY)
Alternative B
Reduced Percentage
Projected Demand –
Alternative B
(AFY)
Hotels 293 62.6 183
Landscape Irrigation 132 74 98
Total 1,836
15% Reduction Factor -276
Total Water Demand at Buildout 1560
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
The third paragraph on page 5.3-173 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended, and the
following table is inserted below the same paragraph:
The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from Land Use Alternative B, based on the
land use in the SJWC (plus Cupertino Water) service area. As reported in the WSE, and as shown in
Table 5.3 -21.1, total projected water demand at build out of Land Use Alternative B for the SJWC and
leased Cupertino Water service areas is estimated to be 357 afy. This projection was calculated by using
the reduced percentage of development for each land use classification and applying it to the demand
estimated for the proposed Project. Applying a 15 percent reduction factor due to water conservation
measures to be incorporated into new development, the total LAS GP amendment water demand at
buildout (2040) for Alternative B is estimated to be 85 percent of 357 afy, or 89.5 percent of the
proposed Project. without taking into account requirements for water conservation measures to be
incorporated into new development. If these measures are accounted for, Land Use Alternative B water
demand in the SJWC service area is 303 afy.
TABLE 5.3-21.1 SJWC PLUS CUPERTINO WATER PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT
Projected Demand –
Proposed Project
(AFY)
Alternative B
Reduced Percentage
Projected Demand –
Alternative B
(AFY)
Residential 144 89.3 129
Office Space 86 72 62
Commercial 145 100 (no reduction) 145
Landscape Irrigation 24 87 21
Total 357
15% Reduction Factor -54
Total Water Demand at Buildout 303
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-27
REVISIONS TO APPENDIX F, PUBLIC SERVICES DATA
The second and third paragraphs under subheading 6.2 Enrollment Projections on page
58 of the school background study has hereby been amended as follows:
Alternatives B and C assume redevelopment of the 342-unit Hamptons complex to a significantly higher
density, but without any other units being developed in the area. For Alternatives B the current number
of units would be increased to 662686 units, an increase of 350344 units. The total would be increased
to 1,167 1,162 units in Alternative C, an increase of 825 820 units.
The SGRs for these units would be expected to be far lower than those current in the low-rise
buildings. Given the expected small size of the new units and the height of the buildings that would be
necessary, the SGR would probably be at the low end of future apartments in SCUSD. For Alternative
B, SGRs of 0.04, 0.02 and 0.02 for elementary, middle and high school respectively would generate
2528, 1314 and1314 students for the three grade levels. These SGRs are significantly higher than the
demographer has found for recent apartment complexes in SCUSD. The total of about 50 students is
less than the existing enrollment from the Hamptons.
REVISIONS TO APPENDIX G, TRANSPORTATION AND
TRAFFIC DATA
The trip generation calculations were prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the
proposed Project. The trip generation is based on the 54 transportation analysis zones (TAZ) in the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) model that represent Cupertino. This information
has been added to the Transportation and Traffic data as follows:
0.31 0.22 0.31 0.29
TAZ #GP Planning Area Allocation
Assumption Jobs In Out In Out
86 N. Wolfe Corridor - west side 300 90 94 65 92 88
97 Heart of the City Corridor - South Vallco west 489 147 153 106 150 144
98 Homestead Corridor - west of D. Anza 300 90 94 65 92 88
119 N. De Anza Corridor - west side 100 30 31 22 31 29
119 Heart of the City Corridor - b/w De Anza and Stelling 150 45 47 33 46 44
1,339 402 419 291 410 394
Assumption - 0.3 jobs per room
Proposed Project AM PM
Total
HOTEL ALLOCATION - TRIP GENERATION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-28 AUGUST 28, 2014
1.37 0.19 0.25 1.24
TAZ #GP Planning Area Allocation
Assumption Jobs In Out In Out
86 N. Wolfe Corridor - west side 30,000 100 41 6 8 37
86 Homestead Corridor - b/w Blaney and Linnet 25,000 84 34 5 6 31
87 Existing Major Employer pot - N. Vallco - East side (AC2)200,000 667 275 37 51 247
89 HOC - s. side b/w Miller and Judy 150,000 500 206 28 38 186
93 N. De Anza - East side 200,000 667 275 37 51 247
93 Exiting Major Employer pot - N. De Anza - east side 200,000 667 275 37 51 247
93 New Major Employer - N. De Anza - east side 50,000 167 69 9 13 62
95 N. Vallco - East side (E. of Tantau)60,000 200 82 11 15 74
97 HOC - n. side b/w Perimeter and N. Wolfe 2,000,000 6,667 2,746 374 507 2,473
98 Homestead Corridor - west of Stelling 15,000 50 21 3 4 19
98 Homestead Corridor - east of Stelling 10,000 34 14 2 3 12
110 HOC - s. side b/w De Anza and Blaney 285,000 950 391 53 72 352
112 HOC - s. side b/w Portal and Miller 150,000 500 206 28 38 186
113 S. De Anza - b/w McClellan & SCB 25,000 84 34 5 6 31
115 Bubb Rd 100,000 334 137 19 25 124
115 New Major Employer - Bubb Rd 50,000 167 69 9 13 62
116 Monta Vista - n. side b/w RR tracks and Adriana 7,731 26 11 1 2 10
117 Monta Vista - s side b/w RR tracks and Orange 7,500 25 10 1 2 9
119 N. De Anza - West side 225,000 750 309 42 57 278
119 Existing Major Employer pot - N. De Anza - West side 100,000 334 137 19 25 124
119 HOC - n. side b/w De Anza and Stelling 115,000 384 158 22 29 142
126 S. De Anza - South of 85 25,000 84 34 5 6 31
127 Other comml. Mixed use center - 7-11 at Bubb/McClellan 10,000 34 14 2 3 12
4,040,231 13,257 5,457 744 1,007 4,916
Assumption - Jobs will be created at 300 s.f. per employee
OFFICE ALLOCATION - TRIP GENERATION
Total
Proposed Project AM PM
0.60 0.36 1.78 1.93
TAZ #GP Planning Area Allocation
Assumption Jobs In Out In Out
86 N. Wolfe Corridor - West side 100,000 223 60 36 178 193
86 Homestead Corridor - b/w Blaney & Linnet 450,000 1000 268 164 801 868
89 Heart of the City Corridor - s. side b/w Miller & Judy 200,000 445 119 73 356 386
91 HOC - n. side b/w De Anza & Blaney 75,018 167 45 27 134 145
94 HOC - n. side b/w Blaney & Wolfe 100,000 223 60 36 178 193
94 HOC - Vallco west -445,171 -990 -265 -162 -793 -859
97 HOC - Vallco east -197,095 -438 -117 -72 -351 -380
98 Homestead Corridor - east of Stelling 50,000 112 30 18 89 96
99 Homestead Corridor - west of Stelling 40,000 89 24 15 71 77
110 S. De Anza Corridor - e. side, b/w Rodrigues & Pacifica 10,000 23 6 4 18 19
111 S. De Anza Corridor - e. side, b/w Silverado & Bollinger 45,000 100 27 16 80 87
111 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - Tintin Mkt 125,000 278 74 46 223 241
112 HOC - s. side b/w Blaney & Wolfe 250,000 556 149 91 445 482
113 S. De Anza Corridor - w. side, n. of McClellan 75,000 167 45 27 134 145
113 HOC - s. side b/w Stelling & De Anza 100,000 223 60 36 178 193
115 Monta Vista Special Center - east of RR tracks 8,016 18 5 3 14 15
116 Monta Vista Special Center - n. side, west of RR tracks 5,429 13 3 2 10 10
117 Monta Vista Special Center - s. side, west of RR tracks 7,500 17 4 3 13 14
119 N. De Anza - west side 25,000 56 15 9 45 48
119 HOC - n. side b/w Stelling & De Anza 224,982 500 134 82 401 434
126 South De Anza Corridor - west side, south of 85 75,000 167 45 27 134 145
135 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - Foothill Mkt 5,000 12 3 2 9 10
135 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - Bateh Bros.5,000 12 3 2 9 10
206 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - HS X-ing 10,000 23 6 4 18 19
1,343,679 2,996 800 490 2,393 2,592
Assumption - Jobs will be created at 450 s.f. per employee
COMMERCIAL ALLOCATION - TRIP GENERATION
Proposed Project AM PM
Total
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-29
Household Growth by TAZ – TRIP GENERATION
TAZ #Household Growth
(units)
Includes:In Out In Out
86 0 N/A
87 0 N/A
88 825 Hamptons (N. Wolfe)84 337 332 179
89 183 27 for Loree HE site (HOC) + 105 for Opposite Main Street (HOC) + 11 for Barry Swenson
(HOC) + 40 TAZ 89 (Other Neighborhoods)
19 75 74 40
90 0 N/A
91 82 36 for Shaan/China Dance/Q-Mart (HOC) + 1 Forest sub (Other Neighborhoods) + 45 for St.
Joseph’s Center (HOC)
15 46 52 30
92 0 N/A
93 40 TAZ 93 (Other Neighborhoods)8 23 25 15
94 974 104 for Portal Plaza (HOC) + 800 for Vallco (HOC) + 40 TAZ 94 (Other Neighborhoods) + 30
TAZ 94 (HOC)
99 397 393 211
97 -40 Main Street (Heart of the City) – was 160 in 2009 then reduced to 120 in late 2012 -8 -23 -25 -15
98 309 151 for Homestead Lanes (Homestead), 158 for remaining Homestead TAZ 98 32 126 125 67
99 165 161 for Homestead W11 site (Homestead) + 4 for 7-11 Homestead (Other Commercial)17 67 66 36
100 0 N/A
101 235 Oaks HE site (HOC)24 96 95 51
102 17 Lots with subdivision potential and potential redevelopment (Monta Vista)3 10 11 6
103 0 N/A
105 6 Seven Springs lot (Other Neighborhoods)1 3 4 2
106 0 N/A
107 0 N/A
108 0 N/A
109 0 N/A
110 87 80 for Biltmore + 7 for Biltmore Clubhouse (Heart of the City Corridor)16 49 55 32
111 101 60 from S. De Anza + 41 for Pacific Rim Center (Other Com’l Mixed Use)19 57 64 37
112 161 18 for Arya (HOC) + 40 for Scandinavian Design (HOC) + 58 for United Furniture (HOC) +
45 for E. of E. Estates (HOC)
30 91 101 60
113 0 N/A
114 0 N/A
115 0 N/A
116 0 N/A
117 84 80 from Monta Vista + 1 for Lomita Sub (Monta Vista) + 3 for random sub potential (Monta
Vista)
16 47 53 31
118 93 Glenbrook HE site (HOC)17 52 59 34
119 678 232 for Marina Foods (HOC) + 62 for Villages HE site (Other Neighborhoods) + 170 for Carl
Berg HE Site (N. De Anza) + 214 for Stevens Creek Office Ctr (HOC)
69 277 273 147
120 62 2 for 20840 McClellan (Other Neighborhoods) + 60 from S. De Anza 12 35 39 23
121 0 N/A
122 0 N/A
123 0 N/A
124 0 N/A
125 0 N/A
126 155 Summer Winds/Jack in the Box (S. De Anza)16 63 62 34
127 8 2 for Bubb Sub (Other Neighborhoods) + 6 for 7-11 McClellan (Other Commercial)2 5 5 3
128 0 N/A
129 10 4 for vacant lots + 6 for Evulich (Other Neighborhoods)2 6 6 4
130 18 Parkside Trails (Other Neighborhoods)3 10 11 7
131 3 1 for 21740 Rainbow (Other Neighborhoods) + 2 vacant lots (Other Neighborhoods)1 2 2 1
132 70 15 for Foothill Apt project (Other Neighborhoods) + 10 for NE Foothill & SCB (Other
Commercial) + 45 for other TAZ 132 (Other Neighborhoods)
13 39 44 26
133 6 Foothill Live/Work (Other Commercial Mixed-Use) 1 3 4 2
134 9 2 units on vacant lots on San Leandro under construction (Other Neighborhoods) + 7 SE
Foothill & SCB (Other Commercial)
2 5 6 3
135 63 3 for Cordova Homes (Other Neighborhoods) + 14 for vacant lots (Other Neighborhoods) +
27 for Foothill & McClellan (Other Com’l Mixed Use) + 19 for Bateh Bros (Other Com’l
Mixed Use)
12 35 40 23
136 0 N/A
204 0 N/A
1334 0 N/A
1434 60 Redevelopment (Homestead)11 34 38 22
Total 536 1,967 2,012 1,113
AM PM
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-30 AUGUST 28, 2014
The following diagrams of project trips and intersection turning movements for the Project Trips, 2040
No Project Baseline Volumes, and 2040 + Proposed Project have been added to the Transportation and
Traffic data as follows:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-40 AUGUST 28, 2014
REVISIONS TO APPENDIX I, PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
POLICY AMENDMENTS
The third paragraph under Policy 2-44 in the first column, 2005 General Plan/Concept
Alternative A, on page 62 of Appendix I is hereby amended as follows:
Two-thirds of the commercial/office square footage that is converted to residential uses shall be
allocated to major employers (companies with Cupertino sales offices or and corporate headquarters) as
identifiable in Table 2-A: Development Allocation. The remainder of the square footage shall be
allocated to the commercial or office pool in the subject area.
The Concept Alternative and Housing Element Sites Maps for General Plan Land Use
Alternatives A, B and C have been added to Appendix I as follows:
CityHall
De AnzaCollege
Apple Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85CUPERTINO
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 betweenDe 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
HotelResidential
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 BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD
Stelling Gateway
Primary Uses
Commercial and ResidentialMaximum 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
0 800 1600 2400Feet
N
Legend
City Boundary
Key Intersections
Alternative Arevised 6.9.14
CityHall
De AnzaCollege
Apple Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85CUPERTINO
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
OfficeCommercial
Hotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
OfficeCommercial
HotelResidential
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 BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD 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 UsesCommercial, 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 Density35 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 ResidentialMaximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 with a retail component
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0 800 1600 2400Feet
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 Brevised 6.9.14
CityHall
De AnzaCollege
Apple Campus 2280
85
280
280
85
85
85CUPERTINO
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/ApprovedOffice
CommercialHotel
Residential
Other Special Areas*
Office
CommercialHotel
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
+ 3,000,000 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 BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD 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 UsesCommercial, 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 UsesCommercial
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 UsesCommercial, 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
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0 800 1600 2400Feet
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 Crevised 6.9.14
Alternative A Potential Housing SitesBUBB RDBLANEY AVEHOMESTEAD RD
STELLING RDMILLER AVEPROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR LAWRENCE EXPWYTANTAU AVEWOLFE RDDE ANZA BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
PRUNE
BOLLINGER RDFOOTHILL BLVDMCCLELLAN RD
RIDGEAVE
§¨¦280§¨¦280
·|}85
·|}85
LOS A LT O S SUNNYVA LE
SA N TA
C LA RA
SA N JO SE
SA RA TO GA
STEVENS CREEK
RESERVOIR LINDA VISTA RDSALEM AVE
BUBB RDVALLEYGREEN
MARY AVEBEARDON DRALVES DR BANDLEY DRPORTAL AVEFINCH AVEVALLCOPKWY
JUDY AVE*
20 du/ac:
93 units
20 du/ac:
62 units
25 du/ac:
169 units
25 du/ac: 167 units
25 du/ac:
145 units 25 du/ac:
36 units
25 du/ac:
58 units
25 du/ac:
27 units
25 du/ac:
105 units
25 du/ac:
11 units25 du/ac:
103 units
25 du/ac:
96 units
Alternative A Potential Housing Sites
o02,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014Revised: 03/31/14
City Boundary
WaterFeature
Site Note:
Previously erroneously identified as
the Yamagami’s site
*
Potential to Meet HCD Criteria
Moderate
HighFreeways
Major Roads
VTA Priority Development Area (PDA)
20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximumcapacity allowed under Alternative A.
Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic CapacityBUBB RDBLANEY AVEHOMESTEAD RD
STELLING RDMILLER AVEPROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR LAWRENCE EXPWYTANTAU AVEWOLFE RDDE ANZA BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
PRUNE
BOLLINGER RDFOOTHILL BLVDMCCLELLAN RD
RIDGEAVE§¨¦280§¨¦280
·|}85
·|}85
L O S A LT O S S U N N Y V A L E
S A N T A
CL ARA
S A N J O S E
S A R A T O GA
STEVENS CREEK
RESERVOIR LINDA VISTA RDSALEM AVE
BUBB RDVALLEY GREEN
MARY AVEBEARDON DRALVES DR BANDLEY DRPORTAL AVEFINCH AVEVALLCOPKWY
JUDY AVE*
20 du/ac:
93 units
20 du/ac: 62 units 25 du/ac: 169 units
25 du/ac:
167 units
25 du/ac:
145 units 25 du/ac:
36 units
25 du/ac:
58 units
25 du/ac:
27 units
25 du/ac:
105 units
25 du/ac:
11 units25 du/ac:
103 units
25 du/ac:
96 units
Alternative A Potential Housing Sites
o02,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014
Revised: 03/31/14
City Boundary
WaterFeature
Site Note:
Pr evio usly err oneously i dentified as
the Yamagam i’s site
*
Potential to Meet HCD Criteria
Moderate
High
FreewaysMajor Roads
VTA Priority Development Area (PDA)
20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximumcapacity allowed under Alternative A.
Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic Capacity
Alternative B Potential Housing SitesBUBB RDBLANEY AVEHOMESTEAD RD
STELLING RDMILLER AVEPROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR LAWRENCE EXPWYTANTAU AVEWOLFE RDDE ANZA BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
PRUNE
BOLLINGER RDFOOTHILL BLVDMCCLELLAN RD
RIDGEAVE
§¨¦280§¨¦280
·|}85
·|}85
LOS A LT O S SUNNYVA LE
SA N TA
C LA RA
SA N JO SE
SA RA TO GA
STEVENS CREEK
RESERVOIR LINDA VISTA RDSALEM AVE
BUBB RDVALLEYGREEN
MARY AVEBEARDON DRALVES DR BANDLEY DRPORTAL AVEFINCH AVEVALLCOPKWY
JUDY AVE*25 du/ac:
96 units
35 du/ac: 161 units 35 du/ac:
151 units
20 du/ac:
93 units
20 du/ac:
62 units
25 du/ac:
169 units
35 du/ac:
187 units
35 du/ac: 235 units
35 du/ac:
204 units 25 du/ac:
36 units
25 du/ac:
58 units
35 du/ac:
600 units
65 du/ac: 344 units
25 du/ac:
27 units
25 du/ac:105 units
25 du/ac:
11 units25 du/ac:
103 units
Alternative B Potential Housing Sites
o02,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014Revised: 03/31/14
City Boundary
WaterFeature
Site Note:
Previously erroneously identified as
the Yamagami’s site
*
Potential to Meet HCD Criteria
Moderate
HighFreeways
Major Roads
VTA Priority Development Area (PDA)
20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximumcapacity allowed under Alternative B.
Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic CapacityBUBB RDBLANEY AVEHOMESTEAD RD
STELLING RDMILLER AVEPROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR LAWRENCE EXPWYTANTAU AVEWOLFE RDDE ANZA BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
PRUNE
BOLLINGER RDFOOTHILL BLVDMCCLELLAN RD
RIDGEAVE§¨¦280§¨¦280
·|}85
·|}85
L O S A LT O S S U NNY VA L E
S A N T A
C L A R A
S A N J O S E
SA R AT O G A
STEVENS CREEK
RESERVOIR LINDA VISTA RDSALEM AVE
BUBB RDVALLEYGREEN
MARY AVEBEARDON DRALVES DR BANDLEY DRPORTAL AVEFINCH AVEVALLCOPKWY
JUDY AVE*25 du/ac:
96 units
35 du/ac: 161 units 35 du/ac: 151 units20 du/ac:
93 units
20 du/ac: 62 units 25 du/ac: 169 units
35 du/ac:
187 units
35 du/ac:
235 units
35 du/ac:
204 units 25 du/ac:
36 units
25 du/ac:
58 units
35 du/ac:600 units 65 du/ac: 344 units
25 du/ac:
27 units
25 du/ac:
105 units
25 du/ac:
11 units25 du/ac:
103 units
Alternative B Potential Housing Sites
o02,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Prepared b y: MIG, In c. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014
Revised: 03/31/14
City Boundary
WaterFeature
Site Note:
Previously e r roneously iden tifi ed as
the Yamagami’s site
*
Potential to Meet HCD Criteria
Moderate
HighFreeways
Major Roads
VTA Priority Development Area (PDA)
20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximumcapacity allowed under Alternative B.
Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic Capacity
BUBB RDBLANEY AVEHOMESTEAD RD
STELLING RDMILLER AVEPROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR LAWRENCE EXPWYTANTAU AVEWOLFE RDDE ANZA BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
PRUNE
BOLLINGER RDFOOTHILL BLVDMCCLELLAN RD
RIDGEAVE
280280
85
LOS ALTOS
SUNNYVALE
SANTA
CLARA
SAN JOSE
SARATOGA
STEVENS CREEK
RESERVOIR LINDA VISTA RDSALEM AVE
BUBB RD
VALLEYGREEN
MARY AVEBEARDON DRALVES DR BANDLEY DRPORTAL AVEFINCH AVELC PKW
Y
JUDY AVESite 9
27 units
Site 8
19 units
Site 16
154 units
Site 12
151 units
Site 5 93 units
Site 6
62 units
Site 7
169 units
Site 15
214 units
Site 18
235 units
Site 14
232 units Site 1
36 units
Site 2
58 units
Sites 11800 units
Site 10 820 units
Site 13
27 units
Site 19105 units
Site 4
11 unitsSite 3103 units
HEART OF THE CITYSPECIAL AREA
NORTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA
SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA
HOMESTEADSPECIAL AREA
NORTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL AREA
SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA
Site 17
161 units85
280
VAL
O
Residential Sites Inventory
0 2,000 4,0001,000 FeetPrepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014Revised: 06/23/14
City Boundary
Water Feature
Note: Realistic capacity is 85% of maximumcapacity allowed under Alternative C.
Housing Element Sites
Site Number: Realistic CapacitySite 2
58 units
Special Areas
Heart of the City Special Area
North De Anza Special Area
North Vallco Park Special Area
Homestead Special Area
South De Anza Special AreaFreeways
Major Roads
VTA Priority Development Area (PDA)BUBB RDBLANEY AVEHOMESTEAD RD
STELLING RDMILLER AVEPROSPECT RD
RAINBOW DR LAWRENCE EXPWYTANTAU AVEWOLFE RDDE ANZA BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
PRUNE
BOLLINGER RDFOOTHILL BLVDMCCLELLAN RD
RIDGEAVE
280280
85
LOS ALTOS
SUNNYVALE
SANTA
CLARA
SAN JOSE
SARATOGA
STEVENS CREEK
RESERVOIR LINDA VISTA RDSALEM AVE
BUBB RD
VALLEYGREEN
MARY AVEBEARDON DRALVES DR BANDLEY DRPORTAL AVEFINCH AVELC PKW
Y
JUDY AVESite 9 27 units
Site 8
19 units
Site 16
154 units
Site 12
151 units
Site 5 93 units
Site 6
62 units
Site 7
169 units
Site 15 214 units
Site 18
235 units
Site 14232 units Site 136 units
Site 258 units
Sites 11800 units
Site 10
820 units
Site 13
27 units
Site 19
105 units
Site 411 unitsSite 3
103 units
HEART OF THE CITYSPECIAL AREA
NORTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA
SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA
HOMESTEADSPECIAL AREA
NORTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL AREA
SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA
Site 17
161 units85
280
VAL
O
Residential Sites Inventory
0 2,000 4,0001,000 FeetPrepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014
Revised: 06/23/14
City Boundary
Water Feature
Note: Realistic capacity is 85% of maximumcapacity allowed under Alternative C.
Housing Element Sites
Site Number: Realistic CapacitySite 258 units
Special Areas
Heart of the City Special Area
North De Anza Special Area
North Vallco Park Special Area
Homestead Special Area
South De Anza Special AreaFreeways
Major Roads
VTA Priority Development Area (PDA)
Alternative C Potential Housing Sites
PLACEWORKS 4-1
4. List of Commenters
Comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies and private individuals and
organizations. Each comment letter has been assigned a number, as indicated below.
AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
A01 Lani Lee, County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health, June 18, 2014
A02 Holly Roberson, Community Engagement and Land Use Specialist, State of California, Governor's
Office of Planning and Research, June 25, 2014
A03 Erik Alm, District Branch Chief, Local Development – Intergovernmental Review, State of
California, Department of Transportation, August 1, 2014
A04 William A. Bosworth, President, County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department, August 1,
2014
A05 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, August 1, 2014
A06 Cupertino Sanitary District, July 16, 2014
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
B01 Ruby Elbogen, June 18, 2014
B02 Catherine Alexander, June 24, 2014
B03 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, June 25, 2014
B04 Gary Jones, July 4, 2014
B05 Gary Jones, July 4, 2014
B06 Myron Crawford, Berg & Berg Developers, Inc., July 8, 2014
B07 Phyllis Dickstein, July 10, 2014
B08 Jennifer Griffin, July 10, 2014
B09 Marisa Yap, July 10, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LIST OF COMMENTERS
4-2 AUGUST 28, 2014
B10 Patricia McAfee, July 10, 2014
B11 Ruby Elbogen, July 17, 2014
B12 Josh Tsai, July 28, 2014
B13 Youichi Y., July 31, 2014
B14 Christine Cheng, August 1, 2014
B15 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, August 1, 2014
B16 Dan Whisenhunt, Senior Director, Real Estate & Development, Apple, August 1, 2014
B17 Jonathan Sanchez, June 17, 2014
B18 Youichi, July 31, 2014
B19 Anonymous, August 1, 2014
PLACEWORKS 5-1
5. Comments and Responses
This chapter includes a reproduction of, and responses to, each significant environmental issue raised during
the public review period. Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix A, Comment
Letters, along with annotations that identify each comment number.
Responses to those individual comments are provided in Table 5 -1 alongside the text of each corresponding
comment. Letters follow the same order as listed in Chapter 4, List of Commenters, of this Response to
Comments Document and are categorized by:
Agencies and Service Providers
Private Individuals and Organizations
Letters are identified by category and each comment is labeled with the comment reference number in the
margin.
During the review period for the Draft EIR, members of the public submitted several comments that related
to the details of the proposed Project itself, convey the commenter’s opinion of the proposed Project, or
address the relative consequences or benefits of the proposed Project (referred to here as “merits of the
proposed Project”), rather than the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR. It is important for a
Lead Agency in its decision-making process to consider both the adequacy of the EIR and the merits of the
proposed Project. However, a Lead Agency is only required by CEQA to respond in its Final EIR to
comments related to significant environmental issues raised in the comments. See CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15088(c) and 15204(a).
Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction for parties reviewing and providing comment on
a Draft EIR, as follows:
In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying
and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might
be avoided or mitigated.
Section 15204(a) states in relation to the role of the Lead Agency in responding to comments:
When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need
to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.
Although comments related to merits of the proposed Project do not require responses in the Response to
Comments Document, they do provide important input to the decision-making process. Therefore,
comments addressing the merits of the proposed Project are included in the Response to Comments
Document in order to make them readily available to the decision-makers when considering whether to
approve the proposed Project.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-2 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
A01 County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health
A01-01 As a comment under HAZ-4, the ESMP can also be prepared under the oversight of either the
County of Santa Clara Voluntary Cleanup Program, the RWQCB, or the Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, referred to in Chapter 4.7, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, on page 4.7-23 and -24, states
that the Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) can be prepared
in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
A02 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
A02-01 Purpose:
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is writing to notify you of recent updates to
the military point of contact notification list, and remind you of local government planning and project
notification requirements with respect to military land use compatibility. Please see Attachment One
for the updated point of contact list.
In addition, this memorandum is a reminder from OPR to Counties to notify all of the branches of the United States Military (Military), as required by law, when proposed general plan actions and amendments, or development projects, may have an impact on military facilities and operations.
As discussed in Chapters 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.9,
Land Use and Planning, 4.10, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation and
Traffic, of the Draft EIR, Cupertino is not located within any protected
airspace zones defined by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission. There are no military installations within the City of
Cupertino; however, Moffett Federal Airfield, a former naval air station
that is now a joint civil-military airport owned and operated by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research
Center is located approximately 4.4 miles to the north of Cupertino. In
addition, there is a U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Center in Sunnyvale
approximately one mile north of Cupertino City Boundaries at
Homestead High School, on the corner of Mary Avenue and Fremont
Avenue. There is also a building owned and operated by the U.S.
Department of Defense in Sunnyvale approximately two and one-quarter
miles north of Cupertino City Boundaries at Homestead road, on the
intersection of Mathilda Avenue and State Route 82. Finally, there is a
U.S. Army Recruiting Center in San Jose approximately one and one-half mile east of Cupertino City boundaries on Stevens Creek Boulevard. None of these facilities are listed on the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA), and therefore do not require Military notification.
As discussed in the Draft EIR in the chapters listed above, there would be no impacts related to airports, including the Moffett Federal Airfield,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-3
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
due to their proximity to the City. Accordingly, the proposed Project
would not impact on any military facilities or operations, including
training facilities.
A02-02 Planning Notification Requirements:
SB 1468 (Knight, 2002) made changes to the General Plan law, at Gov. Code Section 65302,
which require local governments to consider impacts to military operations in the general plan.
When a local government is updating its general plan, it should notify the military points of contact
listed in Attachment One.
Gov. Code section 65302(a)(2) requires that the general plan land use element consider the impact
of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and
operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses governed
by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated
military aviation routes or airspace.
Other elements of the General Plan must also consider military compatibility. For example, the
circulation element must include any military airports and ports, and be correlated with the land use
element of the general plan. (Gov. Code section 65302(b)(1)). The conservation element must
consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on
natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. (Gov. Code section 65302(d)(1)). The noise element must analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for ground stationary noise sources, including military installations identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. (Gov. Code section 65302(f)(1)(F)).
These requirements are valid statewide. Many local governments are unaware of military operations
or the extent of testing and training routes throughout the state. You can determine where special
use airspace, low level flight paths, and military training routes are relative to your jurisdiction by
using the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst. See below for more information about
this mapping tool.
Mapping Tools to Meet Planning and Notification Requirements:
The California Military Land Use Compatibility Planning Analyst is a planning tool which provides an
easy to use map of military installation locations throughout the state, as well as a map of where
military training activities takes place. Again, please note that even if a City or County is not near a
military base, it may still be within a military training route or special use area.
This comment provides background information regarding local government planning and project notification requirements with respect to military land use compatibility. See Response to Comment A02-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-4 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
The Military provided the State with maps of its installations, low-level flight paths, and special use
airspace to enable local governments to comply with planning and notification requirements. The
Resources Agency of California, in conjunction with OPR, has made this information publically
available. The California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA) is available for use by
local planners, permit applicants, and developers to easily determine if a project triggers Military
notification. CMLUCA is available at:
http://cmluca.projects.atlas.ca.gov.
Project Notification Requirements:
SB 1462 (Kuehl, 2004) created a notification process to inform the Military of local land use proposals that might have an impact on military facilities and operations, in order to prevent land use conflicts between local communities and military installations and training activities. Specifically, the bill amended Government Code Sections 65352, 65404, 65940, and 65944, and required local governments to: 1) revise their development permit application forms to require identification of whether the proposed project is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path, or within special use airspace and 2) notify the Military when a proposed project, or an updated or revised general plan, might have an impact on military facilities and operations.
The following is a summary of the statutory requirements under SB 1462. The relevant Government
Code sections are provided in Attachment 2. These process changes only apply to jurisdictions, or
proposed projects and actions that are located within 1,000 feet of a military installation; beneath a
low-level flight path; or, within special use airspace which is defined in Section 21098 of the Public
Resources Code as any below 1,500 feet about ground level.
1. Government Code Section 65352 (a)(6)
Before any legislative body adopts or substantially amends a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action, if it meets one or more of the above criteria, to all of the branches of the Military.
2. Government Code Section 65940
Local governments are required to change their development permit application forms to allow an
applicant to identify whether a proposed project meets one or more of the listed criteria, as well as
whether the project is in an urbanized area as defined in Government Code Section 65944 (2).
3. Government Code Section 65944 (d)(1)
After a local agency accepts a development application as complete, and if the project applicant has
identified that the proposed project meets one or more of the criteria listed above, the local agency
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-5
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
shall send a copy of the complete application to all of the Military branches.
Exceptions to Notification Requirements:
Please note the following exceptions, listed in Government Code Section 65940. Cities and
Counties that do not contain a military installation and are not beneath a low-level flight path, or
within special use airspace, are not required to change their project applicant information lists. In
addition, except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the public agency is not
required to provide a copy of the application to the military if the project is located entirely in an
“urbanized area”. For the definition of an urbanized area, see Gov. Code Section 65944(d)(2).
Military Points of Contact:
Attachment 1 contains point of contact mailing addresses for each of the four branches of the
Military. Please use these addresses for referring general plans or general plan amendments, and
development applications to the Military. Currently documents must be sent by mail to each of these
addresses. You may also send documents via email.
Once the Military receives a copy of a development application from your agency, the Military may
request a consultation with your agency and the project applicant to discuss the effects of the
proposed project on military facilities or operations (Gov. Code Section 65944 (e)).
Resources:
More information is available through the California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military
Compatibility Planning, and the Community and Military Compatibility Planning Supplement to the
General Plan Guidelines.
You may also wish to use the resources available at the Department of Defense, Office of Economic
Adjustment website, www.oea.gov.
Questions:
OPR coordinates with the military to provide technical assistance and high quality GIS maps to local
governments through the California Strategic Coordination and Engagement Program. Please
contact Holly Roberson, Community Engagement and Land Use Specialist, if you have any
questions about military land use compatibility, or would like technical assistance or more detailed
maps for your jurisdiction. Ms. Roberson can be reached at (916) 322-0476 or
holly.roberson@opr.ca.gov.
Attachments:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-6 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
1. Military Mailing Addresses for SB 1462 Compliance
2. Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1462 and Public Resources Code Section
defining low level flight paths.
3. Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1468
A2-03 Attachment 1
Military Mailing Addresses for SB 1462 Notification
All SB 1462 required referrals to the United State Military must be addressed to the following single
points of contact for the four Military branches listed below. All SB 1462 required documents must
be sent by US Mail. Please also send SB 1462 notification via email.
US Air Force
Steve Arenson
Regional Environmental Officer for California
Western Region Environmental Office
US Air Force
50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94105-22230
steven.arenson@us.af.mil
US Army
Region Nine Fort Irwin
Tim Kilgannon Philip Crosbie
Region Nine Environmental Coordinator Chief
Regional Environmental and Energy Office Strategic Plans, S3, NTC
Office of the Deputy Assistant Undersecretary of the Army Fort Irwin National Training Center
Office of Strategic Integration P.O. Box 10172
721 19th St., Room 427 Ft. Irwin, CA 92310 Denver, CO 80202 phil.crosbie@us.army.mil timothy.r.kilgannon.civ@mail.mil
Fort Hunter Ligget
Gary Houston Chief Environmental Division
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-7
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Directorate of Public Works
USAG Fort Hunter Ligget, CA 93928
gary.a.houston10.civ@mail.mil
US Navy Steve Chung Regional Community Plans and Liaison Officer Navy Region Southwest US Navy 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190 steve.u.chung@navy.mil
US Marine Corps
Col. John Gamelin
MCIWEST MCB-CAMPEN
Attn G-7
PO Box 555010
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5010
A02-04 Attachment 2
Government Code Sections and Public Resources Code Section
The bold-faced type indicates the portions of the Government Code which requiring notification to
the United States Military of certain general plan actions and development permit applications.
65352. Referral of Plans
(a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the
planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entities:
(1) A city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the proposal, and any special district
that may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency.
(2) An elementary, high school, or unified school district within the area covered by the
proposed action.
(3) The local agency formation commission.
(4) An area wide planning agency whose operations may be significantly affected by the
proposed action, as determined by the planning agency.
(5) A federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdiction may be significantly affected
by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-8 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
(6) (A) The branches of the United States Armed Forces that have provided the Office of
Planning and Research with a California mailing address pursuant to subdivision (d) of
Section 65944 when the proposed action is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, or lies
within special use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path, as defined in Section 21098 of
the Public Resources Code, provided that the United States Department of Defense provides
electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations at a
scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research.
(B) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with subparagraph (A) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office.
(7) A public water system, as defined in Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code, with
3,000 or more service connections, that serves water to customers within the area covered by the
proposal. The public water system shall have at least 45 days to comment on the proposed plan, in
accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide the planning agency with the information set forth in
Section 65352.5.
(8) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a proposed action within the boundaries
of the district.
(9) On and after March 1, 2005, a California Native American tribe, that is on the contact list
maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, with traditional lands located within the
city or county's jurisdiction.
(b) Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of a general plan pursuant to
this section shall have 45 days from the date the referring agency mails it or delivers it in which to
comment unless a longer period is specified by the planning agency.
(c) (1) This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section does not affect the validity of the action, if adopted.
(2) To the extent that the requirements of this section conflict with the requirements of Chapter
4.4 (commencing with Section 65919), the requirements of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail.
65940. List specifying required data for development project
(a) Each state agency and each local agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. Each
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-9
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
local agency shall revise the list of information required from an applicant to include a certification
of compliance with Section 65962.5, and the statement of application required by Section 65943.
Copies of the information, including the statement of application required by Section 65943, shall be
made available to all applicants for development projects and to any person who requests the
information.
(b) (1) The list of information required from any applicant shall include, where applicable, identification of whether the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path or within special use airspace as defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code, and within an urbanized area as defined in Section 65944.
(2) The information described in paragraph (1) shall be based on information provided by
the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) as of the
date of the application. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with paragraph
(1) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office.
(c) (1) A city, county, or city and county that is not beneath a low-level flight path or not within special use airspace and does not contain a military installation is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b).
(2) A city, county, or city and county that is entirely urbanized, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 65944, with the exception of a jurisdiction that contains a military installation, is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b).
(d) (1) Subdivision (b) as it relates to the identification of special use airspace, low-level
flight paths, military installations, and urbanized areas shall not be operative until the United
States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use
airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable
to the Office of Planning and Research.
(2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet.
(Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 84; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 1048 and Ch. 1019; Amended
by Stats. 1987, Ch. 985; Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1200; Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 906.)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-10 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
65944. Agency Acceptance of Application
(a) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, the agency shall not subsequently
request of an applicant any new or additional information which was not specified in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940. The agency may, in the course of processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for the application.
(b) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall not be construed as requiring an applicant to submit
with his or her initial application the entirety of the information which a public agency may require in
order to take final action on the application. Prior to accepting an application, each public agency
shall inform the applicant of any information included in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940
which will subsequently be required from the applicant in order to complete final action on the
application.
(c) This section shall not be construed as limiting the ability of a public agency to request and obtain information which may be needed in order to comply with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(d) (1) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, and if the project applicant has identified that the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special use airspace or beneath a low-level flight path in accordance with Section 65940, the public agency shall provide a copy of the complete application to any branch of the United States Armed Forces that has provided the Office of Planning and Research with a single California mailing address within the state for the delivery of a copy of these applications. This subdivision shall apply only to development applications submitted to a public agency 30 days after the Office of Planning and Research has notified cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of Department of Defense information on the Internet pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65940.
(2) Except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the public agency is not
required to provide a copy of the application if the project is located entirely in an "urbanized
area." An urbanized area is any urban location that meets the definition used by the United
State Department of Commerce's Bureau of Census for "urban" and includes locations with
core census block groups containing at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding
census block groups containing at least 500 people per square mile.
(e) Upon receipt of a copy of the application as required in subdivision (d), any branch of the United States Armed Forces may request consultation with the public agency and the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-11
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
project applicant to discuss the effects of the proposed project on military installations, low-
level flight paths, or special use airspace, and potential alternatives and mitigation
measures.
(f) (1) Subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) as these relate to low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and urbanized areas shall not be operative until the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research.
(2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the
information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale
and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability
of the information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with
subdivision (d) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office.
(Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 84; Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 906.)
Public Resources Code Section 21098
21098.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) "Low-level flight path" includes any flight path for any aircraft owned, maintained, or that is
under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense that flies lower than 1,500 feet
above ground level, as indicated in the United States Department of Defense Flight Information
Publication, "Area Planning Military Training Routes: North and South America (AP/1B)" published
by the United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
(2) "Military impact zone" includes any area, including airspace that meets both of the following
criteria:
(A) Is within two miles of a military installation, including, but not limited to, any base, military
airport, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for a ship, or any other military activity
center that is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense.
(B) Covers greater than 500 acres of unincorporated land, or greater than 100 acres of city incorporated land.
(3) "Military service" means any branch of the United States Armed Forces.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-12 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
(4) "Special use airspace" means the land area underlying the airspace that is designated for
training, research, development, or evaluation for a military service, as that land area is established
by the United States Department of Defense Flight Information Publication, "Area Planning: Special
Use Airspace: North and South America (AP/1A)" published by the United States National Imagery
and Mapping Agency.
(b) If the United States Department of Defense or a military service notifies a lead agency of the contact office and address for the military service and the specific boundaries of a low-level flight path, military impact zone, or special use airspace, the lead agency shall submit notices, as required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092, to the military service if the project is within those boundaries and any of the following apply:
(1) The project includes a general plan amendment.
(2) The project is of statewide, regional, or area wide significance.
(3) The project is required to be referred to the airport land use commission, or appropriately
designated body, pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of
Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code.
(c) The requirement to submit notices imposed by this section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) Response actions taken pursuant to Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) Response actions taken pursuant to Chapter 6.85 (commencing with Section 25396) of
Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Sites subject to corrective action orders issued pursuant to Section 25187 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(d)
(1) The effect or potential effect that a project may have on military activities does not itself
constitute an adverse effect on the environment for the purposes of this division.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a project's impact on military activities may cause, or be associated with, adverse effects on the environment that are subject to the requirements of this division, including, but not limited to, Section 21081.
A2-05 Attachment 3
Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1468
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-13
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Gov. Code section 65302
(a)(2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military
bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace.
(A) In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided
by military facilities shall be considered. Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on
information from the military and other sources.
(B) The following definitions govern this paragraph:
(i) “Military Readiness activities” mean all of the following:
(I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military for
combat.
(II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation.
(III) Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation
or suitability for combat use.
(ii) “Military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of
Defense as defined in the paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of
the United States Code.
(b)(1) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed
major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local
public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan.
(d)(1) The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as
described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military
installations.
(f)(1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources:
(F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including but not limited to, military installations,
identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-14 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
(g) The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall
also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and
minimum roads widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and
geologic hazards.
A03 State of California, Department of Transportation
A03-01 Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the plan referenced above. We have reviewed the DEIR and have
the following comments to offer. Also, please refer to Caltrans' comments on the Notice of
Preparation in a letter dated April 3, 2014.
The comment references the commenter’s letter submitted on April 3,
2014, which was addressed in the Draft EIR and included for reference
in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters, of the Draft EIR.
A03-02 Traffic Impacts
State Route (SR) 85 and Interstate (I-) 280 are critical to regional and interregional traffic in the San Francisco Bay region. They are vital to commuting, freight, and recreational traffic and are two of the most congested regional facilities. The traffic generated and/or redistributed by the proposed housing element changes and rezoning, together with other completed and proposed projects in the vicinity, will have a cumulative significant regional impact to the already congested State Highway System.
An analysis of the proposed Project's impacts to SR 85 and I-280 are
provided in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR.
Specifically, Impact TRAF-1 and Impact TRAF-2 found that impacts to
SR 85 and I-280 intersections and freeway segments would be
significant and unavoidable with implementation of Mitigation Measure
TRAF-1.
A03-03 1. Figures 4.13-5a, b, and c (see pp. 4.13-8 -4.13-10) only includes turning movement traffic
diagram per study intersection under Existing Conditions. Table 4.13-11, 2040 No Project and
Project Model Forecasts (see p. 4.13-41), demonstrates the City of Cupertino (City) citywide
household totals and job totals increase between 2014 and 2040. Since net jobs increase in
Cupertino and nearby San Jose, Santa Cara and Sunnyvale in Table 4.13-11, it likely contributes to
the high level of AM (PM) generated traffic. Therefore, Caltrans requests the report provide more
information on the trip generation assumptions, including but not limited to a trip generation table,
the AM (PM) turning movement traffic diagram per study intersection under 2040 No Project, Project
Only, 2040 +Project Conditions and their associated traffic impact analysis for further review.
The Draft EIR has been revised to include the additional information
requested from Caltrans. The revisions include the trip generation of the
project and diagrams of intersection turning movements for the 2040 No
Project, 2040 plus Project, and Project only scenarios. Revisions to the
Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this
Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any
conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-15
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
A03-04 2. De Anza Boulevard and Interstate (I-) 280 Northbound Ramp (see p. 4.13-53): the proposed
change to this intersection appears to be in conflict with the General Plan of ensuring "these
facilities are safe and effective for Cupertino residents and employees" and avoiding "a challenging condition that currently does not exist for bicyclists" (see p. 4.13-48). To meet Caltrans standards, the bicycle lane would need to connect to a bicycle pocket lane placed to the left of the right-turn only lane (see Figure 9C-4 in. Part 9 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Dashed striping would preferably be provided to visually connect the bicycle lane to the pocket lane (shown as "optional" in the Figure 9C·4). However, if a double right turn consisting of a devoted right only lane and a right through lane are being proposed, then a bicycle pocket lane would endanger bicyclists in that bicyclists would be caught between the two right turn lanes. Caltrans recommends the DEIR be clarified whether a double or a single devoted right turn is being proposed for this location.
The proposed bike box would require the approval of a request to experiment submitted to the
California Traffic Control Devices Committee and Federal Highway Administration, since this
treatment is not yet an approved traffic control device. However, in this location the proposed bike
box appears unnecessary, since bicyclists have a dedicated lane and would not be making use of a
bike box to facilitate left turns given that they would not be turning left onto the freeway off-ramp.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, described in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.14,
Transportation and Traffic, on page 4.13-53, requires the City to commit
to preparing and implementing a Traffic Mitigation Fee Program and a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation. As part of the nexus study, the City will study widening the curb lane so that right turn vehicles could maneuver past other vehicles. This would effectively provide a right turn lane , but the lane would not be striped as a right turn lane. This potential improvement does not consider providing two right turn lanes, thereby not creating the bicycle conflict described by the commenter.
The Draft EIR has been revised to remove the reference to the bike box. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR.
A03-05 Lead Agency
As the lead agency, the City is responsible for all mitigation measures, including any needed improvements to State highways. Fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This information should also be presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan of the environmental document.
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency
to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the
project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or
avoid significant effects on the environment” (Mitigation Monitoring
Program, Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides
additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). As stated by
the commenter, the City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency for the
proposed Project and is therefore responsible for enforcing and
monitoring the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP).
A03-06 Traffic Mitigation Fee Program
We appreciate the City committing to continued cooperation with Caltrans in identifying
improvements to reduce or minimize impacts to State facilities. To that end, we request that the City
work with Caltrans on the preparation of the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program and "nexus" study to
identify and implement feasible measures to ensure all mitigation measures are funded and
As discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.13-56, the City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans, and other surrounding jurisdictions to identify improvements that would reduce or minimize the impacts to intersections and roadways that are out of the City's jurisdiction as a result of implementation of future development projects in Cupertino. The City will conduct a nexus study and will include fair share
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-16 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
implemented. It is essential that feasible mitigation be included to ensure that impacts from the Plan
on the transportation network are reduced or eliminated. This will be important to the success of this
Plan.
contributions towards any programmed improvements that mitigate
impacts to state facilities at the time of commencement of the nexus
study.
A03-07 Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an
encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit
application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW
must be submitted to: David Salladay, District Office Chief, Office of Permits, California Department
of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic related mitigation
measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit
process. See this website for more information:
http://www.dot.ca.govihq/traffops/developserv/permits.
As a matter of standard operating procedures, the City complies with all local, regional, State and federal regulations, including those required by Caltrans, when approving and overseeing development in Cupertino.
A04 County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department
A04-01 The DEIR states in TRAF-1 (page 4.13-53) that the proposed project would result in significant impacts to Intersections #31 at Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Intersection #32 at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp during the AM Peak Hour. In addition to implementing Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 (page 4.13-55), which secures funding for future roadway and infrastructure improvements proposed in the DEIR for Intersections #31 and #32, the project should also consider improvements to ramp capacity and land storage to prevent queue spillbacks on Lawrence Expressway and I-280.
As described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, of the Draft EIR, describes possible improvements for these two intersections that would involve widening the ramps to add lanes. The extent of the widening (i.e., the distance from the intersections) will be determined during the design phase for the improvements. The need to reduce queue (line of traffic) lengths will be a consideration in the improvement design.
A04-02 The County appreciates the continual cooperation of the City in identifying improvement that would
reduce or minimize impacts to the intersections and roadways as a result of implementation of
future development projects in Cupertino (4.13-56). Any future LOS analysis for specific
development projects should be conducted using County signal timing for County study
intersections and the most recent CMP count and LOS data for CMP intersections.
Future traffic studies in Cupertino will continue to use the most recent
standards for evaluating traffic impacts, including those of the County.
A05 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
A05-01 VMT Analysis
VTA supports the City's progressive approach to transportation analysis in the DEIR, including the
vehicles miles traveled (VMT) analysis provided for informational purposes, consistent with recent state legislation.
The comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-17
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
A05-02 Land Use
VTA supports the stated purpose of the proposed General Plan amendment to "replenish,
reallocate, and increase citywide office, commercial, hotel, and residential allocations," particularly
in the mixed-is corridors and city gateways/nodes identified in Figure 3-5 of the DEIR. These areas
include Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and the Cupertino Town Center, which are
the locations in the city of Cupertino identified for concentrated land use and transportation
investments in the VTA's Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program Cores, Corridors
and Stations Areas framework, which shows BTA and local jurisdiction priorities for supporting
concentrated development in the County. In addition, VTA's Stevens Creek Boulevard Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) project is included in Plan Bay Area. In light of these currently and future
transportation investments, VTA supports increased development densities in these locations.
The comment is acknowledged.
A05-03 Transportation Demand Management/Trip Reduction
Policy 4-3, Strategy 8 of the General Plan Update states that the City will "Require large employers
to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce the vehicle trips generated by their employees.
Work together with the large employers to develop a tracking system of the TDM programs to allow
ongoing assessments of results." VTA comments the City for including a TDM requirement and
tracking system in the General Plan Update. VTA notes that these measures could be made more
effective by including a specific trip reduction target, an enforcement component, and a requirement for future developed to participate in a Transportation Management Association (TMA). In additions, VTA recommends that the TDM programs include financial incentives for non-automobile travel such as transit fare incentives, parking cash out or parking pricing.
The Draft EIR has been revised to include the VTA recommendation.
Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the
Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions
do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in
the Draft EIR.
A05-04 CMP Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The DEIR indicates that there will be significant impacts to seven Congestion Management Program
(CMP) intersections. As a mitigation measure, the City proposes to prepare a Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) Program including a nexus study. However, the impact is still found significant and
unavoidable, because the City cannot guarantee improvement at these intersections at this time
(pg. 4.13-55).
VTA commends the City for proposing a proactive approach to address congestion thought the implementation of a TIF Program. However, the VTA notes that the "examples of traffic improvements: listed on pages 4.13-53 to 4.13-55 only include physical auto capacity expansions. VTA recommends that the City take a broader approach to identifying projects and programs that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on pages 4.13-53 through 4.13-55 of the
Draft EIR has been amended to include the preparation of Multimodal
Improvement Plans as an alternative to physical improvements to
expand automobile capacity. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in
Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments
Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance
determinations provided in the Draft EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-18 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, including bicycle, pedestrian and transit
improvements; operational/efficiency improvement to the transportation system; and Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) programs including financial incentives, consistent with Policy 4-3 of
the General Plan (see previous comment).
In addition, VTA suggests consideration of an area-wide Multimodal Improvement Plan (previous "Deficiency Plan") to address these CMP Impacts. Under CMP policy, when one or more CMP Intersections fall below the CMP LOS standard, either the impacts must be mitigated or the city must prepare a Multimodal Improvement Plan when such mitigations are infeasible or undesirable. The Multimodal Improvement Plan must contain a list of actions to help offset the vehicular level of service impacts, and an implementation plan with specific responsibilities and a schedule. The preparation of a Multimodal Improvement Plan can be an opportunity to implement multimodal (non-automotive) transportation improvement and offsetting measures. These offsetting improvements can include improvement to transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian facilities.
A05-05 Congestion Impacts on Transit Travel Times
Under "Thresholds of Significance" the DEIR states, "Significant impacts to transit service would
occur if the proposed Project or any part of the proposed Project….Causes a substantial increase in
delay to transit vehicles" (pg. 4.13-49). However, the analysis of transportation impacts in the DEIR
does not include an analysis of increased delay to transit vehicles. The DEIR identify significant
impacts to auto delay at several CMP Intersections, including four intersections along Stevens
Creek Boulevard, utilized by high ridership VTA Local Line 23 and Limited 323. In addition, VTA's
Stevens Creek Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is included in Plan Bay Area. Given the
increase in auto delay at this intersections, similar increases in transit delay are likely to occur at the
same locations. While VTA is supportive of increasing developed densities along the Stevens
Creek Boulevard corridor, these delays could degrade the schedule reliability of transit and increase
travel times, making transit a less attractive option for travelers in the corridor. Based on the
increased delay found at these intersections, VTA recommends that the City work with VTA to
identify and support feasible transit priority measures near the affected facilities and include
contributions to any applicable project in the City's proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program.
Transit priority signal timing, bulb-out transit stops, and/or dedicated transit lanes.
In Cupertino transit vehicles are a part of the general traffic stream, so
any increased delays to traffic in general also would result in increases
to transit delays. As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and
Traffic of the Draft EIR, intersections where delays would increase have
been identified, which would affect buses along with cars and trucks.
Impacts have been identified based on these increases in delay, and
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was identified to minimize impacts to the
degree feasible. To the extent that the Mitigation Measure TRAF-1
would improve delays for traffic in general, it would also improve bus
travel times to the same extent.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 of the Draft EIR has been amended to
include the multimodal improvements as an option to extensive physical
improvements. Multimodal improvements could include measures to
increase bus travel speeds, such as queue jump lanes and signal
priority treatments. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3,
Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document.
These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance
determinations provided in the Draft EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-19
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
A05-06 Freeway Analysis and Mitigation Measures
The DEIR indicates that there will be significant impacts to four segments of I-280 and one segment
of SR 85, which are CMP facilities. The DEIR mentions the proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
Program as mitigation measure, but conclude that the impact would still be significant and
unavoidable. VTA notes that the "example of traffic improvements" discussed in relation to the
proposed TIF program on pages 4.13-53 to 4.13-55 only include intersection modifications and do
not include project to improve operations or relieve congestions on freeways. VTA recommends
that the City include voluntary contributions to regional improvements identified in Plan Bay Area on
the affected corridor, such as SR 85 Express Lanes and Stevens Creek Boulevard Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Project, as mitigation measures for these significant impacts. Please see the March
6, 2014 Report to the VTA Board of Directors (Agenda Item 6.18) for further information about
Voluntary Contributions to Transportation Improvements. Alternatively, the City could include
contributions to these projects in the proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program.
As discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.13-56, the City will endeavor to
coordinate with the VTA and other surrounding jurisdictions to identify
improvements that would reduce or minimize the impacts of future development projects in Cupertino on intersections and roadways that are outside of the City's jurisdiction. It is the City's intent to include these improvements, or fair share contributions towards these regional improvements, in a Traffic Mitigation Fee Program. The program could include contributions to regional transportation improvements, such as on the freeway system, in proportion to the impacts of development in Cupertino.
A05-07 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Report
VTA's Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for
any project that is expected to generate 100 or more net new peak-hour trips. VTA's understanding
is that this General Plan Amendment does not grant a specific development entitlement and
therefore a CMP TIA is not required at this time (per Section 2.2 of the TIA Guidelines). It is our understanding that the future specific development within the project area would require separate discretionally approvals and therefore world require CMP TIA's at that time. The current March 2009 version of the TIA Guidelines may be downloaded from http://www.vta.org/cmp/technical-guidelines. For more information on the TIA Guidelines, please call Shanthi Chatradhhi of the VTA Planning and Program Development Division at 408-952-4224.
In processing development applications, the City, complies with all local,
regional, State and federal regulations, including those required by the
VTA when approving and overseeing development in Cupertino.
A06 Cupertino Sanitary District
A06-01 2) Summary of Impact UTIL-6a states that City shall work with Cupertino Sanitary District to
increase the available citywide treatment and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day.
• Please note the Cupertino Sanitary District service area is greater than just City of Cupertino. It serves portion of City of Saratoga, unincorporated area and small portion of Cities of Los Altos and Sunnyvale.
• To work to increase capacity may be very challenging and may result in significant cost impact and
funding.
The comment correctly describes the information provided in Chapter
4.14, Utilities and Service System, of the Draft EIR concerning the
service area of Cupertino Sanitary District as discussed on page 4.14-27
of the Draft EIR. The Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides
sanitary sewer service for Cupertino, portions of Saratoga, Sunnyvale,
Los Altos, and surrounding unincorporated Santa Clara County
communities. In addition, Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a states the City
shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to increase the available
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-20 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
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-6c states that the City shall
cooperate 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.
A06-02 3) Summary of Impact UTIL-6b states no building permits shall be issued prior to increasing the available citywide contractual treatment and transmission capacity, once capacity is exceeded.
• Again, this would impact other agencies that District serves and would not just be a City of
Cupertino issue.
• When our discharge rate is at near capacity, we will develop a process for moratorium of issuing
building permits, until such time, additional capacity is secured.
The comment correctly describes the information provided in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service System, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b states, 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. See Response to Comment A06-01.
A06-03 4) Summary of Impact UTIL-6c. District will cooperate with the City in a study as outlined with no cost to the District. The City shall pay its fair share toward the study if the study area extends beyond the City of Cupertino limits. See Response to Comment A06-02.
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
B01 Ruby Elbogen
B01-01 Our "environmental" comments were clear. More housing in our 'hood will affect Cupertino's
environment. Because we live in the "flats" and not the hills doesn't mean the environment will not
be negatively affected by overcrowding--impact on the sewer system, school crowding. That's
exactly why our Vallco neighborhood brought forth Measures D & E. r [sic]
Impacts to sewer systems are discussed in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 4.14-32. Impacts to schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, beginning on page 4.12-18.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-21
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B02 Catherine Alexander
B02-01 As a home owner in the center of the area affected by the proposed GPA, I reject the EIR and the proposed GPA, which would make traffic congestion and noise in my neighborhood even more miserable than it is now.
Impacts to traffic congestion are discussed in Chapter 4.13,
Transportation and Traffic, beginning on page 4.13-49. Impacts to noise
are discussed in Chapter 4.10, Noise, beginning on page 4.10-27.
B02-02 This greed-based plan would ruin our schools, lower our property values, and despite the proposed "two-story" modifications in this EIR, our kids would suffer from the congestion and overcrowding in schools, not to mention the chaos adding second stories to schools would cause. (Where the heck are the kids supposed to go during construction?)
Have any of you actually parked near Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School when school is starting or ending? Residents can't leave their driveways for 40 minutes twice each day,
since traffic from parents managing kids being picked up or dropped off is so intense, and we can't
get to De Anza, Stevens Creek or Homestead either twice a day, for the same reason. Don't do this
to our kids or to our neighborhoods!
Impacts to schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and
Recreation, beginning on page 4.12-18. Impacts on traffic are discussed
in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. The
commenter's comment regarding existing traffic conditions near Collins
Elementary School and Lawson Middle School is reflected in Table
4.13-12, which starts on page 4.13-43 in Chapter 4.13, Transportation
and Traffic. Intersections #6 (De Anza Boulevard and I-280 North
Bound Ramp), #7 (De Anza Blvd and I-280 SB Ramp), #8 (De Anza
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard and #38 (Blaney Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard) are all intersections close to the area
described by the commenter. The proposed Project would result in a
substandard level of service for Intersections #6 (De Anza Boulevard
and I-280 Northbound Ramp) and #7 (De Anza Boulevard and I-280
Southbound Ramp) during AM and PM peak hours, as well as for
Intersection #8 (De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard)
during PM peak hours.
B02-03 As a life-long resident who valued our previous no-growth policy, who has observed the tacky, run-down strip malls, apartment-like housing developments and unoccupied businesses which have ruined our Cupertino landscape in the last 40 years (as a result of zoning changes once we lost that prior no-growth policy), I vote "no" to any more development in Cupertino, for any reason and for ANY proposed "new" GPA plan.
I would, however, approve tearing down any commercial or multi-unit residential, or multi use development over two stories high, and any shopping area, mall, or strip mall over 30 years old, and replacing these eyesores with parks, community gardens and green spaces for existing residents.
Likewise, I would approve moving City Hall to Quinlan Center, tearing down the old City Hall buildings Including the new City Hall Community Room and fountain garden, and putting an underground parking garage in their place, which would not overlook resident's homes.
The comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-22 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Cupertino should be preserved for existing residents, not sold off continually for the benefit of
developers, or to lure new high tech workers to cubicle-like housing, or to gamble with new or
existing businesses who have big pie-in-the-sky ideas which they seem to "sell" to our City Council
nearly every year, only to fail in one to five years. These businesses never stay here, leaving their
empty, dated commercial buildings and traffic-ridden housing complexes behind as eyesores and
problems in our neighborhoods.
How much is enough?
Our City leaders seems [sic] to be driven more by greed for new revenue, than quality of life for the
people they are supposed to serve here.
Residents here in Cupertino are disgusted with what has happened to our City and do not want to
end up like Mountain View, where there are so many mixed use developments and new
developments in a small area, congestion, parking problems and traffic is now unbearable for
nearby older residential areas. That City now charges residents $300 per year just for a permit to
park downtown near their library and City Hall, or to eat at a Castro Street restaurant. It takes some
residents 30 minutes just to find parking in their own city, so they can patronize local businesses or
return a library book.
That is why I say, no GPA with any new Cupertino developments, for any reason.
No more tacky, fake Mediterranean/Santana Row-like developments here, with the lawsuits which
follow from new residents due to bad construction which was previously okay'ed by our City
inspectors, who seem to be more allied with developers and construction companies, than in
working to protect current and future residents.
Enough is enough. Cupertino is not for sale any longer and residents want to take our City back for the benefit of families who already live here. Developers can find another City to milk for $$$ then leave in ruins for residents to salvage.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-23
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B02-04
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
B03 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
B03-01 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REV 2
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A COPY OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO 2000·2020 GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED TO DATE SINCE ITS ADOPTION TO HIGHLIGHT THE CHANGES PROPOSED
BY THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION SO THE
PUBLIC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DIFFERENCES?
NO RESPONSE
This comment provides background information and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or
mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR nor does the comment
raise a new environmental issue; therefore, no further response is
required. The comment is acknowledged.
B03-02 IS THERE SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE CITY OF
(CUPERTINO) APPROACHES HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS?
PARAPHRASED ANSWER: IN (CUPERTINO), WE GET SO CAUGHT UP IN DISCUSSING THE
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE FORGET IT IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE PROJECT
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-24 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
UNDER OUR ORDINANCES.
THEN, AFTER LOTS OF DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE WITH THE
DEVELOPER, WE ARE SO FAR DOWN THE ROAD THAT CHANGING OUR ZONING
ORDINANCES FOR THE PROJECT IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. IN SHORT, OUR
PLANNING PROCESS FOR LARGE PROJECTS IS PROJECT DRIVEN RATHER THAN BEING
DRIVEN BY THE CITY'S PHILOSOPHY, VALUES, VISION OR OVERALL GENERAL PLAN.
SOURCE;
VALLCO CONDOMINIUMS
2-STORY/ 3-STORY CONDOMINIUMS, 139 UNITS, WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING
STRUCTURE
SOURCE: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05
EASEMENTS: OCTOBER 17, 1974 SUBTERRANEAN EASEMENT AND ABOVE-GROUND
LEVEL EASEMENT
WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF VALLCO CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT.
SEE ATTACHMENT #1
NO DISCLOSURE OF THESE EASEMENTS.
B03-03 COMMERCIAL vs RESIDENTIAL
FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE BUILDING(S)
MEASURE (HONEYWELL) ON BUBB ROAD AND MCCLELLAN AVENUE
GROSVENOR GROUP, OWNER OF PROPERTY
" ...HONEYWELL BUILDINGS WERE FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE. WE WILL
DEMOLISH THEM REGARDLESS, SAID ALAN CHAMORRO, A GROSVENOR VICE
PRESIDENT."
SOURCE: DEVELOPMENT DEAL SHOW THE DOOR
BY MICHELLE MAGHRIBI
LOS GATOS DAILY NEWS
MARCH 10, 2006
TAYLOR WOODROW
THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA
DEMOLISH INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
REZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL
94 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-25
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 3·1 TO DENY
DENIED IN MARCH 2006 BY CITY COUNCIL
EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS
PROJECT
APPROVAL IN 2008 FOR DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT TO CONVERT
THE EXISTING MANUFACTURING SPACE INTO OFFICE SPACE
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL ENTITLEMENTS IN 2009
LEASE TO APPLE RESULTS WAY CAMPUS FOR 7 YEARS
NO DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS
RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS
THE EMPLOYEES IN THESE BUILDINGS WILL NOT BE MOVING INTO
APPLE CAMPUS 2
COMPAQ BUILDINGS ON PRUNERIDGE AVENUE
TOLL BROTHERS PROJECT
REFERENDUM NOVEMBER 2006
> APPLE VALLCO 1
> MAIN STREET CUPERTINO
COMPAQ BUILDING ON PRUNERIDGE AVENUE
>APPLE VALLCO 2
PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL/MORLEY BROTHERS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-2005-01)
REZONING (Z·2005•020)
MET CONDITIONS OF INITIATIVES A, B & C
SUPPORTED BY CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO
APPROVED NOVEMBER 15, 2005
COMMERCIAL > RESIDENTIAL > COMMERCIAL
APPLE CAMPUS 2/PHASE IX
TANTAU AVENUE
SEE ATTACHMENT 1
APPLE CAMPUS 2/PHASE II
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-26 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-04 ATTACHMENT 1
Pruneridge Avenue & Tantau Avenue Housing
19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue
Morley Brothers LLC/Sobrato Development Companies
The project is comprised of two parcels totaling 8.5 acres. In 2005, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change to allow residential development at a density of up to
25 dwelling units per acre at this site.
Fiscal Impact Analysis: Net fiscal surplus of $32,245 per annum.
On November 15, 2005 City Council approved Pruneridge Residential with 130 townhomes and a
1 (0.937) acre park.
July 28, 2006 Apple buys properties
April 28, 2009: Apple requested rezoning the residential project site from Planned Residential to
Planned Industrial and Residential, retaining the existing planned residential zoning. The
approximately one acre portion of the properties on the northeast corner of the site that was zoned
for public park ... will retain its (Public Park/Recreation) PR zon(ing).
2009: Site moved to Tier 1 Sites Inventory List for 2007-2014 Housing Element/Site 10
Source: Housing Element 2007-2014
City Council meeting on June 16, 2009/Agenda Item #18
10300 & 10400 North Tantau Avenue
Pacific Resources Development
9.14 acres
Proposed 125 town homes and 1.286 acre park
February 16, 2007 Apple buys properties
2009: Site removed from Site Inventory List for 2007-2014 Housing Element
Since 10300 & 10400 North Tantau Avenue are owned and fully occupied by Apple and
have significant tenant improvements valued at over $5,000,000. The value of the tenant
improvements along with the value of the building make it unlikely that Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) would consider this property likely to redevelop in the next five
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-27
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
years.
Source: Housing Element 2007-2014
City Council meeting on June 16, 2009 I Agenda Item #18
10590 North Tantau Avenue
November 12, 2010 Sold
10670, 10700 & 10710 North Tantau Avenue
Tantau Building Associates
2005: "We would plan to bring these housing units to the market as soon as possible and thereby
contribute to Cupertino's progress at stabilizing the jobs/housing imbalance."
3.6 acre
Proposed 87 units
2009; Sites may potentially meet the HCD requirements for being listed as an available housing site
December 15, 2010 Sold
According to the 2009 proposed General Plan Amendment all of the above North Tantau Avenue
sites were considered as potential conversion area for residential use @ 25 units/acre for the North
Tantau area.
B03-05 COMMERCIAL: INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/RETAIL
> RESIDENTIAL
MACYS PARKING LOT
EXISTENCE OF EASEMENTS
SEE PAGE 1 & 2
MEASURE
TAYLOR WOODROW
IMPACT ON SCHOOLS
APPLE CAMPUS BUBB
EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS INVESTED AND REPOSITIONED THE
MEASURE PROPERTY
LEASED TO APPLE CAMPUS BUBB
10 BUILDINGS/383, 750 SF
EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS> RREEF
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-28 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
$168.85 MILLION
ROSEBOWL
EVERSHINE
IMPACT UNKNOWN
PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL RENTALS
IMPACT ON SCHOOLS
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL
TANTAU
COMMERCIAL > RESIDENTIAL > R &D
HEWLETT PACKARD/COMPAQ
TOLL BROTHERS
IMPACT ON SCHOOLS
PRESENTLY DEVELOPING MAINSTREET CUPERTINO
SENIOR HOUSING
IMPACT ON SCHOOLS: NONE
CHANGE TO MARKET RATE HOUSING
IMPACT ON SCHOOLS: UNKNOWN VALLCO
VALLCO
PENNYS' PARKING STRUCTURE
PRIMARILY PARKING
GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL
NOT DEVELOPED TO DATE
OTHER NON-CUPERTINO EXAMPLE
BRIDGEPOINTE SHOPPING CENTER
WILL NOT RENEW LEASE FOR ICE CENTER
SOURCE: GOAL: TO KEEP ICE RINK OPEN BY AARON KINNEY
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
JULY 30, 2012
GLOBE
FREMONT
200 RETAILERS AND RESTAURANTS
250·ROOM HOTEL
40,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-29
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
MOVIE THEATER
PACIFIC MALL SILICON VALLEY
MILPITAS
200 TO 300 STORES
280, OOO SQUARE FOOT MALL
COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS
240-ROOM HOTEL
SAN ANTONIO SHOPPING CENTER
MOUNTAIN VIEW
66,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL
741,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE,
12 STORY/ 167 FEET
TO SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF HOTEL
200-ROOM HOTEL
SAFEWAY
PARK ALONG HETCH HETCHY RIGHT OF WAY
SANTA CLARA SQUARE
SANTA CLARA
125,000 SQUARE FEET SHOPPING CENTER
560,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
40,000 SQUARE FEET GROCERY /WHOLE FOODS
VIETNAM TOWN
SAN JOSE
1ST PHASE
120 COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS
2ND PHASE
140 COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS
40,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY
B03-06 VALLCO MAJOR RETAIL AT VALLCO: MACY'S PENNEYS SEARS SEARS PURCHASED ORCHARD SUPPLY IN 1996
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-30 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SEARS PURCHASED LANDS END IN 2002
K-MART PURCHASED SEARS IN 2005 > SEARS HOLDING
"I THINK THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT YOU GOING TO SEE A LOT OF STORE
CLOSINGS. THAT'S A WRONG PRESUMPTION, HE SAID. OUR PROGRAM IS TO
KEEP AS MANY STORES OPEN AS WE CAN."
"LANDS END ISN'T FOR SALE,... "
SEARS CALLS FOR PATIENCE IN WAKE OF CRITICISM
COMPANY ACCUSED OF IGNORING STORES AT MALL.
BY TERRY PRJSTIN
NEW YORK TIMES
JULY 4, 2007
SEARS TOWER > WILLIS TOWERS
SEARS HQ MOVED TO HOFFMAN ESTATES, ILL.
AT LEAST 100 SEARS, KMART STORES TO BE CLOSED
BY CHRISTINA REXRODE AND MICHELLE CHAPMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
DECEMBER 28, 2011
SEARS ACQUIRES ORCHARD SUPPLY 1996
SEARS SPINS OFF ORCHARD SUPPLY 2011
ORCHARD SUPPLY ACQUIRED BY LOWE'S 2013
SEARS... PLANS TO SELL 11 STORES
"SEARS HOLDING CORP. PLANS TO RAISE AS MUCH AS $770 MIL.L.ION BY SELLING 11
STORE
SITES .... "
SOURCE: SEARS POST BIG QUARTERLY l.OSS
BY LAUREN COLEMAN-LOCHNER AND ASHLEY LUTZ
BLOOMBERG
FEBRUARY 24, 2012
SEARS SPIN OFF LANDS' END
SEARS MAY SPIN OFF AUTO SERVICE CENTERS
SEARS IN CUPERTINO?
BAY CLUB
SEARS AT MERIDIAN: GONE
SEARS AT SAN ANTONIO SHOPPING CENTER: GONE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-31
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SEARS AT GEARY/MASONIC IN SAN FRANCISCO: GONE
SEARS IN OAKLAND: GOING
SEARS AT SOUTHLAND MALL: ?
SEARS TO CLOSE FL.AGSHIP STORE IN CHICAGO
NEWS RELEASE JANUARY 23, 2014
B03-07 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ALOFT HOTEL
A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LUXURY HOTEL WITH CONFERENCE
FACILITIES AND FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT WITH PUBLIC ACCESS
M2010·07: MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT (u2008·02)
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, REDUCE THE CONFERENCE AREA FROM
ABOUT 4,194 SQUARE FEET TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET, REDUCE THE RESTAURANT/BAR
AREA AND SCOPE FROM PUBLIC-SERVING TO HOTEL PATRON-SERVING, AND ELIMINATE
THE GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENT FOR AN APPROVED 138-ROOM HOTEL AT 10165
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD.
DUE TO CHANGE, MODIFIES HOTEL SERVICE FROM LUXURY FULL SERVICE TO
SELECT SERVICE BUSINESS HOTEL WITH REDUCED CONFERENCE ROOMS W NO PUBLIC
ACCESS TO CAFE.
2000/2020 GENERAL PLAN AN EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPE SETBACK NEXT TO DE ANZA BOULEVARD IS REQUIRED FROM ALVES DRIVE TO ROUTE 280. THE LANDSCAPE AREA SHALL. BE COMPLEMENTED BY LANDSCAPED MEDIANS AND GENEROUS PRIVATE LANDSCAPED AREAS. NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 2, 1976: IN THE NORTH DE ANZA CONCEPTUAL PLAN WHICH APPLIES TO THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO IT STATES THAT "THE CIVIC IMAGE OF A CITY IS IN LARGE MEASURE DETERMINED BY THE MOOD CREATED BY THE TREATMENT OF ITS MAJOR STREETS. THE LANDSCAPING TREATMENT THAT IS GIVEN TO THE MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS DEFINES THE ENTRANCE INTO THE CITY AND ENHANCES THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE. " THE LANDSCAPING TREATMENT ALONG DE ANZA BOULEVARD IS THE DOMINANT FEATURE THAT INTEGRATES THE DIVERSITY OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE STREET. THE HEAVY TRAFFIC ALONG THE ROADWAY RESULTS IN HIGH NOISE LEVELS
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-32 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
AND AIR POLLUTION. THESE ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE TO BE MITIGATED THROUGH DENSE
PLANTINGS THAT HELP ABSORB THE POLLUTANTS, AND PROVIDE FOR A MORE
PLEASANT ATMOSPHERE FOR THOSE LIVING AND SHOPPING IN THE CORE AREA."
SOURCE: APPENDIX B
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN
ORDINANCE #723
ENACTED FEBRUARY 2, 1976
ORDINANCE #767
ENACTED NOVEMBER 16, 1976
THE 50 FT. LANDSCAPE SETBACK WILL HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE
ZONING DISTRICT BY LINKING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND DIVERSE DEVEL.OPMENTS.
THE LANDSCAPE SETBACK WILL HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE COMMUNITY AS A
WHOLE BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE AN ATTRACTIVE ENTRANCE INTO THE CITY, AND
THUS ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUES FOR THOSE CONCERNED."
SOURCE: 50 FT. LANDSCAPING SETBACK
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN
PAGE 10
USE PERMIT FOR ALOFT HOTEL
26. TRANSFORMERS
ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS, TELEPHONE VAULTS AND SIMILAR ABOVE
GROUND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH FENCING AND
LANDSCAPING OR LOCATED UNDERGROUND SUCH THAT SAID EQUIPMENT IS NOT
VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREET AREAS. THE TRANSFORMER SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN
THE FRONT OR SIDE BUILDING SETBACK AREA.
SOURCE: CONDITION OF APPROVAL #26 U·2008·02 JANUARY 20, 2009
SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS
BUILDINGS AND LAND USES- HOTELS/LODGING 53. Do you like this idea for Cupertino? I really like it Worth considering I don't like it I'm not sure
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-33
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Aloft Hotel
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
APPLE INFINITY LOOP CAMPUS
A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LIMITED USE OF FACILITY FOR COMMUNITY
EVENTS
CUPERTINO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDA TION ANNUAL FUNCTION IN 2014 WAS IN SAN
JOSE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-34 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
CITY CENTER AUDITORIUM ON TORRE AVENUE
A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LIMITED USE OF AUDITORIUM FOR COMMUNITY
EVENTS
UNKNOWN
CIVIC PARK
A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LIMITED USE OF PARK FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS
DIFFICULT DUE TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL
DE CARLI RESIDENCE
HILLSIDE EXCEPTION (16-EXC-98) APPROVED
JANUARY 11, 1999
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: LANDSCAPE PLAN COMPLIED 2007,
APPROXIMATELY 8 YEARS LATER
"IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TOPPED EXISTING
MATURE LANDSCAPING
ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN DOWNHILL ELEVATION IN ORDER TO ENHANCE
THEIR VIEWS."
SOURCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
JUNE 10, 2008
PAGE 1·3
M·2008·01
HILLSIDE EXCEPTION (EXC·07) DENIED
HILLSIDE EXCEPTION (M·2008·0 1) APPROVED JUNE 10, 2008
1999 CONDITION OF APPROVAL COMPLIED 2007
2008 CONDITION OF APPROVAL: TREE REPLACEMENT FOR TOPPED TREES
LEARNING TREE
CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS FOR RETAIL
LEARNING GAME RETAIL BUSINESS TO RELOCATE TO PROJECT SITE
NO LEARNING GAME AS OF 2014 E·TRADE
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO
CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS FOR SENIOR AGE RESTRICTED HOUSING
HOUSING CHANGED TO MARKET RATE
"A PERCEPTION THE CITY LETS ITSELF TO BE BULLIED INTO DECISIONS. THE
EXAMPLE CITED WAS MAIN STREET BEING APPROVED W SENIOR HOUSING, BUT SOON
AFTER THE HOUSING COMPONENT WAS APPROVED BY THE DECISION-MAKERS, THAT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-35
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
HOUSING BEING CONVERTED TO MARKET-RATE AT THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST. "
SOURCE: RETAIL STRATEGY REPORT BY GREENSFELDER
MARCH 6, 2014
PAGE 87
CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS FOR 400·PERSON BANQUET FACILITY WITH 6,500
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE.
CHANGE TO ONLY 8,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE.
ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING BY DMB ARCHITECTS, THE
RESTAURANT/KITCHEN AREA IS 5,000 SF; THE APPROXIMATELY I,000 SF KITCHEN
SEPARATES THE RESTAURANT FROM THE TWO MEETING ROOMS WHICH TOTAL ABOUT
1,200 SF; THE EFFECTIVE RESTAURANT/BANQUET FACILITY/CONFERENCE CENTER IS
ONLY A 4,000 SF SINGLE ROOM.
MEMOREX
"A 1,500 SQUARE-FOOT CAFE IS PROPOSED AS PART OF BUILDING A (NEAREST TO BUBB
ROAD) AND IS BEING TREATED BY STAFF AS AN ANCILLARY AND SUPPORTIVE USE OF
THE INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE PARK, WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE COUNTED TOWARD THE
TOTALS. IT IS STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CAFE WILL BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC."
SOURCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 26, 2008
PAGE 4-2
"THE CAFE WILL BE LOCATED NEAR BUBB ROAD TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ADJACENT BUSINESSES.
SOURCE: SITE DESIGN
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 26, 2008
PAGE 4·3
"THE DESIGN TEAM DESCRIBED WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH THE BUILDINGS
TO QUALIFY THEM FOR LEED SILVER DESIGNATION, ... AND A CAFE AT THE FRONT OF
THE PROJECT. "
SOURCE: APPLICANT COMMENTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-36 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PAGE 14-2
WE SUPPORTED APPROVAL DUE TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO ITS CAFE.
SEE ATTACHMENT 2 DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
ASSUME THAT LEASE W APPLE PRECLUDES PUBLIC ACCESS
B03-08 ATTACHMENT 2
DARREL W. LUM, DDS
20395 PACIFICA DRIVE/SUITE 102
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DOLLY SANDOVAL, MAYOR
ORRIN MAHONEY, VICE·MAYOR
KRISWANG
GILBERT WONG
MARK SANTORO
RE: 1 RESULTS WAY/ AGENDA ITEM # 14
PLEASE FIND ATTACHED SOME COMMUNITY OPINIONS REGARDING THE 1 RESULTS
WAY PROJECT WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL WAS SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 AND RESCHEDULED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2008@ 4PM.
WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND. PLEASE CONSIDER THE ATTACHED COMMENTS.
THANK YOU DARREL W. LUM, DDS ATTACHMENTS: 1 RESULTS WAY SITE/CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 1 RESULT WAY /MEASURE SITE/CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 WE WERE ASKED BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS OF THIS PROJECT TO ATTEND THE PROJECT'S PRESENTATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN AUGUST. IN OUR ANALYSIS THIS PROJECT HAS SEVERAL POSITIVE FEATURES: CONCERN ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROJECT TO THE IMPERIAL AVENUE RESIDENTIAL AREA HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING AND CONTINUING THE SETBACK OF THE BUILDINGS TO ADDRESS THE PRIVACY OF THE HOMES. THE LOW PROFILE SCALE OF THE PROJECT: 2-STORY BUILDINGS AND THE DESIGN OF THE PARKING GARAGE PLACING THE FIRST LEVEL BELOW GRADE TO REDUCE THE PROFILE OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE. PLANS TO ATTAIN LEED SILVER CERTIFICATION FOR ITS BUILDINGS.
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-37
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PLANS TO RENOVATE A FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE BUILDING #5.
PROVIDING AN OPEN CAMPUS. REMOVING THE FENCE ALONG THE BUBB ROAD
SIDE. PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CAFE.
RETAINING A SAFE AND SECURE PATHWAY ON THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE
ASTORIA RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS, TO MCCLELLAN ROAD.
UPGRADING THE LANDSCAPING ON THE PATHWAY AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT
THE REST OF THE PROJECT.
WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
DARREL LUM
VALLCO NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE 2005
OCTOBER 18, 2005 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 3·STORY PARKING GARAGE
NOVEMBER 1, 2005 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 3-STORY PARKING GARAGE W 32
FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT
DECEMBER 7, 2005 VALLCO FASHION PARK NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE PLAN
BY PERKOWITZ+RUTH ARCHITECTS SHOWS PROPOSED 4-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE
760 STALLS
JANUARY 17, 2006 THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE GARAGE AT 3 LEVELS
NOT TO EXCEED 32 FEET. THE COUNCIL STIPULATED: "THERE IS AN INTENTION TO NOT
APPROVE ANY MORE HEIGHT TO THE STRUCTURE IN THE FUTURE." THE APPLICANT IS A
WARE OF THE COUNCIL'S INTENT ... "
SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 PARKING STRUCTURE PLAN BY PERKOWITZ+RUTH
ARCHITECTS SHOW
SURFACE OF LEVEL P·4 @ ELEVATION OF 213.83
BASE OF 1st LEVEL P·1 @ ELEVATION OF 176.50
= 37.33
VALLCO TRIES TO USE A NEIGHBOR YARD @ ELEVATION OF183.0 TO
MEET THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 32 FEET; THE PARKING STRUCTURE IS SEPARATED
FROM THE BACKYARD BY THE LANDSCAPE AREA EAST OF PERIMETER ROAD,
PERIMETER ROAD AND LANDSCAPE AREA WEST OF PERIMETER ROAD.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
M·2006·05 TO ALLOW THE PARKING GARAGE NORTH OF MACY'S TO
EXCEED THE PERMITTED 32-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND TO ALLOW PARKING ON THE
FOURTH LEVEL.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-38 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRED DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE GARAGE HEIGHT EXTENSION AND PARKING ON THE 4TH
LEVEL ....
OCTOBER 3, 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM# 16
M·2006·05
OCTOBER 18, 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #2
M·2006·05 APPROVED W CONDITIONS
DAN ORLOFF, COMMUNITY SPOKEPERSON FOR VALLCO:
"ONCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, THEY FELT THAT THEY COULD DEMONSTRATE
TO THE NEIGHBORS AND ALL CONCERNED THAT VALLCO COULD MAKE THAT FOURTH
LEVEL OF PARKING ALL BUT INVISIBLE VISUALLY AND AUDIBLY.
SOURCE: COUNCIL WILL ALLOW PARKING LOT
TO EXCEED AGREED HEIGHT
BY AARON CLAVERNE
LOS GATOS DAILY NEWS
OCTOBER 20, 2006
"VALLCO REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY HOPED THE
COUNCIL WOULD EVENTUALLY APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF PARKING,..."
SOURCE: CRITICISM OVER PARKING GARAGE
BY AARON CLAVERIE
Los GATOS DAILY NEWS
OCTOBER 24, 2006
B03-09 COMMUNITY BENEFITS/PROJECT BENEFITS A PROJECT SHOULD BE EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERITS, NOT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT IS OFFERING SOME COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THE METROPOLITAN PROJECT REQUESTED A 2003 EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN'S HEIGHT OF 36 FEET FOR AN INCREASED HEIGHT OF 44 FEET BECAUSE IT WAS PROVIDING 6,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE. THE RETAIL COMPONENT HAS EXPERIENCE LONG-TERM DIFFICULTY IN LEASING THESE RETAIL SPACES; IN FACT ONE SPACE HAS NOT BEEN LEASED TO DATE. ALTHO METROPOLITAN RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY IS CONFIDENTIAL, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ACTUAL SALES TAX REVENUE BE COMPARED TO THE EXPECTED SALES TAX REVENUE PRO FORMA BY THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT OF THE METROPOLITAN PROJECT, THE CITY'S FINANCIAL PROJECTION AND
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-39
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
THE INDEPENDENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.
ADOBE
TWO UNITS OF RETAIL.
LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL.
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS
CITY CENTER/STEVENS CREEK BLVD & SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL; SECOND FLOOR+ RESIDENTIAL.
APARTMENT CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS
LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL
LACK OF RETAIL PARKING
METROPOLITAN
FRONT GROUND FLOOR RETAIL CONDOMINIUMS;
FRONT SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS;
ALL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS TO REAR
PARKING ISSUE.
TRAVIGNE PLAZA
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL; SECOND FLOOR OFFICE;
ALL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS TO REAR
SHARED PARKING CONCEPT
LACK OF PARKING
SEE PHOTO
CIVIC CENTER/SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL: SECOND FLOOR+ RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUMS
LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL
LACK OF RETAIL PARKING
AT ROUNDTABLE CONVERSATION:
Q: OFTEN, PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A RETAIL COMPONENT ON THE
GROUND FLOOR. WHAT CAN HELP MAKE THAT SUCCESSFUL?
A: ACCESS, VISIBILITY AND HAVING A GOOD PARKING PLAN FOR RETAIL ARE ALL
KEY. YOU NEED TO BRING CUSTOMERS IN FROM OUTSIDE; PEOPLE DRIVING DOWN THE
STREET WANT TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN, WALK IN, DO THEIR SHOPPING AND GET BACK ON
THE ROAD. AND THE RETAILERS HAVE CERTAIN PARAMETERS THAT THEY WANT, SUCH
AS PARKING IN FRONT AND CO-TENANCY WITH OTHER RETAILERS, TO BRING IN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-40 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
CUSTOMERS."
PHIL MAHONEY
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
CORNISH & CAREY
SOURCE: BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE:
BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN
SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL
MAY 2, 2014
ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE ATTRIBUTED TO AN
INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS IS CONFIDENTIAL, IT
IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ACTUAL SALES TAX REVENUE BE COMPARED TO THE
EXPECTED SALES TAX REVENUE PRO FORMA BY THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT OF THE
PROJECT, THE CITY'S FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT AND THE INDEPENDENT
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT.
PUBLIC BENEFITS AS REQUIRED BY P DISTRICT ZONING OF MOUNTAIN VIEW OR
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE OF PALO ALTO:
GENERAL PLAN OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENCOURAGES OPEN SPACE IN MULTI-FAMILY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-41
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PROJECTS THAT IS DESIGNED FOR A RANGE OF ACTIVITIES AND PROMOTES SOCIAL
GATHERING.
P DISTRICT STANDARDS RECOMMEND 175 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE PER
UNIT
P DISTRICT STANDARD STATES ONLY SETBACK AREAS OF 30 FEET OR GREATER
SHOULD COUNT TOWARD COMMON OPEN SPACE
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN OF CITY OF CUPERTINO: COMMON, USABLE
OUTDOOR SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS.
A MINIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR
EACH UNIT EXCLUDING REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS.
PALO ALTO PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING ALLOWS INCREASE OF HEIGHT AND INCREASE OF
DENSITY IN EXCHANGE FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS
565·595 MAYBELL A VENUE
HIGH-DENSITY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
60 APARTMENT UNITS + 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 2.5 ACRE
EXISTING ZONING: 46 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
MEASURE D TO ZONE TO PLANNED COMMUNITY DEFEATED
395 PAGE MILL ROAD
MENLO PARK 311,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE WITH PUBLIC BENEFIT OF 44,500
SQUARE FEET PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET AT 3045 PARK BLVD.
APPLICATION FOR PROJECT WITHDRAWN
TRAFFIC: SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
MENLO PARK
EL CAMINO REAL/DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
APPROVED JUNE 2012
ALLOWS 240,820 SF OF OFFICE IN 20 TO 30 YEAR TIME FRAME
2013
STANFORD/ARRILLAGA PROJECT 199,500 SF OFFICE
GREENHEART PROJECT 194,000 SF OFFICE
=393,500 SF OFFICE.
INITIATIVE BY SAVE MENLO
WOULD RESTRICT NEW OFFICE SPACE TO A TOTAL OF 240,820 SF ALONG EL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-42 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
CAMINO REAL AND DOWNTOWN WOULD ALLOW NO INDIVIDUAL PROJECT MORE THAN
I00,000 SF
WOULD REQUIRE VOTERS TO APPROVE ANY PROPOSAL TO RAISE THE OFFICE
SPACE TOTAL ABOVE 240,820 SF.
INITIATIVE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER 2014 ELECTION
COMMENT ON PUBLIC BENEFITS: "THERE SHOULD BE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
VALUE GAINED BY A DEVELOPER AND THE BENEFIT VALUE TO RESIDENTS."
"THE BENEFIT SHOULD BE WANTED AND NEEDED BY RESIDENTS, NOT JUST
CONVENIENT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE."
COMMENT: "WHEN A PROJECT GETS ITS FINAL INSPECTION AND DEPARTMENTS SIGN
OFF ON IT, ALL PUBLIC BENEFITS MUST BE CHECKED TO ENSURE THEY ARE
COMPLETED AND WILL BE PROVIDED AS AGREED TO."
"IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SIGN OFF ON A PROJECT UPON COMPLETION OF A
PROJECT GIVEN MANY PUBLIC BENEFITS CAN BE LOST OR CHANGED COUNTER TO THE
AGREEMENT."
"REASON FOR SUBSEQUENT MANDATORY INSPECTIONS IS TO CONFIRM THAT
ALL PUBLIC BENEFITS AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT ARE BEING PROVIDED AS
PROMISED ... AND TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC REALIZES THEIR PROMISED BENEFITS."
"TO INSPECT, ONE MUST KNOW FIRST WHAT TO INSPECT. ...NEED TO INVENTORY AND
DOCUMENT PROPERTIES LISTED BY DATE, ADDRESS, AND COMPLETE WITH PUBLIC
BENEFITS MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC."
" ... CITY (SHOULD HAVE) THE POWER TO LEVY PENALTIES AN AND FINES TO ENFORCE
(CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL), INCLUDING WHEN PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE NOT PROVIDED
OR DISCONTINUED."
B03-10 PUBLIC ART ALOFT HOTEL PLANNING COMMISSION "THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOW...: 7. WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC ART (CONDITION #11) STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS WAIVING THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT "THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT AS A MECHANISM TO REDUCE PROJECT COSTS FOR THE APPLICANT.
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-43
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
"
STAFF RESPONSE:" IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF
NOTES THAT THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT IS BOTH A GENERAL PLAN POLICY AND
ORDINANCE AND THERE IS NO PROVISION TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OR REDUCE
THE PERCENTAGE CONDITION TOWARD THE ARTS. THE CITY COUNCIL, HOWEVER, HAS
THE DISCRETION TO DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO CONSIDER
ALTERNATIVE AND/OR CREATIVE FORMATS OF ART THAT CAN HELP REDUCE THE COST
TO THE APPLICANT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FINAL ART PROPOSAL WOULD STILL
NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE FINE ARTS COMMISSION."
CITY COUNCIL
"COUNCIL ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT. CITY
ATTORNEY CAROL KORADE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO WAIVE THE
REQUIREMENT BUT THAT THERE MAY BE FLEXIBILITY IN WORKING WITH THE FINE ARTS
COMMISSION TO DISCUSS WHAT ART WOULD BE. SHE NOTED THAT IF ART WASN'T
FEASIBLE, THE APPLICANT COULD APPLY TO FINE ARTS COMMISSION FOR IN-LIEU
APPLICATION, BUT THAT IS DISCOURAGED."
SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 2010
AGENDA #
PAGE 2 & 7
FINE ARTS COMMISSION
FOUNTAIN POOL. WITH UPRIGHT STONE COLUMNS AND GRIDS OF WATER
PLANTS. CASCADING WATER.
HOTEL MONUMENT SIGN WALL WITH WATER CASCADING DOWN ON BOTH
SIDES.
SOURCE: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
CONCEPTURAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1
KLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
1/06/09
CASCADING FOUNTAIN ELEMENT BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND DINING PATIO.
SOURCE: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING
LANDSCAPE CROSS-SECTIONS
L2/SECTION A
KLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-44 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
1/06/09
SEE AUGUST 28, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 3
IN ADDITION TO THE ARTWORK, "THERE IS A FOUR-FOOT WATER WALL
BETWEEN THE PATIO AND STREET.... "
COMMENT: THE ENCLOSURE FOR THE POWER GENERATOR AND THE PGE
TRANSFORMER IS MORE VISIBLE THAN THE PUBLIC ART
COMMENT: ANOTHER PROJECT'S CONDITION OF APPROVAL STATES THAT "IT (THE
ARTWORK) SHOULD BE VISIBLE THROUGH THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS..."
APPLE INFINITY LOOP CAMPUS
“THE CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AN ART PROJECT FOR APPLE'S
SOON TO BE COMPLETED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY ON DE ANZA
BOULEVARD NEAR INTERSTATE 280."
"THE COUNCIL REQUIRED APPLE TO INSTALL AN ART PROJECT FOR PUBLIC
VIEWING AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL CONDITIONS FOR THE R & D CAMPUS."
THE ART PROJECT "SELECTED FOR SCULPTURE ARE THE PENCIL, ARROW,
HAND, DOG AND ERASER ICONS.." "THE FINE ARTS COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED THE DESIGN, BECAUSE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF ART FOR PUBLIC VIEWING
AND THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN GOAL OF EXPRESSING CUPERTINO'S INNOVATIVE
SPIRIT."
SOURCE: CUPERTINO COURIER
APRIL 14, 1993
ART REMOVED AND NOT REPLACED AS OF 2014
PROJECTS SHOULD PROVIDE HEIGHT TRANSITIONS TO EXISTING ADJACENT
STRUCTURES AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
PROJECTS SHOULD PROVIDE SETBACK TRANSITIONS TO EXISTING ADJACENT
STRUCTURES AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
B03-11 SETBACK SETBACK IS THE DISTANCE A BUIL.DING MUST BE SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES OR DEED RESTRICTIONS. SETBACK: IN LAND PLANNING, THE DISTANCE FROM A LOT LINE, EASEMENT, OR EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT CANNOT BE ENCROACHED ON BY A NEW IMPROVEMENT. SETBACK ORDINANCE REGULATES THE DISTANCE FROM THE LOT LINE TO THE POINT WHERE IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED. THE SETBACK COULD INCLUDE FURNISHINGS, PLANTINGS INCLUDING STREET TREES ...
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-45
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SOURCE: CITY OF PALO ALTO
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND DE ANZA BOULEVARD SHOULD BE PEDESTRIAN-
FRIENDLY BOULEVARDS, AS REQUIRED BY NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL
FOR NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD (WHICH SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO SOUTH DE ANZA
BOULEVARD) AND HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD.
REDUCTION OF MASSING ALONG STREETS SUCH AS STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
AND DE ANZA BOULEVARD
REDUCTION OF MASSING ALONG OTHER STREETS IS INDICATED.
DOUBLE ROW OF TREES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO CREATE A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY
WALKING ENVIRONMENT
B03-12 PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY WALKING ENVIRONMENT
WALKABLE
FACILITATE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT IN CUPERTINO
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
DISTANCES
MAPS
REST AREAS
MEETING PLACES SEATING SHELTERS FROM WIND, SUN, RAIN REDUCTION IN USE OF AUTOMOBILES ENCOURAGE PROPERTY AND/OR BUSINESS OWNERS TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY AMENITIES ON THEIR STREET FRONTAGE THESE AMENITIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROJECT BENEFITS PEDESTRIAN BILL OF RIGHTS SEE ATTACHMENT 3 SOURCE: PEDESTRIAN OFFERS BILL OF RIGHTS TO BY ARROL GELLNER SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE MAY 12, 2007
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-46 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-13
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
B03-14 PUBLIC BENEFITS vs PROJECT BENEFITS
PUBLIC BENEFITS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS OR MAINTENANCE EXPENSES BY THE CITY. EITHER A MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SHOULD BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
PROJECT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC/ COMMUNITY BENEFITS; PROJECT BENEFITS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT
The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-47
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UNDER A 2·TIER FORMAT
BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IS A SERIOUS CONCERN AS FUTURE
PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND CITY COUNCILS MAY NOT BE AS AWARE OF CITY OF
CUPERTINO RESIDENTS' CONCERNS REGARDING SCHOOLS, TRAFFIC, DENSITIES,
HEIGHTS, SETBACKS, ETC.
B03-15 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SETBACK
THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SETBACK...
THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 20, 2005 FOR THE WHOLE FOODS MARKET OMITS
THE SETBACKS IN THE PROJECT DATA FOR THIS PROJECT.
EXCEPT FOR "BUILDING SIDE SETBACK. THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SIDE SETBACK IN
THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN CALLS FOR A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 10 FEET OR
1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE BUIL.DING WALL, WHICH IS GREATER."
TO ITS CREDIT SANDHILL PROPERTIES AND WHOLE FOOD MARKET, 20955 STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD, CONSTRUCTED, THE BUILDING WITH ITS SIDE SETBACK ON
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD WITH THE 35 FEET SETBACK. SEE PHOTO
ALSO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CONSTRUCTED THE SENIOR CENTER BUILDING WITH ITS BACK SETBACK ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD WITH THE 35 FEET SETBACK. SEE
PHOTO
THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS CORNER SIDE SETBACKS CONTRARY TO THE PLANNING STAFF'S INTERPRETATION IN THE SAICH WAY STAFF
REPORT.
SEE ATTACHMENT 10
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-48 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-49
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-16 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
INDEPENDENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC CONSIDERATION.
PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL.
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.
SEPTEMBER 2005
FISCAL AND ENROLLMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY TOWN HALL SERVICES
SEPTEMBER 2005
THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-50 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON THE CITY AND SCHOOLS PREPARED BY ECONOMIC &
PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.
JANUARY 2006
APPLE CAMPUS 2
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS GENERATED BY APPLE IN CUPERTINO
PREPARED BY KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
MAY 2013
COMMISSIONED BY APPLE
B03-17 HOUSING ELEMENT
SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION
RETAIL STRATEGY REPORT PREPARED BY GREENSFELDER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
LLC DATED MARCH 6, 2014:
STUDY AREA # 1 : CUPERTINO INN AND GOODYEAR TIRE
ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER IS A
POSITIVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO RENDER AN OPINION SINCE THERE
ARE NO DEFINITE DETAILS REGARDING THE STRUCTURE.
SEE COMMENTS REGARDING ALOFT HOTEL.
STUDY AREA #2: CITY CENTER
"FUNDAMENTALLY, CITY CENTER IS NOT A RETAIL SITE. THE PROJECT WOULD NEED
TO REDESIGNED TO CREATE
A RETAIL STATEMENT,..."
SEE ATTACHMENT 4
COMMENTS REGARDING CITY CENTER TO FOLLOW
The proposed Project study areas are described in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 3-35.
As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR beginning on page 1-2, the Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing
Element Update, and associated Rezoning. Different types of EIRs are
used for varying situations and intended uses. As described in Section
15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, the most common type of EIR is a
project EIR, which examines the environmental impacts of a specific
development project. As described in Section 15168 of the CEQA
Guidelines, program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria. In this case, the proposed Project that is the subject of this EIR consists of long-term plans that will be implemented over time as policy documents guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this EIR is a program-level EIR that analyzes the potential significant environmental effects of the adoption of the proposed Project. As a program EIR, it is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be proposed under the General Plan. Such subsequent projects will require a separate environmental review, when applicable as required by CEQA, which could be in the form of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent EIR, to secure the necessary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-51
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
tiered from this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address project- specific
impacts of individual projects.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-52 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
STUDY AREA #3: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
PGE HAS PUBLICLY STATED THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION TO VACATE THIS PROPERTY.
STUDY AREA #4: MIRAPATH
"REZONING THE MIRAPATH STUDY AREA FROM ML (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO CG
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ALMOST CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE."
STUDY AREA #5: CUPERTINO VILLAGE
"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."
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-53
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
COMMENTS REGARDING CUPERTINO VILLAGE TO FOLLOW
STUDY AREA #6: VALLCO SHOPPING MALL UNABLE TO COMMENT AS WE NEED TO
EVALUATE AND COMPREHEND THE LENGTHY VALLCO SHOPPING MALL REPORT. IT
DOES APPEAR THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME FOR ANY PLAN TO
PROCEED.
STUDY AREA #7: STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER
"THE SITE MIGHT BE DESIRABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, MORE DENSE
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, ADDITIONAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, OR A COMBINATION OF ANY
OR ALL OF THESE USES."
"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."
"IN ADDITION TO OTHER REASONS NOTED HERE, THESE IMPROVEMENTS MAKE THE
STUDY AREA A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AS A RETAIL PROJECT."
MR. GREENFELDER 'S PRESENTATION AT THE APRIL 1, 2014 CITY COUNCIL. STUDY
SESSION WAS EXCELLENT.
IT IS SUGGESTED THAT MR. GREENFELDER BE REQUESTED TO ELABORATE ON HIS
VIEWS FOR THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY FOR STUDY AREA #6, VALLCO SHOPPING MALL.
ARTICLE: THE PERILS OF MIXED-USE IN SILICON VALLEY (AND WHY EVERY PROJECT
CAN'T BE A SANTANA ROW)
BY LAUREN HEPLER
SOURCE: SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL.
MARCH 11, 2014
PAGE 14
B03-18 HOUSING ELEMENT
STATE LAW STATES THAT SITES MEETING A DEFAULT DENSITY OF 20 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE ARE DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMMODATE LOW INCOME HOUSING.
SITES FOR CONSIDERATION
SITE #2, 1.2 & 1.2
20007 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Housing Element law allows local governments to use “default” density standards determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In accordance with 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. (California Government Code Section
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-54 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
20021 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
10041 NORTH BLANEY AVENUE
WILL ENCOUNTER OPPOSITION
SITE #8 19160 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BARRY SWENSON SITE
IF CONSIDERED WITHIN CONTEXT OF DEVELOPING SITE #W23
19200, 19220 & 19280 STEVENS CREEK BLVD ESPECIALLY 19200 STEVEN
CREEK BLVD
SITE #9
19060 STEVENS CREEK BLVD & 10029 JUDY AVE
LOREE CENTER
HAS BECOME SUCCESSFUL RETAIL/RESTAURANT CENTER
SITE ##P1
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD/ APN 342·14·1 04 BATEH
............STEVENS CREEK BLVD/ APN 342·14·066 UNDEVELOPED SITE
SIZE: 0.67
DU/A: 20·35
REALISTIC CAPACITY: 11·1 9
PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPMENT INTEREST BATEH BROTHERS
SEE ATTACHMENT 5
RECOMMEND NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT Attachment 5
65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iii) states that for suburban jurisdictions: sites allowing
at least 20 units per acre. ) With Cupertino’s last Housing Element
(2007-2014), HCD accepted a realistic yield of 85 percent 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 times 85 percent) =
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.
Descriptions of the proposed housing element sites under the proposed
Project are discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR,
beginning on page 3-65.
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-55
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-56 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-57
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-58 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-59
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SITE #P3
10625 SOUTH FOOTHILL BLVD/APN 342·16-087
CUPERTINO BIKE SHOP (10625)
ANTIQUE FURNITURE
STEVENS CREEK MARKET (10629)
SIZE: 1.3
DU/A: 20·25
REALISTIC CAPACITY: 22·27
PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPMENT INTEREST
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-60 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SEE ATTACHMENT 6
RECOMMEND NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-61
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-62 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-63
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SITE #W1
2173 1 STEVENS CREEK BL. VD/ APN 326·20·048
SHOE REPAIR (21725)
VIVA'S (21731)
DAVE'S BARBER SHOP (21739)
LUCY BEAUTY SALON (21741)
CLEANER (21749)
TAE KWON DO (21749)
134 X 200 = 26,800 SF/ 43,560 = 0.615 ACRE
SIZE: 0.62
DU/A: 4.4·1.2
REALISTIC CAPACITY: 2-6
MAY CONSIDER INCREASE IN DENSITY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-64 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
MAY SUPPLEMENT TO CRITICAL. MASS OF MONTE VISTA BUSINESS
SEE ATTACHMENT 7
RECOMMEND NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT
SITE #W21
21771 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
OFFICE BUILDING (21771)
NOT VIVA'S
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-65
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-66 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SITE #W23
19200, 19220 & 19280 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
APN 375·06·006, 375·06·007, 375·06·005
CITIBANK & LES PAVILLIONS, SUNFLOWER.
SEE ATTACHMENT 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-67
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-68 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-19 ALTHO WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS W SOME PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS WE HAVE NOT
OPINED BECAUSE NO DETAILS, DESIGN OR PLANS HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO DEFINE
OUR COMMENTS.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY
OWNERS.
SOURCE: 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BE HOUSING ELEMENT
2014 SENT AS AN ATTACHMENT FOR MARCH 4, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NO RESPONSE
"IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO DETERMINE THE DENSITY, HEIGHT AND SETBACK
FAVORED BY THE RESIDENTS OF CUPERTINO RATHER THAN THE PROPERTY OWNERS."
SOURCE: PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 19, 2014
See Response to Comments B03-17 and B03-18.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-69
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
NO RESPONSE
2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
SITE 11: GLENBROOK APARTMENTS
SITE 12: VILLAGES OF CUPERTINO
"BOTH SITES CONTAIN EXISTING GARDEN APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE NOT
BUILT TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY. THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES HAVE
LARGE OPEN SPACES THAT EXCEED THE CITY'S OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. AS SUCH,
ADDITIONAL UNITS COULD BE BUILT ON THESE TWO PROPERTIES."
"THIS (THESE) SITE(S) WAS (WERE) RECOMMENDED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
(CONCERNED CITIZENS OF
CUPERTINO).
SOURCE: 2007·20 14 HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GPA·2008·01
RECENTLY, BILTMORE HAS IN 2012 AND 2014 HAS ADDED HOUSING UNITS WITHIN ITS
MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY
B03-20 Mitigation: Housing
previously submitted for Draft Environmental Impact Report for Apple Campus 2
City of Cupertino General Plan
Housing Element 2007-2014
Program 10: Jobs/Housing Balance Program
Require major new office/industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. As part of the development review process, the City will evaluate the impact of any application that will produce additional jobs in the community. The purpose of the evaluation is to describe the impacts of the new jobs on the City's housing stock, especially in relation to the
jobs/housing ratio in the City.
City of Palo Alto/Stanford Hospital & Clinics/Lucille Packard Children's Hospital Stanford
proposal includes a $23.1 million contribution to Palo Alto's affordable housing plan
Stanford's Vice President for Special Projects said the amount is equivalent to what a for-profit
Population and housing impacts of the proposed Project are described
in detail in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR,
beginning on page 4.11-10. The housing impacts of the proposed Project would be less-than-significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
The comment also provides information on another project. See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-70 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
developer would have to pay .... the hospital is exempt from the housing fee, but is willing to pay it
anyway to help mitigate the project's impacts .... the hospital aren't offering to build the houses
because they don't own the land where these houses would have to stand."
Source: Stanford Offers $125 Million in 'Community Benefits' for Hospital Expansion
By Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online
June 16, 2009
In exchange for approving the project, Palo Alto negotiated a development agreement that
includes nearly $175 million in "community benefits" to be provided by Stanford, ...about $23.2
million for the city to use on housing projects.
Source: Council OKs Stanford Hospital Expansion
By Diana Samuels
San Jose Mercury News
June 8, 2011
City of Menlo Park/Facebook West Campus
The company is seeking a development agreement that would spell out its long-term
development rights in exchange for public benefits. Facebook would also pay approximately $4.5
million to the City's below-market rate housing fund.
Source: More Details Emerge on Face book's West Campus Design
By Nathan Donato-Weinstein
Silicon Valley Business journal
September 28, 2012
Page 10
City of Cupertino/ Apple
"...a $2.5 million contribution to affordable housing, the report said."
Source: Apple Plans to Add Thousands of jobs
by Peter Burrows of Bloomberg
San Francisco Chronicle
June 6, 2013
" ... payment of a $2.5 million Below Market Rate (BMR) affordable housing fee. Apple will be making an additional voluntary $2.5 million contribution to the City's BMR program as part of its
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-71
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
investment in public improvements and benefits."
Source: Economic and Fiscal Impacts Generated by Apple in Cupertino
by Keyser Marston Associates
Prepared for Apple
May 2013
Page 18
Footnote 20
Comment: Stanford $5 billion project > $23 million for affordable housing Facebook West
Campus project
> $4.5 million for below-market rate housing
Apple Campus 2 $3 to 5 billion project > $5.0 million for affordable housing
CURRENT COMMENT:
"IF YOU'VE EVER WONDERED WHAT MOUNTAIN VIEW (CUPERTINO) MIGHT LOOK
LIKE IF THERE WAS ENOUGH HOUSING FOR ALL OF GOGGLE' [sic] (APPLE'S) LOCAL
EMPLOYEES, YOU AREN'T ALONE. BERKELEY·BASED DESIGNER WONDERED THE SAME
THING. HE CREATED A DIGITAL RENDERING..."
SEE ATTACHMENT "ITOWN"
SOURCE: GOGGLE [sic] TOWN: IMAGINING HOUSING FOR ALL EMPLOYEES
BY DANIEL DEBOLT
MARCH 7, 2014
PAGE 1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-72 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-73
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
HOUSING
FACEBOOK "WILL FUND 15 LOW-INCOME UNITS AT ANTON MENLO, PLANNED 400-UNIT
UPSCALE APARTMENT COMMUNITY IN MENLO PARK .... "
FACEBOOK AGREED TO CONTRIBUTE TO MENLO PARK'S AFFORDABLE STOCK AS PART
OF A DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE CITY THAT
ALLOWED FACEBOOK TO EXPAND IN MENLO PARK."
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-74 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SOURCE: FACEBOOK TO FUND 15 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN
SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOPURNAL
OCTOBER 4, 2013
PAGE 19
B03-21 TRAFFIC
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT
THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENCOURAGES REDUCED TRAFFIC
DEMAND BY PROMOTING EFFECTIVE TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAMS
FOR EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT.
NOTABLE ADDITION TO THE TDM PROGRAM FOR THE SAMSUNG BUILDING AT 625·685
CLYDE AVENUE IS A SHUTTL.E SERVICE FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC.
To ENSURE THAT A PROJECT PROVIDES AND MAINTAINS THE PERCENT PEAK HOUR TRIP
REDUCTION, AN ANNUAL. THIRD-PART OF THE TDM PROGRAM WILL BE REQUIRED. THE
TDM REPORT WILL BE PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT AND PAID FOR BY
THE APPLICANT. THE TDM REPORT WILL INCLUDE A DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL EMPLOYEE COMMUTE, WHICH INFORMATION SHALL BE OBTAINED BY SURVEY OF ALL EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE BUILDINGS ON THE PROJECT SITE. ALL NONRESPONSES
TO THE EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SURVEY WILL BE COUNTED AS A DRIVE-ALONE TRIP.
THE ANNUAL TDM REPORT WILL QUANTIFY THE PEAK HOUR TRIP ACHIEVED FOR THE PROJECT, AND IF THAT FIGURE IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED PERCENT, THE REPORT WILL DESCRIBED ADDITIONAL MEASURES THAT WILL BE ADOPTED TO ATTAIN THE PERCENT REQUIRE. A SIX MONTH GRACE PERIOD IS PROPOSED THAT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO ADJUST THE TDM MEASURES TO MEET THE PERCENT REQUIREMENT. IF THE PERCENT TRIP REDUCTION IS NOT ACHIEVED BY THE END OF THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE FINED A PENALTY OF $100,000 FOR THE FIRST 1 PERCENT BELOW THE PERCENT THRESHOL.D, THEN $50,000 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
The comment provides information on another project. See Response
to Comment B03-01. Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed
Project are described in detail in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and
Traffic, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.13-49.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-75
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PERCENT BELOW THE PERCENT THRESHOLD. THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THE PROPOSED
PENALTY IS TOO HIGH. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW STAFF BELIEVES THE PENALTY LEVEL IS
APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IF THE PENALTY IS TOO LOW, IT WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE
TO PAY THE PENALTY THAN TO RETAIN COSTLY TDM MEASURES, SUCH AS THE SHUTTLE
SERVICE.
SOURCE: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
SAMSUNG BUILDING
625·685 CLYDE AVENUE
MARCH 19, 2013
"CORPORATE SHUTTLE SERVICES... SUCH AS APPLE INC. AND GOGGLE [sic] INC.
TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES FROM SAN FRANCISCO (AND OTHER LOCALES) TO CAMPUSES
IN SILICON VALLEY. BUT SUCH SERVICES HAVE REMAINED... SEPARATE FROM EACH
OTHER AND CERTAINLY CUT OFF FROM YOUR AVERAGE NON-TECH-WORKER CITIZEN.
NOW SEVERAL TECH COMPANIES AND DEVELOPERS ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO PLAN
A MORE EFFICIENT AND OPEN SYSTEM... SAN FRANCISCO-BASED DEVELOPER TMG
PARTNERS ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK IT WOULD TEAM WITH GOGGLE [sic] INC., INTUIT
CORP., AND FELLOW DEVELOPER SARIS REGIS GROUP OF NORTHERN CAL.IFORNIA TO
FORM A NEW TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY IN MOUNTAIN VIEW. THE NON
PROFIT ORGANIZATION WILL. DEVISE, FUND AND OPERATE A SHARED-SHUTTLE SERVICE
THAT WILL OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY AND BE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
AND WORKERS AT OTHER COMPANIES."
"TMG, WHICH IS BUILDING A NEW 385,000 SQUARE FOOT CAMPUS FOR SAMSUNG R&D
INSTITUTE AMERICA AT 685 CLYDE AVENUE WAS REQUIRED TO SET UP THE AGENCY AS
A CITY CONDITION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT."
"GOING FORWARD, COMPANIES THAT WANT TO GROW IN THE CITY MIGHT NOT HAVE A
CHOICE. "WE'RE STARTING TO MAKE IT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR A LOT OF THESE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN," SAID MARGARET ABE KOGA, A CITY COUNCILWOMAN."
"THE AGENCY'S GOALS INCLUDE REDUCING SINGLE-OCCUPANT CAR USE, PROVIDING
MORE TRANSIT OPTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC, AND CONNECTING
BUSINESSES TO DOWNTOWN MOUNTAIN VIEW."
"ASIDE FROM KEEPING SOLO CAR DRIVERS OFF THE ROAD, THE ASSOCIATION'S
EFFECTIVENESS WILL BE IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF NEARLY EMPTY EMPLOYEE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-76 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SHUTTLES IN TOWN, WHILE POTENTIALLY COORDINATING OTHER EFFORTS TO REDUCE
CAR TRIPS."
"REDUCED TRAFFIC ISN'T THE ONLY WAY THE PUBLIC WILL BENEFITS. THE
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (TMA) IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO RUN
A SHUTTLE SERVICE TO AND FROM DOWNTOWN THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC."
SOURCE: GOGGLE [sic] JOINS TECH FIRMS TO FORM TRANSIT AGENCY
BY DANIEL DEBOLT
MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE
OCTOBER 25, 2013
"WITH MOUNTAIN VIEW FACING A POSSIBLE AVALANCHE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND
GENTRIFICATION FROM 5.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE GROWTH IN THE
DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE, THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY EMPLOYEES COMPANIES
CHOOSE TO PACK INTO THEIR BUILDINGS IS AS IMPORTANT A FACTOR AS EVER,... "
"DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING CONSEQUENCES FOR NEARLY EVERY RESIDENT OF A
CITY, MOUNTAIN VIEW'S LARGEST EMPLOYER, GOGGLE [sic], REFUSES TO SAY EXACTLY
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES IT HAS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW, OR EVEN HOW MANY IT TENDS TO
HOUSE IN 1,000 SQUARE FEET."
"WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE ISSUE, MOUNTAIN VIEW'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR RANDY TSUDA SAID THAT "IT'S TOUGH TO PIN DOWN BECAUSE COMPANIES
DON'T NECESSARILY OPENLY SHARE THAT NUMBER."
"IT'S NO SECRET THAT GOGGLE [sic] AND FACEBOOK HAVE BEEN LEADING A TREND TO
SQUEEZE EMPLOYEES INTO TIGHTER SPACES. THAT MAY BE ONE REASON WHY TRAFFIC
AND HOUSING COSTS HAVE SPIKED IN RECENT YEARS WITHOUT MUCH NEW OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT."
SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES
BY DANIEL DEBOLT
MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE
APRIL 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-77
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
MOUNTAIN VIEW: 5.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
STANDARD CALCULATION:
5,500, 000 SF/ 333 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 18,517
5,500, 000 SF/ 250 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 22,000
"THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION DID A SURVEY IN 2012 OF
500 CORPORATE REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVES, ASKING HOW MANY SQUARE FEET WAS
ALLOCATED TO EMPLOYEES. IT CONCLUDED THAT "THE METRIC HAS CHANGED FROM
225 SQUARE FEET (PER EMPLOYEE) IN 2010 TO 178 (SQUARE FEET) IN 2012, AND IS
PROJECTED TO REACH 151 IN 2017,..."
SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES
BY DANIEL DEBOLT
MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE
APRIL 18, 2014
MOUNTAIN VIEW: 5.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
NEW CALCULATION:
2010
5,500,000 SF/225 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 24,444
2012
5,500,000 SF/178 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 31,250
2017
5,500,000 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 38,424
SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES
BY DANIEL DEBOLT
MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE
APRIL 18, 2014
AT RECENT APRIL 8, 2014 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MEETING THE CITY COUNCIL HAS
RECOMMENDED TO RREEF TO SCALE BACK ITS 1 MILLION SQUARE FEET BUILDING AT
700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD BY 25 PERCENT.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-78 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
"...CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS (OF MOUNTAIN VIEW) SUPPORTED THE USE OF
"CONGESTION PRICING" AS A WAY TO ENFORCE PROPOSED LIMITS ON COMMUTER
TRAFFIC INTO THE CITY'S GROWING NORTH BAYSHORE OFFICE PARK."
"COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY SUCCESS WITH SUCH A CAP IMPOSED BY
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, WHICH PREVENTS THE STANFORD CAMPUS FROM EXPANDING
UNLESS CAR TRIPS ARE KEPT AT 1989 LEVELS."
SOURCE: CITY CONSIDERS FEES TO REDUCE COMMUTERS
BY DANIEL DEBOLT
MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE
MAY 2, 2014
"...PARTLY FROM THE 8,000 NET-NEW APPLE EMPLOYEES THE (APPLE) CAMPUS (2) WILL
BRING,... AND, ONCE COMPLETED, WILL APPLE LEAVE THE SCORES OF BUILDINGS IT HAS
LEASED IN CUPERTINO,..."
SOURCE: THE APPLE EFFECT: CUPERTINO AWAITS JOBS, CASH
BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN
SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL
OCTOBER 18, 2013
"APPLE EXPECTS TO EXPAND ITS SILICON VALLEY WORKFORCE BY NEARLY 50 PERCENT
DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS,...
THE PROJECTIONS DETAILED IN A REPORT... ENVISION APPLE HIRING 7,400 MORE
WORKERS AT ITS CUPERTINO, CALIF., HEADQUARTERS BETWEEN NOW AND THE
PLANNED COMPLETION OF A NEW OFFICE COMPLEX IN 2016. APPLE INC. NOW EMPLOYS
ABOUT 16,000 PEOPLE IN AND AROUND CUPERTINO,...
SOURCE: APPLE POISED FOR HIRING SPREE IN SILICON VALLEY
BY MICHAEL LIEDTKE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-79
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2013
"APPLE PLANS TO BOOST ITS WORKFORCE BY 48 PERCENT TO 23,400 IN ITS HOMETOWN
OF CUPERTINO... BY THE TIME ITS ENORMOUS NEW HEADQUARTERS IS COMPLETED IN
2016."
SOURCE: APPLE PLAN TO ADD THOUSANDS OF JOBS
BY PETER BURROWS
BLOOMBERG
2013
APPLE $35 MILLION ON A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SOURCE: FIA
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
2013
PAGE
"APPLE CAMPUS 2 WOULD ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY 14,200 EMPLOYEES AT FULL
OCCUPANCY. THIS CORRESPONDS TO AN EMPLOYEE DENSITY OF 4.15 EMPLOYEES PER
1, 000 SF... THE EMPLOYEE DENSITY PROPOSED AT THE PROJECT SITE IS HIGHER THAN
INDUSTRY STANDARDS (3.3 EMPLOYEES PER 1,001 SF) AND APPLE'S EXISTING CAMPUS
AT THE INFINITY LOOP CAMPUS AND OFFICE SOUTH OF MARIANI AVENUE IN CUPERTINO
(3.8 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF)."
SOURCE: APPLE CAMPUS 2
DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
FEHR & PEERS
MAY 31, 2014
PAGE 1
B03-22 COMMENT: 4.15 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF= 241 SF/EMPLOYEE The comment provides information on another project. See Response
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-80 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
3.30 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF= 303 SF/EMPLOYEE
3.60 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF= 278 SF/EMPLOYEE
2011
14,200 EMPLOYEES X 3.59 = 50,978 TRIPS
2017
AT 151 SF/EMPLOYEE IN 3,420,000 SF= 22,649 EMPLOYEES @ APPLE CAMPUS 2
TRIP GENERATION: 22,649 X 3.59 = 81,310 TRIPS
to Comment B03-01.
B03-23 COMMENT: "THE MANY VARIABLES OF CORPORATE REAL ESTATE PLANNING MAKE
DETERMINING HEADCOUNT FROM SQUARE FOOTAGE DIFFICULT."
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-24 COMMENT: "EVALUATE THE EMPLOYEE DENSITY IN COMMERCIAL SPACE AS IT AFFECTS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, PARKING DEMAND AND CONSIDERATION OF ADEQUATE TDM
PROGRAMS."
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description of the Draft EIR, on page
3-12, the propose Project would generate 44,242 jobs over the buildout
of the General Plan. Specifically, footnote 9 on page 3-12 states that
jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows;
4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300 square feet
equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation
divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs; and 1,339 hotel rooms at
.3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs. The traffic
impact analysis, as with each environmental analysis, including the
traffic analysis, evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the
potential future jobs in Cupertino as a result of the proposed Project.
B03-25 COMMENT: "AS TRAFFIC DELAYS WORSENS, SO DOES AIR QUALITY. SHOULD OR CAN
THIS BE FACTORED INTO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS?"
Traffic delays have been factored into the environmental analysis and
impacts of mitigation for the proposed Project. A detailed analysis of
delayed traffic's impacts to air quality can be found in Chapter 4.2, Air
Quality, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page. 4.2-22.
B03-26 COMMENT: "THERE IS WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY CONCERN ABOUT THE RAPID
EXPANSION OF BUILDING DENSITY ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN CUPERTINO. THE MOST
DYNAMIC AND OBVIOUS INDICATORS OF THIS PUBLIC CONCERN ARE PARKING AND
TRAFFIC. IN MOST CASES THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT
HAS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR AN IMPACT THAT CAN BE EASILY MITIGATED. YET
RESIDENTS TALK CONTINUALLY OF EXPERIENCING INCREASING TIME DELAYS ON MANY
Traffic impacts of the proposed Project are described in detail in Chapter
4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page
4.13-49.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-81
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
MAJOR ROUTES THROUGH TOWN AND AT KEY INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT TOWN.
B03-27 COMMENT: THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT HAS SIGNIFICANT
BUT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED.
The comment correctly states the conclusions of the Draft EIR in
Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic; however, it is unclear if the
comment is referring to the proposed Project or the Apple Campus 2
project. Regardless, the comment does not state a specific concern or
question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures
contained in the Draft EIR nor does the comment raise a new
environmental issue; therefore, no further response is required.
B03-28 CITY OF PALO ALTO
CASTILLEJA SCHOOL
"IN THE LONG SAGA THAT INVOLVES THE TRAFFIC AROUND PALO ALTO'S CASTILLEJA SCHOOL,..." "...IT HAS HIRED TRAFFIC GURUS WHO HAVE PROMISED REFORMS THAT CAN LESSEN THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AROUND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
CASTILLEJA ALSO IS RUNNING SHUTTLE BUSES..."
SOURCE: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PAYS BIG FINE, DIGS IN OVER TRAFFIC
BY SCOTT HERHOLD SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS NOVEMBER 10, 2013
"THE CITY ALSO AGREED TO A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.... IN JANUARY 2015, THE SCHOOL WOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT THAT REFLECTS ITS GROWTH AS IT... HITS TRIP REDUCTION TARGETS OUTLINED IN THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM."
"IT IS THE CITY'S OPINION THAT THE PROCESS TO AMEND THE SCHOOL'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS THE BEST WAY TO FULLY ANALYZE THE CURRENT OPERATIONS OF THE SCHOOL AND ADDRESS THE IMPACTS THAT AFFECT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,"
SOURCE: CASTILLEJA'S PLANS GETS PASSING GRADE
BY JASON GREEN BAY AREA NEWS GROUP MARCH 5, 2014
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-82 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-29 CITY OF MENLO PARK & FACEBOOK
TRIP CAP
SPECIFIC PARAMETERS REGARDING THE TRIP CAP CAN BE FOUND IN THE WEST
CAMPUS TRIP CAP MONITORING
AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY DATED MARCH 26, 2013.
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-30 CUPERTINO: 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OFFICE
EXISTING: 17,113 SF
2012
17,113 SF/176 SF PER EMPLOYEE* = 97 EMPLOYEES
2017
17,113 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE* = 113 EMPLOYEES *
"THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION DID A SURVEY IN 2012
OF 500 CORPORATE REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVES, ASKING HOW MANY SQUARE FEET WAS
ALLOCATED TO EMPLOYEES. IT CONCLUDED THAT "THE METRIC HAS CHANGED FROM
225 SQUARE FEET (PER EMPLOYEE) IN 2010 TO 176 (SQUARE FEET) IN 2012, AND IS
PROJECTED TO REACH 151 IN 2017,..."
SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES
BY DANIEL DEBOLT
MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE
APRIL 18, 2014
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-31 RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 1,895
ALTERNATIVE A: +500,000 SF
2012
+500,000 SF /176 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 2840
2017
+500,000 SF/ 151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 3311
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 0
ALTERNATIVE B: +2,000,000 SF
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-83
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
2012
+2,000,000 SF/176 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 11,364
2017
+2,000,000 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 13,245
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: + 1,421
ALTERNATIVE C: +3,500,000 SF
2012
+3,500,000 SF/176 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 19,886
2017
+3,500,000 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 23,179
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: +2,526
SOURCE: 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
B03-32 "THE FEHR AND PEERS STUDY AREA FOCUSED ON THE MAIN BUILDINGS AT APPLE'S INFINITE LOOP CAMPUS: INFINITE LOOP 1-6 AND ADJACENT BUILDINGS MARIANI 1 AND DE ANZA 3. TOGETHER, THESE BUILDINGS HOUSE ROUGHLY 4,199 EMPLOYEES IN A TOTAL OCCUPIED AREA OF 1,165,967 SQUARE FEET AND REPRESENT THE CORE OF APPLE'S
INNOVATION PROCESS."
SOURCE: ALVES CAFE TRANSPORTATION
TDM OVERVIEW FEHR AND PEERS TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
2009 AND 2011
1,165,967 SQUARE FEET/4,199 EMPLOYEES = 166.66 SF PER EMPLOYEE
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-33 APPLE CAMPUS 2
PHASE 1 2,820,000 SQUARE FEET/12,000 EMPLOYEES = 235 SF PER EMPLOYEE
PHASE 2 300,000 SQUARE FEET/1,200 EMPLOYEES = 250 SF PER EMPLOYEE
3,120,000 SQUARE FEET/14,200 EMPLOYEES = 220 SF PER EMPLOYEE
APPLE
"AND, ONCE COMPLETED (APPLE CAMPUS 2), WILL APPLE LEAVE THE SCORES OF
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-84 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
BUILDINGS IT HAS LEASED IN
CUPERTINO, SUNNYVALE AND SANTA CL.ARA OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS?"
SOURCE; THE APPLE EFFECT
BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN
SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL
OCTOBER 18, 2013
CUPERTINO
SANTA CLARA
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD OFFICE CAMPUS
295,000 SF + 54,900 SF = 349,900 SF
"IN 2012 APPLE LEASED TWO LARGE BUILDINGS IN SANTA CLARA..." PEERY-
ARRILLAGA
SUNNYVALE
(APPLE)... "SIGNED A LEASE FOR A TWO-BUILDING CAMPUS TOTALING 108,712
SQUARE FEET AT 975 AND 995 BENECIA AVENUES." PEERY-ARRILLAGA
SOURCE: APPLE SPREADING TO SUNNYVALE
BY MARY ANN AZEVEDO AND SHANA LYNCH
SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011
"IN ADDITION, APPLE IS EXPECTED TO LEASE 501 MACARA AVENUE."
"APPLE HAS AGREED TO LEASE A SEVEN-BUILDING CAMPUS IN SUNNYVALE WHERE
THE TECH GIANT COULD MOVE ABOUT 1,450 WORKERS,...."
SUNNYVALE CROSSING
290,000 SF/1,450 EMPLOYEES = 200 SF PER EMPLOYEE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-85
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
"APPLE HAD INSISTED ON LEASES IN THE THREE-TO-FIVE-YEAR RANGE AT VARIOUS
EXPANSION SITES IN SUNNYVALE, BUT NOW IS SIGNING 7-T0-10 YEAR LEASES,....
SOURCE: APPLE AGREES TO LEASE SUNNYVALE CAMPUS
BY GEORGE AVALOS
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
MAY 22, 2014
ERICSSON
SANTA CLARA SQUARE
410,000 SQUARE FEET /2100 EMPLOYEES = 195 SF PER EMPLOYEE
FACEBOOK/WEST CAMPUS
433,555 SQUARE FEET/2,800 EMPLOYEES = 155 SF PER EMPLOYEE
GOGGLE [sic]
1,100,000 SQUARE FEET
LINKEDIN
"LINKEDIN AGREED TO FULLY LEASED [sic] A SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE TOWER THAT'S
BEING BUILT BY TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES IN THE SOUTH OF MARKET AREA... THE
PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKING COMPANY WILL OCCUPY THE BUILDING AT 222
SECOND ST. ON A LEASE THAT INCLUDES 450,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICES,... THE
TOWER CAN ACCOMMODATE 2,500 WORKERS,..."
SOURCE: ENTIRE SKYSCRAPER TO BE OCCUPIED
BLOOMBERG NEWS
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
APRIL 23, 2014
PAGE B12
450,000 SQUARE FEET/2,500 EMPL.OYEES = 180 SF PER EMPLOYEE
NVIDIA
1,000,000 SQUARE FEET/4,000 EMPLOYEES = 250 SF PER EMPLOYEE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-86 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SALESFORCE/SAN FRANCISCO
400,000 SQUARE FEET/2000 EMPLOYEES = 200 SF PER EMPLOYEE
SAMSUNG/MOUNTAIN VIEW
B03-34 HOTELS
ALOFT
BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES
BAR AREA
FOOD SERVICE AND MEETING ROOMS TO SERVE HOTEL GUESTS
TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE MOST OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES
CUPERTINO INN
BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES
SMALL BAR AREA
3 MEETING ROOMS WITH TOTAL OF 1,720 SF
FOOD SERVICE AND MEETING ROOMS TO SERVE HOTEL GUESTS
TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE MOST OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES
CYPRESS HOTEL
FULL SERVICE HOTEL
BAR AND RESTAURANT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
SEVERAL MEETING ROOMS WITH TOTAL OF 5,000 SF
HILTON GARDEN INN
BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES
SMALL BAR/RESTAURANT AREA
3 MEETING ROOMS WITH TOTAL OF 1,650 SF
FOOD SERVICE AND MEETING ROOMS TO SERVE HOTEL GUESTS
TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE MOST OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO
"..MAY BUILD UP TO FIVE-STORY HOTEL OF UP TO 250 ROOMS; IF THERE ARE OVER
160 ROOMS THE HOTEL
SHALL PROVIDE FULL AMENITIES, INCLUDING A BANQUET FACILITY."
SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-87
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
JANUARY 20, 2009
ASA·2012-11 HOTEL W 180 ROOMS
REPLACE REQUIREMENT FOR A 400·PERSON BANQUET FACILITY WITH A 6,500
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND
MEETING SPACE
SOURCE: RESOLUTION # 12·098
ITEM #6
MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN
BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES
BAR AND RESTAURANT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
CONFERENCE AND MEETING ROOM
REQUIRED RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE: 6,500 SF
PROPOSED RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE: 7,095 SF
SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 15, 2013
RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACES WILL BE ABLE TO RECONFIGURE TO HAVE 7,095
SF
MARRIOT ON WOLFE ROAD
OAKS MIXED-USE PROJECT
MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & RETAIL/OFFICE/CONVENTION
2 PHASE PROJECT
MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN
122 ROOMS IN 4 STORY BUILDING
RETAIL/OFFICE/CONVENTION
CONVENTION HALL
14,902 SF W 804 SF PANTRY
NO KITCHEN
NO CONNECTION TO MARRIOT
NO ASSURANCE RETAIL/OFFICE/CONVENTION
HALL WILL BE BUILT
CITY COUNCIL APPROVALS EXPIRE 9/2/12
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-88 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
EXTENSION OF PERMITS TO 9/2/14
B03-35 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, & TRAILS
COORDINATE WITH SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
The comment requests coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District on Open Space, Parks and Trails. Existing General Plan Policy
2-73 Strategy 4 encourages the City to establish a Joint Use Agreement
with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) that sets standards
and establishes implementation measures for creek trails. Further, the
City coordinates with the SCVWD on City initiated projects and
improvements located adjacent to SCVWD owned property or
easements, including parks and open space projects.
B03-36 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
POPPY WAY /SARON GARDENS/MURANO
53 TOWN HOUSES AND 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
RAINBOW DRIVE
APN
2005
CENTEX HOMES
CITY ALLOWED ADDITIONAL 15.66 FEET FRONT SET BACK TO 1282 AND 1292 POPPY WAY WITH CORRESPONDING
DECREASE IN WIDTH OF POPPY WAY
POPPY WAY NEIGHBORS CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY OF NEGOTIATING TWO-WAY
TRAFFIC ON NARROW STREET
"APPROVED MODIFICATIONS TO THE MURANO DEVELOPMENT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BARON GARDEN) TO
WIDEN POPPY WAY AND ADD A PARKING LANE."
SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 4, 2005
CUPERTINO SCENE
FEBRUARY 2005
"THE COSTS FOR ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY, REMOVAL.
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-89
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
OF THE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AND INSTALLATION OF NEW
IMPROVEMENTS RANGE FROM
APPROXIMATELY $300,000 TO $500,000."
SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 4, 2005
AGENDA ITEM #23
ACTUAL COST: $80,000
SEE ATTACHMENT 9
Attachment 9
INITIATIVES/SARON GARDENS
COUNCIL GIVES OK TO SCRAP SARON GARDENS
Prometheus will demolish the 39-unit Saran Garden Apartments and one single-family house to
construct 55 single-family homes.
The NET INCREASE in units must be used to determine the number of below market rate units
to be constructed. As the project results in a net increase of 15 units, the developer is responsible
for two below market rate units (15% of 15 units). The developer has voluntarily agreed to construct
3 below market rate units in an effort to offset the impact of demolishing Saran Garden Apartments,
which are low-income housing units.
"This is a good project," said Councilman Richard Lowenthal. ... As Cupertino is nearly built out, this
is a good way to get affordable housing .... "
Vice-Mayor Sandra James said, " ... This should be a model for all future projects."
The Cupertino Courier
July 16, 2003
www. svcn. com/archives/cu perti nocou rier/20030716/cu-news 1 .shtml
RESULT: LOSS OF 39 LOW-INCOME HOUSING UNITS FOR 3 BELOW-
MARKET UNITS
Saran Gardens Apartments: 13 students at Regnart
3 students at Kennedy
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-90 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
4 students at Manta Vista
RESULT: 10 HOUSING UNITS = 4 STUDENTS AT CUSD
10 HOUSING UNITS = 1 STUDENT AT FUHSD
Attachment 9
INITIATIVES/SARON GARDENS
COUNCIL GIVES OK TO SCRAP SARON GARDENS
Prometheus will demolish the 39-unit Saran Garden Apartments and one single-family house to
construct 55 single-family homes.
The NET INCREASE in units must be used to determine the number of below market rate units
to be constructed. As the project results in a net increase of 15 units, the developer is responsible
for two below market rate units (15% of 15 units). The developer has voluntarily agreed to construct
3 below market rate units in an effort to offset the impact of demolishing Saran Garden Apartments,
which are low-income housing units.
"This is a good project," said Councilman Richard Lowenthal. ... As Cupertino is nearly built out, this
is a good way to get affordable housing .... "
Vice-Mayor Sandra James said, " ... This should be a model for all future projects."
The Cupertino Courier
July 16, 2003
www. svcn. com/archives/cu perti nocou rier/20030716/cu-news 1 .shtml
RESULT: LOSS OF 39 LOW-INCOME HOUSING UNITS FOR 3 BELOW-
MARKET UNITS
Saran Gardens Apartments: 13 students at Regnart
3 students at Kennedy
4 students at Manta Vista
RESULT: 10 HOUSING UNITS = 4 STUDENTS AT CUSD
10 HOUSING UNITS = 1 STUDENT AT FUHSD
UNDER THE ABOVE GUIDELINES: MURANO HOMES DOES NOT MEET THE 2001 HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
SARON GARDEN APARTMENTS REQUIRED MURANO HOMES
39 APARTMENTS/ 1 HOME 55 HOMES
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-91
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
*40 UNITS 80 UNITS 55 HOMES
12 BMR UNITS 3 BMR UNITS
@15% OF 80 UNITS
*39 RENTAL UNITS 39 UNITS NO RENTAL UNITS
* BMR UNITS 3 BMR UNITS
@20% OF 55 UNITS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-92 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-37 SOUTH STELLING ROAD/CATALANO
5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
1108 1 SOUTH STELLING ROAD
APN 362·1 8·003
2006
PAN CAL
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: DEDICATED 25 FEET TO WIDEN SOUTH STELLING ROAD
SOURCE: ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SET
A-2
12/12/05
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-38 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN: CORNER LOT SETBACK
SEE ATTACHMENT 10 REGARDING BAlCH WAY STATION APPEAL
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-039 ATTACHMENT 10
To: CITY OF CUPERTINO
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-93
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
FROM: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO
DARREL LUM
DENNIS WHITTAKER
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2013
RE: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT
SAICH WAY STATION
EXCLUSION OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
THERE WAS A MAJOR CHANGE SINCE THE DECISION BY THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE (ERC) TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA IN THE PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF REPORT:
IN THE AGENDA FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE DECEMBER
6, 2012 MEETING, IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE DATED DECEMBER 6, 2012, IN THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR THE JANUARY 8, 2012 MEETING AND THE POSTED SIGN AT THE
PROJECT SITE, THEY INCLUDED THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC
PLAN TO ALLOW A REDUCED STREET SIDE SETBACK FOR TWO NEW COMMERCIAL
BUILDING PADS, WHERE A 35 FOOT SETBACK (FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB) IS
REQUIRED.
YET PRIOR TO THE FINAL APPROVAL, IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED JANUARY 8, 2013, APPLICATION SUMMARY:
3. EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN (EXC-2012·02) TO ALLOW A
REDUCED STREET SIDE
SETBACK FOR TWO NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING PADS, WHERE A 35 FOOT
SETBACK
(FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB) IS REQUIRED. NOT REQUIRED.
SEE DISCUSSION BELOW
PAGE 4
HEART OF THE CITY STREET SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION
AFTER FURTHER REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-94 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PLAN (HOC), STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT AN EXCEPTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE
PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK ALONG SAICH WAY. ACCORDING HOC SECTION 1 .0
1.030(B)( 1) & 1.0 1.040(0)(1), THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK ALONG THE STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD FRONTAGE IS 35 FEET (MEASURED FROM THE CURB), WHICH
CONSISTS OF A 26 FOOT BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND A 9 FOOT BUILDING
SETBACK FROM THE BACK OF THE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT. SINCE THE
BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE STEVENS CREEK
FRONTAGE, ANY NON·STEVENS CREEK FRONTAGE ONLY REQUIRES A MINIMUM
SETBACK OF 9 FEET. THE PROJECT PROPOSED A MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK OF 12
FEET, WHICH CONFORMS TO THE HOC STANDARD.
THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN IS B. FRONT
SETBACK
1. MINIMUM SETBACK -FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE 35 FEET FROM THE
EDGE OF THE CURB (NINE (9) FEET FROM THE REQUIRED BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE
EASEMENT; SEE SECTION 1 .01 .040(0)).
IT DOES NOT STATE "WHICH CONSISTS OF"
ACCORDING TO HOC SECTION 1 .0 1 030(B)(2):
2. CORNER PARCELS - SETBACK REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO BOTH FRONTAGES (E.G.,
CORNER PARKING LOTS ARE DISCOURAGED); MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT
RECOMMENDED BUT NOT REQUIRED.
OTHER PLANNING PLANS, SUCH AS BELOW, HAVE SPECIFIC SETBACKS APPROVED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE (PLANNING AND/OR LEGAL)
INTERPRETATION.
North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan
Adopted by the Cupertino City Council January 20, 1976
Amended by the Cupertino City Council November 1, 1976
Section 6.
"Auxiliary streets (Torre Avenue, Bandley, Valley Green, Lazaneo,
Alves and Mariani Drives): the landscape setback for the above listed streets shall
contain a minimum land area equal to 25 feet times the lineal street frontage measured from face of
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-95
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
curb. The intent of this requirement is to create a broad landscaped setback; ... "
South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan
Adopted by the Cupertino City Council July 1, 1985
Section 20 Streetscape
a. The setback distance measured between the street curb line and building shall be 35
feet for new construction unless unusual site or architectural problems make the setback infeasible.
South Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Planning Area
Adopted by the Cupertino City Council December 21, 1981
Section 19. Landscaping Requirements
c. Property owners are required to provide, where feasible, no less than twenty-five feet
of landscape area from face-of-curb along secondary streets (Wildflower Way, Prospect Road, the
planned West Valley Freeway frontage road).
Monta Vista Design Guidelines
Adopted by the Cupertino City Council February 21, 1978
Section 6. Areawide Form
C. Building Placements (Setbacks)
Minimum 5' setback from property lines adjacent to public streets. 10' setback in
Central Commons Area (Pasadena Avenue). No interior sideyard or rear setback requirement
THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH DE ANZA CONCEPTUAL PLANS, THE SOUTH SARATOGA
SUNNYVALE PLANNING AREA, AND THE MONTA VISTA DESIGN GUIDELINES WERE ONLY
CITED AS EXAMPLES OF THE INTENT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO
HAVE A LANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM THE STREET
C. Discussion of Issues Raised in Appeal
3. The HOC gives the City discretion to determine appropriate setbacks for corner parcels, and
the HOC has different requirements than other City planning documents.
The appellants note that other City planning documents such as the North and South De Anza
Conceptual Plan and Manta Vista Design Guidelines have specific setbacks approved by the City
Council, not by a staff interpretation. Staff does not believe that the application of the setback
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-96 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
requirements is an interpretation since there are multiple sections of the HOC (approved by the City
Council) that confirm the minimum street setback requirement of 9 feet....Furthermore, conceptual
plans, planning areas, and design guidelines are different types of documents with different
requirements in each. The City did not establish uniform requirements for or between each type of
plan.
PLEASE HAVE STAFF IDENTIFY THE "MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE HOC THAT CONFIRM
THE MINIMUM STREET REQUIREMENT OF 9 FEET."
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE SAICH WAY STATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REQUEST
AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED
BY THE APPLICANT.
Exception Process for Development Standards
In order to provide design flexibility in situations when small lot size, unusually shaped parcels, or
unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards and where all
efforts to meet the standards have been exhausted, an applicant for development may file an
exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards.
EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN MUST BEEN HAVE
REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. THE REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION HAS APPEARED IN
THE ERC AND THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION YET THE MINUTES OF THE
JANUARY 8, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION, PAGE 6 STATES THAT "...THE APPLICANT IS
NOT REQUESTING FOR ONE;"
B. Refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.12, Administration, for approval authority of an Exception
Process
An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of
Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council
resolution, no part of which shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an application for
an exception, the Director shall issue a Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as provided in section 19.120.060 (relating
to zoning changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application in conjunction with
the mandatory findings contained in subsection A above, the Planning Commission shall approve,
conditionally approve or deny the application for an exception.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-97
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
City Council Staff Report
C. Discussion of Issues Raised in Appeal
1. An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is not required for the Saich Way setback
because the Plan specifies that minimum frontage requirements for corner lots are recommended
but not required, and the City therefore has the discretion to determine a desirable setback. The
proposed project is located on a corner parcel at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Saich Way. For the Stevens Creek frontage, Section 1.01.030(B)(1) of the HOC requires a building
setback totaling 35 feet (measured from the curb), which consists of a 26 foot Boulevard Landscape
easement and a 9 foot building setback from the back of the Boulevard Landscape Easement.
Section 1.01.030(B)(2) of the HOC sets the requirements for corner parcels and therefore governs
the Saich Way setback. Pursuant to Section 1.01.030(B)(2), the front setback requirement "applies
to both frontages" of a corner parcel, but "the minimum frontage requirement recommended but not
required." In addition, HOC Section 1.01.040(D)(l)is clear that the 26-foot Boulevard Landscape
Easement only applies along Stevens Creek Boulevard and would not be required on Saich Way.
Therefore, the 12-foot setback proposed for Saich Way complies with the setback requirements
prescribed for the corner parcels in the HOC and an exception is not required.
Alternatively, the appellants argue that the HOC side setback requirements of one half the building
height or 10 feet, whichever is greater [Section 1.01.030 (C)(l))] should apply along Saich Way, so
that the project must provide at least 13.5 to 14.5 feet of setback along Saich Way. Since Section
1.01.030 (B)(2) addresses the specific street side setback for corner lots, the requirement in Section
1.01.030 (C)(l) only applies to the interior side setback. Section (C)(1) even states that this interior
side setback may be reduced to zero when adjacent properties are jointly developed as they may
occur in a shopping center, provided that it promotes pedestrian access. The project proposes a
minimum building setback of 30 feet on the interior (west) side, which conforms to the HOC
standard.
Therefore, because this is a corner parcel and the HOC specifies that the setback for Saich Way is
recommended but not required, the City has discretion to determine an appropriate setback. Factors
to consider in making that determination could include the project context, proper orientation for
pedestrian access and retail visibility, surrounding land uses, and the extent to which there is
justification to either maintain similar building relationships between similar land uses and/or to
facilitate better transitions between different land uses (e.g., from commercial to residential).
For example, the appellants note that for the Biltmore mixed-use development, the multifamily
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-98 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
residential building setback referenced by the appellant along Blaney Avenue exceeds the minimum
required. While not required, the City felt it was appropriate to maintain similar building setbacks
between the existing apartment buildings and new residential buildings under the same ownership.
The proposed project along Saich Way does not share a similar project context with the Biltmore
mixed use project. There is no justification to match the 20-foot day care building setback further to
the north, since the project intends to feature active commercial uses that warrant a closer setback
to the street. The Planning Commission considered matching the setback of the day care building,
but ultimately decided to approve the proposed setback as-is, given that it meets the HOC setback
requirements and avoids placing the parking lot in front of the building, which would be inconsistent
with the pedestrian-oriented building siting policies of the HOC.
DUE THE NON·EXISTENCE OF THE PHASE "ANY NON-STEVENS CREEK FRONTAGE ONLY
REQUIRES A MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK OF 9 FEET", THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
NON-STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SETBACK AS INTERPRETED BY STAFF. AND DUE TO
THESE INCONSISTENCIES WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GIVE
INSTRUCTIONS TO REMOVE THE INTERPRETATION THAT "ANY NON-STEVENS CREEK
FRONTAGE ONLY REQUIRES A MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK OF 9 FEET."
B03-40 DENSITY OF HOUSING UNITS BASED ON GROSS LOT AREA
"GROSS LOT AREA" MEANS THE HORIZONTAL. AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPERTY 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."
SOURCE: CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
TITLE 19: ZONING
CHAPTER 19.08: DEFINITIONS
SECTION 19.08.030: DEFINITIONS
G. "G" DEFINITIONS
COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT
"THE LANDS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED TO STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND BLANEY AVENUE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE GROSS AND/OR NET LOT. IF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER WAS REQUIRED TO DEDICATE ITS LAND AS A CONDITION
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-99
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
OF APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, THEN THE DENSITY
SHOULD BE CALCULATED USING THE SIZE OF THE LOT PRIOR TO STREET DEDICATION.
City of Pasadena
Ordinance #7000 effective February 26, 2005
Article 8 - Glossary
Chapter 17.80 - Glossary of Specialized Terms and Land Use Types
17.80.020 Definitions
Density: The number of dwelling units on a lot in relation to the lot size, expressed in units per
acre. If a street dedication is required, density shall be calculated using the size of the lot prior to the
street dedication.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
THE STREET DEDICATION WAS DONE BY A PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE PROPERTY
LINE WAS ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. PROPERTY TAX, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS,
PUBLIC SERVICES ARE BASED ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE.
THE HOUSING ELEMENT USES LOT SIZE BASED ON PARCEL, NOT ON LAND USED FOR
STREET DEDICATION. SEE TABLE 6.2 VACANT AND UNDER UTILIZED LAND IN THE HEART
OF THE CITY DISTRICT."
SOURCE: PROMETHEUS BILTMORE PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 4, 2102
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN, HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCES, OTHER LAND USE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER CITIES DO NOT CONSIDER
STREET DEDICATED LANDS TO DETERMINE HOUSING DENSITY FOR SINGLE OR MULTI-
UNITS DEVELOPMENT.
GROSS DENSITY VS. NET DENSITY
"THE COUNCIL HAS IN THE PAST INDICATED THAT DENSITY SHOULD NOT BE
CALCULATED ON THE GROSS ACREAGE (INCLUDING A PORTION OF ADJACENT STREET
AREA) OFA PROPERTY AS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY THE CITY'S ZONING CODE. THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-100 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response NUMBER OF UNITS ASSUMED FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES ARE 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." SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW 2014·2022 HOUSING ELEMENT MARCH 3, 2014 PAGE 9 B03-41 GENERAL COMMENTS DEFINITIVE MITIGATIONS MUST BE A PART OF FINAL EIR WHAT HIGH DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE RESIDENTS OF CUPERTINO? WHAT AREAS OF THE CITY ARE OPEN TO HIGH DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT? WHAT ARE THE CITY'S GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING NEW PARKS? WHAT WILL THE CITY OFFER TO CONTINUE THE GRAND BOULEVARD CONCEPT ON DE ANZA BOULEVARD (NORTH DE ANZA CONCEPTURAL PLAN) AND STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN)? WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO REDEVELOP THE VALLCO SHOPPING CENTER The commenter requests that the Response to Comments Document provide “definitive mitigation measures,” but does not further discuss specific mitigation measures. Chapters 4.1 through 4.14 of the Draft EIR identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant environmental effects of the project. The mitigation measures are also listed in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, of the Draft EIR. The proposed residential densities and locations for new residential uses are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The City’s policies and strategies related to parks are found in the Open Space, Parks and Trails section of the General Plan Land Use Element. The General Plan identifies areas of the City where parks are lacking. Either a parkland dedication or an in-lieu park fee is required as a condition of approval of most development applications. The fees are used to acquire parkland or improve existing park facilities. While it is unclear what the “Grand Boulevard Concept” references, it appears that the comment refers to the landscaping treatment currently implemented along North De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. No changes to the landscaping treatment along North De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard are proposed. The comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-101
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-42 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
INSUFFICIENT TIME
IT WAS STATED THAT THE REASON FOR JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL
MEETING WAS THE STATE DEADLINE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT.
THE DECISION TO COMBINE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE HOUSING
ELEMENT WAS:
1. TO REDUCE THE COST TO PREPARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
(EIR)
2. TO INTEGRATE PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TO COORDINATE RNDA HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
MIG CONSULTANT MEETING WITH CARE AND CCC, MAY 15, 2013 @ 3:15 PM
LATE, START @ 3:30 PM
LIMITED TO 30 MINUTE SCHEDULED MEETING
MIG UNPREPARED
NO AGENDA
NO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED
3 REPRESENTATIVES FROM CARE
3 REPRESENTATIVES FROM CCC
WOULD BE INFORMATIVE TO REVIEW MIG'S NOTES OF THIS MEETING.
INSUFFICIENT COMMUNITY INPUT
PUBLIC MEETINGS
ALTHOUGH CITY STAFF, ONLY 170 OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATED.
IT IS UNDETERMINED WHETHER THESE 170 PARTICIPANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF
CUPERTINO, CUPERTINO PROPERTY OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS.
The Draft EIR was prepared according to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed on page 1-4 of Chapter 1, Introduction, of the
Draft EIR, pursuant to CEQA Section 21080(d) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15063, the City of Cupertino determined that the proposed
Project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and
that an EIR would be required. In compliance with Section 21080.4 of
the California Public Resources Code, the City circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project to the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and 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. at the Cupertino Community Hall (10350 Torre Avenue, next to the
library). The NOP and scoping process solicited comments from
responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties regarding
the scope of the Draft EIR. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation Comment
Letters, of this Draft EIR contains the NOP as well as the comments
received by the City in response to the NOP. The Draft EIR was made
available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and
organizations for a 45-day comment period starting Tuesday, June 18,
2014 and ending Friday, August 1, 2014. A Community Open House
was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014. During the comment period, the
public was invited to submit written comments via mail or e-mail on the
Draft EIR to the City of Cupertino Community Development Department
by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 1, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-102 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B03-43 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE ON HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
ALTHO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ENACTED JANUARY 17, 2012
AFTER 10+ PUBLIC MEETINGS, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE GENERAL PLAN
SUPERCEDES ANY PART OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN. IN FACT, IF ANY
PART OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN CONFLICTS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN,
THAT PART WILL BE REWRITTEN TO CONFORM WITH THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INCREASES DENSITY AND HEIGHT AND DECREASES
SETBACK.
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-44 SOME STAKEHOLDERS' POINT OF VIEW
"...THAT STAFF AND COUNCIL OFTEN HAD A DIFFERENT VISION THAN DEVELOPERS,..."
"A VIEW THAT DEVELOPERS ARE MARKET DRIVEN, AND POLICY-MAKERS WOULD BENEFIT
TO (DEFER TO) DEVELOPERS' ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE CITY NEEDS, AND THEIR MARKET-
BASED POINT OF VIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS."
"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."
SOURCE: RETAIL STRATEGY
BY GREENSFELDER
MARCH 6, 2014
PAGE 87
See Response to Comment B03-01.
B03-45 PERCEPTIONS
"THE PERCEPTION CITY GOVERNMENT OPPOSES SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT DESPITE
DEMAND
"A PERCEPTION THE CITY LETS ITSELF BE BULLIED INTO DECISIONS."
"A PERCEPTION THAT DECISION-MAKERS OVERWEIGH CONCERNS OF CONSERVATIVE
RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT WANT CHANGE. THIS PERSON ALSO INDICATED THAT THE
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-103
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
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.
SOURCE: RETAIL STRATEGY REPORT
BY GREENSFELDER
MARCH 6, 2014
PAGE 87
COMMENT: AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF A PAST CITY COUNCIL PUBLICLY STATED THAT
HE/SHE IS AWARE SUPPORTERS OF A PROPOSAL DO NOT ATTEND MEETINGS AND
HE/SHE TAKES THEIR ABSENCE AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING HIS/HER VOTE.
AS INDICATED, THE MEMBERS OF CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO (CCC) ARE
CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CUPERTINO.
HAVE SUPPORTED SEVERAL PROJECTS
HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS
HOUSING ELEMENT
HAVE SUPPORTED CITY POLICIES
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
SEE ATTACHMENT 11
B03-46 ATTACHMENT 11
PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON AUGUST 20, 2013
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO (CCC) HAS A STRONG INTEREST IN THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN. WE PARTICIPATED IN ALL OF THE TEN+ (10+) MEETINGS
FOR THE REVISION OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN IN 2010.
NOW WE SUGGEST THAT
1. RETAIN THE 35 FOOT SETBACK ON STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
2. DETERMINE AN ADEQUATE SIDE STREET SETBACK FOR A CORNER LOT IN THE HOC SIMILAR TO OTHER
The attachment to the comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-104 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
PLANS OF THE CITY.
3. RETAIN THE CURRENT EXCEPTION PROCESS IN THE HOC.
4. RESCIND THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING STREET SQUARE FOOTAGE TO
DETERMINE GROSS LOT
DENSITY.
WE SUGGEST THAT THE PLANNING STAFF REVIEW OUR MORE DETAILED COMMENTS
ON THE ABOVE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROMETHEUS BILTMORE PROJECT,
ISLANDS RECONSIDERATION AND THE SAICH WAY STATION APPEAL.
ON AUGUST 20, 2013 THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE
PUBLIC PROCESS TO CLARIFY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CORNER PARCELS.
B03-47 CITY OF CUPERTINO SHOULD CONSIDER:
EL CAMINO REAL GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE
THE EL CAMINO REAL GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE WAS FORMED IN 2006 AS A
REGIONAL VISION TO LINK LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION IN TWO COUNTIES WITH 19
CITIES. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT EVERY CITY CAN DECIDE ON ITS OWN HOW TO
DEVELOP ITS LAND USE INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHERS.
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HAS ITS OWN NORTH DE ANZA CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN. THE CITY SHOULD CONTINUE THE INTENT AND
VISION OF THESE TWO PLANS.
PLAN BAY AREA
25·YEAR PLAN
PROJECTED INCREASE OF 2.1 MILLION RESIDENTS AND
1.1 MILLION JOBS IN THE BAY AREA
BY ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) AND METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
REQUIRE CITIES TO PLAN FOR MORE HOUSING NEAR MAJOR TRANSIT HUBS.
CITIES ASKED TO IDENTIFY PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS THAT COULD
See Response to Comment B03-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-105
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
ACCOMMODATE THE BULK OF THE NEW HOUSING
STATE ROUTE 85 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)
CONCERNS: SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT THE SR 85/HIGHWAY 280
INTERCHANGE NO OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH OF SR 85 FROM
CUPERTINO TO MOUNTAIN VIEW
WITH THESE TWO CHOKEPOINTS MOST NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC WILL TERMINATE IN
CUPERTINO
PROJECT MAY PRECLUDE MASS TRANSIT IN MEDIAN OF SR 85
B04 Gary Jones
B04-01 Through Matt Wilson's article in the Courier today I discovered the General Plan is being updated.
I'm really surprised I totally missed all of this.
Great website; thank you.
I suggest you publish this site and related documents to all 2,700 members of
www.nextdoor.com<http://www.nextdoor.com> in the immediate area including Cupertino and our
neighbors.
I believe I'm not the only one who had no idea the GP was being amended.
I would like to attend the July 8th and 15th meetings; however, I am traveling those days and will not
be able to give my input.
It appears a great job is being done and I'm truly sorry I've missed all of this process to day. It
appears the train has left the station as it applies to my input.
Keep up the great work. I'm truly hopeful the human mobility issue will ease to the surface as the #1
priority. Staying in Cupertino as a senior is of serious concern to many of us who are retired as we a
hesitant to ride our bikes, wake or take the VTA as it only really serves De Anza College students.
Due to some vision and other health issues as they progress over the next 10 years my driving will
become limited. This poses the question as to how people from our side of Cupertino will be
capable of getting to the Vallco development area including the Main Street Project without
The comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-106 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
spending substantial $'s on UBER. :>)
After reading the "Concept Alternatives" just this morning I must have missed any discussion as to the 7000 seniors still living in Cupertino.
There was a line item as to "Senior Housing Choices." The income tax and property tax structure
currently has locked many of us in our single family homes. We are not selling and relocating. There
is no community bus system like in Los Gatos, Morgan Hill or Milpitas as provided to those
communities by the VTA; their focus is on De Anza College students and not our community.
I believe there has been a significant effort put into the Bike/Ped plan and then only $249,000 of this
year's $80 million budget is provided for this plan. Really?
I was asked recently by Mark Santoro to select one aspect of the plan that has an appeal for priority.
Then Orrin requested I suggest an item within the "Plan" that could be considered as a priority at the
mid‐year "Budget" review. Well; I sincerely believe completing the Plan item of $2.4 million to complete a bike/ped route from Foothill Blvd down McClellan Road past Monta Vista High School, Lincoln School to So De Anza Blvd would be a significant project for consideration.
B05 Gary Jones
B05-01 Can I get a hard copy of the Concept Alternatives drp the GP Amendment? The comment is acknowledged.
B06 Myron Crawford - Berg & Berg Developers, Inc.
B06-01 Don’t Over Specify Green Requirements
As you move forward on the General Plan please do not over specify unnecessary green
requirements. The study attached titled Economic comparison of white, green and black roofs in the
Unites States, shows that plain white and less expensive roofs outperform more expensive green
roofs.
a. Green roofs are not only more expensive to build initially and consume more natural resources;
more steel, irrigation system, drainage system, more labor and therefore generate more green
house [sic] gases, but also imagine the additional expense in removing sod to be able to
accommodate the addition of a new HVAC unit to a commercial building or trying to find a leak in a
sod roof in the rain!! You have the Cal Green Code, there is no need to specify more green
elements.
b. Green roof also have a forward GHG footprint versus a simple white roof.
The comment compares the relative costs and other characteristics of
"green" roofs and white roofs. The comment is acknowledged.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-107
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
b1. More landscape labor is required to maintain the roof.
b2. Gasoline and or electricity is required for landscape equipment and transportation of labor and
equipment.
b3. They require water in the summer.
b4. Vegetation has to be cut and hauled off, more GHG.
Simply piling on more requirement [sic] is not always better, everything has consequences.
Sometimes less is better.
B06-02 Economic comparison of white, green, and black flat roofs in the United States (Sproul, J. et. al.) The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. The attached report is
included in Appendix A of this Response to Comments Document.
B07 Phyllis Dickstein
B07-01 Housing and Traffic
As I have noted in previous comment cards and now do so officially for the EIR, the Shan site
should be eliminated from the list of housing element sites (and the City Council should disallow the
7 units requested by Prometheus and approved by the Planning Commission for Biltmore I).
The intersection of SCB and Blaney Avenue already has multifamily housing on its NE, SE and SW
corners, with 80 additional units (Biltmore II) under construction on the SW corner. Additional
multifamily housing exists on both sides of the street at the northern end as you approach
Homestead Avenue.
The comment is acknowledged.
B7-02 Blaney Avenue is a narrow two-lane roadway with bicycle lanes on either side of the street. The bike
lanes are not that safe for children, who must compete with the increasing traffic on this narrow
road.
Two years ago, when the City Council approved the Biltmore II development over the protests of
local residents, it did make one concession to the community: the number of units was reduced from
90 to 80. This was not done in order to reduce the internal density of the project, but rather in
recognition of the impact of the increased traffic on Blaney Avenue. So, approval of additional
multifamily housing would be a direct contradiction of this decision.
Any traffic impact survey done on Blaney Avenue is moot, because the 80 units of Biltmore II, with
at least 120 additional cars likely, are not yet occupied. Nevertheless, the EIR projects a
degradation of the wait time at lights from C+ or B, to D! This is *not* an insignificant impact to those
As discussed in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, the traffic analysis includes two intersections on Blaney Avenue: at Homestead and at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both intersections are shown to operate at LOS D or better, which is within the Cupertino standard. The traffic analysis also shows the existing and future daily volume estimate for Blaney Avenue (Table 4.14-14). The existing and estimated future volume is within typical volume for a two-lane street.
As discussed in Chapter 4.13, under Impact TRAF-3 on page 4.13-62,
because the proposed Project is a program-level planning effort, it does
not directly address project-level design features or building
specifications (See Response to Comment B03-17); however, the
current General Plan contains policies, as identified in Table 4.13-2 in
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-108 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
of us who live here.
Blaney Avenue, Cupertino (Homestead to Bollinger) is saturated with high density housing. Furthermore, an increase in traffic generated in Cupertino will even affect our neighbors across
Bollinger, in San Jose. In fairness to the residents, areas beyond the Stelling to Lawrence corridor,
as well as scatter-site projects, should be explored in the quest to meet housing quotas/needs.
Section 4.13.2.1, Regulatory Framework, that would reduce potential
hazards due to roadway design or incompatible uses.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure that hazardous features are minimized. As with current practice, the improvements would be designed and reviewed in accordance to the City of Cupertino Standard Details, which are promulgated and administered by the City Engineering Department. Therefore, the impact of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
B07-03 Note on affordable housing: The most rational approach to affordable housing is for cities (through ABAG?) to seek to overturn a ridiculous court ruling (amend the state constitution?) that prevents municipalities from requiring developers to set aside such units in market rate rental projects.
Developers make very significant profits from their market rate units, while receiving benefits from cities (permits, sewer lines, etc.). They should be required to contribute their share, *within* their density allotments, without receiving bonus allotments. This would spare the cities the expenditures, and likely be less costly than separately constructed housing projects. An additional advantage is that moderate income residents would be better integrated into the communities.
See Response to Comment B03-20.
B07-04 Overall development (esp. with respect to water)
Optimum development is not the same as maximum development. Lifestyles and environmental absorptive capacities need to be borne in mind.
As far as lifestyles are concerned, some people like rural or semi-rural areas, others (especially when young) want to live in downtown San Francisco. Those who choose to reside in Cupertino
generally prefer a suburban lifestyle. I doubt that most residents want this city to become an
extension of downtown San Jose.
The comment is acknowledged.
B07-05 An important environmental absorptive capacity issue (in addition to traffic and air pollution) is water
availability. Here the projections in the EIR may be overly optimistic. Even so, the estimated
difference in water supply between a normal year and a five-year drought period is significant. And,
given the results of climate change that we have been seeing in recent years, what if water
purchased from out-of-state becomes unavailable? This is a problem, of course, that needs to be
considered statewide, but localities should give it serious attention. Thus, the development plan for
the future should be realistic, and more on the conservative side.
Impacts on water supply are addressed in Chapters 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed in Chapter 4.14, beginning on page 4.14-1, based on the Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the proposed Project in May 2014, impacts on water supply were found to be less than significant. As shown in Chapter 4.14, the analysis includes water supply during both single-dry years (Table 4.14-9) and multiple-dry years (Tables 4.14-10, 4.14-12).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-109
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Also discussed in Chapter 4.14 are the long-term plans for the water
service providers for the City, which include planning for water
shortages. The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and San
Jose Water Company (SJWC) provide retail water service to Cupertino.
SJWC also has a lease agreement to operate and maintain the City of
Cupertino’s water system. Cal Water and SJWC obtains a the vast
majority of their water via wholesale purchase from the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (SCVWD).
In compliance with the SB X7 7 and the Urban Water Management Planning Act, both water service providers (CalWater and SJWC) for the City of Cupertino, adopted their 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) in June 2011. The SCVWD, which provides water supply to both service providers, also adopted its 2010 UWMP in May 2011. The UWMP is required to address water supply in dry (drought) years.
In addition, Cal Water has also developed Water Shortage Allocation
Plans (WSAPs), which are plans of action to reduce water demand
should significant water supply shortages occur, primarily due to drought
and SJWC developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in 1992 to
document measures it would take to conserve water during drought
conditions. For example, the plan includes as part of its mandatory
water rationing plans a list of water uses that are classified as non-
essential or unauthorized. The plan was coordinated with the SCVWD
and local cities and was developed in conformance with the California
Water Code.
The Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan is the
SCVWD’s overall plan for water resource management in Santa Clara
County. The SCVWD is the primary water resources agency for Santa
Clara County. The Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
describes the key water resource issues facing the County, and
provides a framework for understanding SCVWD’s policies related to
water supply, natural flood protection, and water resources stewardship.
The Plan provides factsheets for all cities within Santa Clara County that
have shared responsibilities with SCVWD, Citywide Programs and
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-110 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Projects related to water resources management issues, and a list of
related Plan Elements.
B08 Jennifer Griffin
B08-01 I am very concerned about the effect of increased building on the traffic on city streets and expressways and highways.
Of particular concern is the 280 Southbound/Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Connector Road/Lawrence ExpressWay/280 Northbound roadway sequence. I'm glad that this intersection and travel sequence was studied, but the solution of adding an extra lane to the above travel sequence has a dangerous result. The northbound traffic traveling from Calvert Drive will have to make a suicidal left turn across three lanes of traffic on Calvert Connector Road to get to Calvert. It is hard to cross the two lanes on Calvert Connector Road, let alone three lanes. This sets up a Suicide Run sequence and will result in traffic fatalities. This area needs to be studied by all entities, Santa Clara, San Jose, CalTrans, Water District, and Cupertino.
The comment speculates the outcome of a roadway improvement
identified as a mitigation measure for the Apple Campus 2 project. The
Draft EIR did not identify the need for a traffic signal at the intersection
of Calvert Avenue and the ramp between Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Lawrence Expressway. However, the City and representatives for Apple
have been discussing the installation of a traffic signal at this
intersection. There is agreement from Apple that installing this signal will
address safety concerns identified by the City and, therefore, Apple has
agreed to install this traffic signal. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter
4.14, Transportation and Traffic, Project study intersection Lawrence
Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP,
County) (#32) would be significantly impacted as a result of the
proposed Project. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 involves the City creating
a Traffic Mitigation Impact Fee Program to fund roadway and
infrastructure improvements for affected intersections in order to reduce
impacts to acceptable level of service standards. Potential intersection
improvements are listed in Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, but these
improvements will need to be designed and fully funded. Any changes
to the road system would be designed in accordance with applicable
standards with respect to sight distance so they would operate safely.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-111
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B09 Marisa Yap
B09-01 Kindly have a free shuttle medium size busing the Cupertino Residents from Steven Creek Blvd to our Public library and the City Hall.
We can eliminate
-Traffic
-Gasoline
-Many library fans can enjoy their time without driving. If you need funding I will try to find the budget. Let me know.
The comment is acknowledged.
B10 Patricia McAfee
B10-01 1. We have a drought. Additional high density housing will require more water Impacts on water supply and water quality are addressed in Chapters
4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed in Chapter 4.14,
beginning on page 4.14-1, based on the Water Supply Evaluation
prepared for the proposed Project in May 2014, impacts to water supply
were found to be less than significant. See Response to Comment B07-
05.
B10-02 2. Traffic on North Blaney is very heavy at school time and ~5 PM. Heavier all day. We must not
add housing at corner of Blaney + Stevens Creek. 36 units. Streets have been blocked off so
everyone must come down Blaney to get to the schools. I can't get out of my driveway at certain
times due to traffic congestion.
As discussed in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and
Traffic, the traffic analysis includes two intersections on Blaney Avenue: at Homestead and at Stevens Creek. Both intersections are shown to operate at LOS D or better, which is within the Cupertino standard. The traffic analysis also shows the existing and future daily volume estimates for Blaney Avenue (Table 4.14-14). The existing and estimated future volumes within typical volume for a two-lane street.
B10-03 3. Small businesses on Stevens Creek between Blaney + Apple office complex do not provide
enough parking so cars are parked on Blaney + Wheaton.
The comment concerns existing parking on Blaney Avenue. Future development would be required to provide sufficient parking as required in Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.124, Parking Regulations of the Municipal Code.
B10-04 4. Bike lanes on Blaney have been eliminated more bikers are riding on the sidewalk because cars are parked on Blaney. Blaney is a narrow street.
Bike lanes have not been eliminated on Blaney Avenue. See Response
to Comment B07-02.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-112 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B10-05 5. Some years ago Houston overbuilt apartments - we should provide a variety of housing - not just for singles but for families.
The comment is acknowledged.
B11 Ruby Elbogen
B11-01 Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the issue, but what is the status of the General Plan Amendment as it applies to the requested height bump-up by the Cupertino Inn (to go up to 8 stories)? I feel it's a mistake to do that, because it will not only change the look and feel of Cupertino in general, it will also dwarf the surrounding homes, including the area east of De Anza--and Homestead. If the hotel goes up that high, Cupertino will surely lose it's small city feel.
Impacts due to increased height limits under the proposed Project are
discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in
Chapter 4.1, impacts were found to be less than significant in all areas
where potential future development involving increased height is being
considered, because it would be subject to the Architectural and Site
Review process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning
Ordinance and/or would be required to comply with Design Standards
outlined in the General Plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan, or other
appropriate Conceptual Plans, the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, or
the South Vallco Specific Plan. In addition, compliance with General
Plan policies regarding development standards would help ensure that
future development in Cupertino would reduce potential aesthetic
impacts, including those associated with the increased height of future
development in the City.
As discussed on page 4.1-26 in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR
the maximum height at the property addressed in the comment Study
Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) would be 75 feet if a future
project has a retail component, or up to 145 feet if a future project
includes a retail component and provides community benefits. This
represents a substantial height increase from the currently permitted 1
to 3 stories at this location. As described above in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, in Chapter 4.1, Study Area 1 is within the vicinity of existing large-scale 1 to 3 story residential developments, large format retail buildings and parking lots. While an 8 to 10 story building would be a taller building than those in the area of Study Area 1, with the discretionary Architectural and Site Approval of any development, the project could be required to provide suitable setbacks from public rights- of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions for buildings
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-113
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
adjacent to low-density residential development. `
B11-02 It will also change the climate somewhat, as breezes are trapped by larger buildings. We went
through that when Marina Del Rey and the Fox Hills area of my home town, Culver City were
constructed. We actually lost a considerable amount of sea breeze that used to come from the
beaches of Playa del Rey, Venice and the Marina's predecessor, Mud Lake.
The comment speculates that weather conditions in Cupertino could be altered as a result of increasing building heights, but provides no substantial evidence for this claim. The comment is acknowledged.
B12 Josh Tsai
B12-01 I grew up in Cupertino and after graduating from Monta Vista and UC Berkeley, I moved out to New York for several years before relocating back to the Bay Area recently to get married and be closer
to my parents (who still live in Cupertino).
While looking for housing in Cupertino with my wife, I realized how ridiculously few options there are
for a young family. There's no chance we can outbid other folks for a single family house in
Cupertino without breaking the bank at this point in our careers. Ideally, we'd like to purchase a
more affordable condo that we can outgrow in the next five to ten years, but condos are few and far
inbetween in Cupertino. While we did find an apartment in Sunnyvale that suits us temporarily, we
would love to move back into Cupertino and raise kids that can attend the same schools as I did and
be close to my parents as well.
In addition to more affordable housing options, I strongly feel that Cupertino needs to bring back
some retail vibrancy. Most of my childhood friends who also grew up in Cupertino have instead
looked to Mountain View, San Francisco, or Santana Row areas to purchase their first homes. It's a
common discussion among us that we'd all like to raise our families in Cupertino, where it's close to
work and with great schools, but the lack of retail vibrancy is always a consideration.
Thus, I am a supporter of the general plan amendment process in Cupertino if it means the
possibility of more housing and added retail in the major streets of Cupertino. My parents, who are
long time residents of the city, also feel that added vibrancy along the major streets of Cupertino
(i.e. not existing residential areas) would make the city more enjoyable so they don't have to travel
to Los Gatos or Palo Alto to have an enjoyable evening out.
The comment concerns the existing availability of affordable housing in
Cupertino. The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment
B03-20.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-114 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B13 Youichi Y.
B13-01 Thanks for your all information from Housing Element report. From postcard in my mail, I have come to this website to read more about housing in Cupertino. I think there is not enough housing in Cupertino for other familys [sic] like mine. I work and live in Cupertino for 7 years but also travel to Japan. My two daughters attend primary school in Cupertino and their friends are here so we would like to live here for longer time. We rent the apartment in Cupertino but rent every year is going up. I think Housing Element report suggestion for more building height and more du/ac can help with more future housing in Cupertino and help keep rent to stop going up so quick. The location near freeway or big road in Cupertino can support more familys [sic] and I think noise will not be a problem. Cupertino is great place to live and I think more apartments can help more familys [sic] like mine in future.
The comment is acknowledged.
B14 Christine Cheng
B14-01 We've been residents of Cupertino for 10 years and have witnessed deterioration of our city's living
quality. Our schools Eaton/Lawson/Cupertino High are getting ridiculously crowded. The large
increase in student population has drastically reduced the quality of education for the existing
students, which we are experiencing first hand today. More dense housing units will only aggravate
our school problems.
Impacts on schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and
Recreation, beginning on page 4.12-13. As discussed in Chapter 4.12,
impacts to schools as a result of the proposed Project were found to be
less than significant.
B14-02 The traffic near the entrance and exit of 280 are increasingly worse. And almost every time we go to the library we can't find a spot in the library parking lot. High density units like the Rose Bowl project has already compromised our city's living quality, how can we tolerate more housing units in site 7/L7 which is so close to the Rose Bowl and many mixed use complexes there along Stevens Creek? Hundreds of units have just been built to the west of Blaney and south of Stevens Creek, how can we afford to have even more housing development in site 2/L2, which will induce even worse congestion in this area?
Impacts of the proposed Project on traffic and transportation are
discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR.
This analysis includes all of the intersections providing access to I-280,
including the intersection identified by the commenter.
B14-03 As many residents have voiced strongly before, our building heights should reflect the character of Cupertino. Our city is and should never be San Jose or San Francisco. We do not want Cupertino to
become a large metropolitan city called "Condotino". Unreasonably tall and high density buildings
like the Rose Bowl complexes have been regarded as an eyesore by the general public in
Cupertino, though it was approved a long time ago. Our city needs to learn from such mistakes of
Impacts due to increased height limits under the proposed Project are
discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR and impacts were
found to be less than significant. See Response to Comment B11-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-115
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
poor planning and prevent this kind of ill-fitting development from being constructed in the future. To
be in harmony with Cupertino's existing buildings and houses, the maximum height for commercial
buildings/apartments/mixed use should be under 45 feet regardless.
The Rose Bowl complex building on Wolfe road opposite to the AMC building is way too close to the
side walk. Blocking the sky and the sun, it's rather monstrous height gives overwhelming pressure
to the people walking or driving by. We hope the city will enforce ample and consistent distance
between side walk and large buildings for comfortable general public use.
B15 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
B15-01 ADDENDUM TO 6/25/14 COMMENTS (PAGE 72) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS "The City of Cupertino's (2000 -2020) General Plan is the blueprint for the future of the City. This Plan has been under discussion by the City Council and Planning Commission for four years, and
the Planning Commission is currently holding public hearings on proposed amendments to it. The
Commission will hold an important hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on Tuesday,
May 24, 2005, where the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan will be discussed."
Source: General Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Report
General Plan Task Force
May 17, 2005
This comment provides background information and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue; therefore, no further response is
required. The comment is acknowledged.
B15-02 "Nearly five years in the making, the plan (EI Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan) that will guide
the future design and construction of Menlo Park's downtown and EI Camino Real corridor for years
will be released next week and put on a nine-week fast track for approval."
"These documents are very important. They'll be in place for decades," Mayor Kirsten Keith said.
"There will be an envelope that developers know they can build within. If somebody came in with a
project in those parameters, they'll know they can produce something. That's a different model from
doing it piecemeal."
Source: City Puts Plan on Fast Track
by Bonnie Eslinger
San Jose Mercury News
April 15, 2012
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-116 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B15-03 Although controversial, the project (Stanford/Arrillaga) complies with the building standards and zoning established in the EI Camino Real/ Downtown Specific Plan that the Council approved in
June."
Source: Stanford Adds Housing in New Plan
Proposal Cuts Office Space; Menlo Park Leaders Say Changes are Good, But Still Have Concerns
by Bonnie Eslinger
The Daily News
April 12, 2013
See Response to Comment B15-01.
B15-04 "The Specific Plan, which took more than five years to draft, was approved by the City Council in
June 2012....Stanford submitted its mixed-use proposal above five months later. The project
submitted by Stanford University and developer John Arrillaga calls for 199,500 square feet of
office, 170 apartments and 10,000 square feet of retail." at 300-500 EI Camino Real
Source: Study: Traffic Really Will Increase
First of Three Reviews Released on Stanford Project
by Bonnie Eslinger
San Jose Mercury News
March 16, 2014
See Response to Comment B15-01.
B15-05 Greenheart LLC submitted proposal for 210,000 square feet (two office building of 105,000 square
feet each), 216 residential units and 23,000 square feet of retail at 1300 EI Camino Real.
See Response to Comment B15-01.
B15-06 Comment: 2014 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment appears to be done in haste. See Response to Comment B03-42.
B15-07 Comment: In spite of conforming to the EI Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan the Stanford/Arrillaga and Greenheart projects in Menlo Park have not proceeded due to concerns of
residents of Menlo Park.
See Response to Comment B15-01.
B15-08 Community Design Survey Analysis
"Over 120 people completed an interactive Community Design Survey, either during Community-
wide Workshop #2 or online." > ... more than 65 percent of people said "I Really Like It" or it is
"Worth Considering"
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-117
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Comment: 65% of 120 = 78
Comment: 78 of 59,000, assuming 50% adults =30,000, not statistical meaningful.
Comment: Does the 78 include non-residents, property owners and/or
developers.
Green infrastructure and 50%
Stormwater planters 37%
Highly visible pedestrian crossing 51%
35%
Wide sidewalk with seating 59%
24%
Outdoor dining 55%
32%
Art and play space 29%
36%
39% None of the above
Shared bike lane/sharrow 33%
22%
43% I don't like it 42% None of the above
Separate bike lane 43%
36%
Separated bike path 30%
34%
Enhanced bus shelter 43%
32%
Bus rapid transit 31%
28%
Neighborhood park 55%
29%
Children play space 44%
38%
34% None of the above
Small plaza 48%
34%
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-118 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Parklet 37%
25%
Trail connection 49%
31%
Low rise commercial w parking in front 27%
33%
Low rise commercial w small street setbac 33%
35%
Low rise commercial w street parking 27%
37%
Mid rise outdoor commercial district 50%
31%
Mid rise outdoor commercial district 47%
24%
Mid rise indoor shopping mall 26%
30%
37% I don't like it 41% None of the above
Low rise office 18%
38%
37% None of the above
Mid rise office 36%
30%
Mid rise mixed use 43%
30%
High rise office 27%
26%
44% 39% None of the above
Low/mid rise hotel 28%
41%
Mid rise hotel 30%
35%
Mid/high rise hotel 36%
24%
33% None of the above
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-119
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Detached townhomes 27%
31%
33% 39% None of the above
Low rise residential 19%
35%
40% 41% None of the above
Mixed use residential and retail 38%
27%
Mid rise mixed use residential and retail 38%
31%
Mid rise mixed use residential 34%
Mid rise residential lofts 24%
40% I don't like it 37% None of the above
Mid/high rise mixed use residential and retail 29%
19%
42% I don't like it 46% None of the above
Source: Community Design Survey/Summary
B15-09 Comment: Although some (2) of the photos (#33 Boudin SF) and # ? (Aloft Hotel) are of sites in
Cupertino, there should be more Cupertino sites to determine opinions of recent completed
developments:
Adobe Terrace
Apple Cafeteria
Astoria
Biltmore
Cali Plaza
Civic Park Crossroad
Cypress Hotel
Homestead Square Shopping Center
Intersection of North De Anza Conceptual Plan &
Heart of the City Specific Plan
Marketplace
Metropolitan
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-120 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Montebello Nerona
Monte Vista
Oak Park village
Panera/Peet
South De Anza
Travigne
Vallco
AMC Theaters
Bay Club
B15-10 "The following pages show the combined summary of all responses to the Community Design
Survey."
Source: Community Design Survey/Summary
Community Discussion Summaries
Appendix B
Draft Environmental Impact Report
See Response to Comment B15-01.
B15-10
(cont.)
Comment: Although there were at least 63 photos, only 35 photos were cited as responses in the
Community Design Survey/Summary.
Comment:
I really like it: >50%
Green infrastructure and stormwater planter
Highly visible pedestrian crossing
Wide sidewalk with seating
Outdoor dining
Neighborhood park
Mid rise outdoor commercial district (50% and 47%)
I don't like it/None of the locations
Shared bike lane (43%/42%)
Mid rise indoor shopping mall (37%/41 %)
High rise office (44%/39%)
Detached townhomes (33%/39%)
Low rise residential (40%/41 %)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-121
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Mid rise mixed-use residential (40%/37%)
Mid/high rise mixed-use residential and retail (42%/46%)
B15-11 Office Demand Analysis
"The following table calculates the long-term demand for new office space based on the Association
of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) projection of employment growth by broad industry sector
between 2010 and 2030. By applying the approximate percentage of jobs in each sector that take
place in an office and a demand factor of 250 gross square feet of building space per new job, the
calculator estimates how much office space will be needed in order to accommodate job growth
over the next twenty years."
"Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects the number of new office jobs, apply the
number of new office jobs to 250 square feet, or the estimated gross square footage required per
employee with an efficiency factor of 90%.
"However, some of that demand will be absorbed by vacancies in existing buildings, while another
portion may be absorbed by new buildings constructed elsewhere in the Market Area."
Source: Market Study and Business Development Strategy
Page 82
"Table 23 takes these sources of competitive supply under consideration in order to calculate the
projected residual demand for new office space, which could present a market opportunity for office
development at the North 40."
Table 23: Residual Demand Calculator, Market Area
Projected Demand for Office Space, 2010·2030 (sf) 1,570,599
Vacancy Vacant Existing Inventory and Vacancy. 1Q11 (a) Inventory (sf) Rate (sf) Inventory (sf) Los Gatos 1,368.790 8.8% 121,001 Campbell 2,267,022 16.7% 378,819 Cupertino 4,054,170 7.9% 318,252 Saratoga 323,128 9.9% 31.990
Total 8,013,110 850,062
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-122 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
"However, not all of this vacant supply should be considered competitive for future demand
absorption. Office markets never achieve 100 percent occupancy. Therefore, it should be assumed
that there will always be a normalized amount of vacancy.
ABAG Employment Projections/Cupertino 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 31,780 32,550 33,340 34,260 35,880 37,620 Source: ABAG Projections, 2009: BAE 2010 Square Feet of Office ( Office Jobs x 250 sf per employee) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
7,945,000 8,137,500 8,335,000 8,565,000 8,970,000 9,405,000
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000 - 2020
2010 2020 8,629,849 Built 9,470,005 Buildout
Proposed General Plan Amendment 2014 Office sf * # Employees 8,929,774 sf used /250* = 35,719 540,231 sf Unused of existing 9,470,005 sf
+500,000 sf + 500,000 sf
1,040,231'sf Alternative A 9,970,000 total sf / 250* = 39,880
"+2,000,000 sf +2,000,000 sf
2,540,231 sf Alternative B 11,470,005 total sf I 250* = 45,880
+3,500,000 sf +3,500,000 sf 4,040,231 sf Alternative C 12,970,000 total sf I 250* = 51,880 *250 sf per employee
B15-12 Comment: Will the City of Cupertino have sufficient infrastructure (housing, transportation, etc,) to
accommodate the increase of employees?
The Draft EIR for the proposed Project includes a complete analysis of
the City's ability to accommodate the proposed growth associated with
the potential future development permitted as a result of adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Not all
future employees of jobs provided in Cupertino will reside in Cupertino.
As discussed in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, under Impact
POP-1, beginning on page 4.11-10, the proposed Project would not
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-123
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Growth
under the proposed Project would occur incrementally over a period of
approximately 26 years and would be guided by a policy framework in
the proposed Project that is generally consistent with many of the
principal goals and objectives established in regional planning initiatives
for the Bay Area and impacts were found to be less than significant.
Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed Project are described
in detail in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR,
beginning on page 4.13-49. See Response to Comment B03-24.
B15-13 Retail Sales Analysis
Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Retail Stores Total $799,758 $729,802 $603,067 $543,016 $522,256 $513,514 $503,148 $720,411 $630,904 in $000
Population 50,602 50,941 52,080 52,197 53,087 53,632 54,338 55,611 56,297
Sales per Capita $ 15,805
Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2009-2011
2009-2011 data presented in a separate table due to major change in catagorization, such that data are not fully comparable with earlier years. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Retail Stores Total $599,104 $645,004 $696,060 ? ? In $000 Population 58,302 58,665 59,022 ? ?
Sales per Capita $10,276 $10,995 $11,793 ? ?
Sources: 2000 & 2010 U.S. Census; State Dept. of Finance; State Board of Equalization; CA Dept. of Industrial Relations; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BAE, 2013. Per capita sales calculated based on sales divided by population. 2000 and 2010 population from U.S. Census; estimates for other years from CA State Dept. of Finance.
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-124 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B15-14 Comment: Recommend determination of retail sales leakage. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15131, Economic and Social Effects, economic or social effects of a project, such as retail sales leakage,
shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.
B15-15 Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales: 2000 vs 2011 Sales in 2012 $ and in $000 2000 2011 Motor Vehicles and Parts $59,286 $2,920 Home Furnishings and Appliances $48,273 $188,832
Building Materials $9,055 13,443
Food Stores $33,386 $34,035
Services Stations $61,607 $76,510
Apparel Stores $43,351 $34,635 General Merchandise Stores $254,804 $114,911 Eating and Drinking Places $125,576 $128,299 Other Retail Stores $164,420 $102,475 Total Retail $799,758 $696,060
Sources: 2000 & 2010 U>S> Census; State Department of Finance; State Board of Equalization;
CA Dept of Industrial Relations; U>S> Bureau of Labor Statistics; BAE, 2013.
Due to major change in catagorization, data are not fully comparable with earlier year.
The City Council approved the (Rosebowl) Mixed Use Development in October 2004 (U-2004-10,
ASA-2005-03, and TM-2006-08). The approval allowed for. .. approximately 105,200 square feet of
retail/commercial area....Since approval of the project, the developer has reduced the retail space to
45,000 square feet. ..
revised in 2012).
Source: Planning Commission Staff Report
U-2014-03
Rosebowl/Nineteen800/Cupervino Wine Bar
July 22, 2014
Comment: 105,200 square feet > 45,000 (actual 44,126) square feet
44,126/105,200 = 41.94% of original retail space
Comment:
ADOBE
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-125
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
TWO UNITS OF RETAIL: MAX MUSCLE & ALEXA EYEWEAR LACKS CRITICAL MASS
OF RETAIL
THE TWO UNITS OF RETAIL REDUCED TO ONE UNIT OF RETAIL
ALEXA EYEWARE > INSURANCE
CITY CENTER/STEVENS CREEK BLVD at SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL FRONTAGE ON CALI PLAZA LACK CRITICAL MASS OF
RETAIL.
LE BOULANGER
COMPARE SALES TAX REVENUE W PREVIOUS LOCATION AT ST. JOSEPH
PLACE.
TAILOR> TARTINO FROZEN YOGURT> VACANT
HAIR SALON
NO RETAIL FRONTAGE ON STEVENS CREEK BLVD
LACK OF CONVENIENT RETAIL PARKING
CIVIC CENTER/SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD
LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL
SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD
AMICI'S
CURRY HOUSE
BAKERY
LACK OF CONVENIENT RETAIL PARKING
TOWN CENTER
BITTER SWEET
ORTHODONTIST
ORAL SURGERY
HAIR
REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT OF 50% RETAIL FROM SIDE OF BUILDING
LACK OF CONVENIENT RETAIL PARKING
% OF RETAIL REDUCED
METROPOLITAN
BUILT 2004
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-126 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
FRONT GROUND FLOOR 5 RETAIL CONDOMINIUMS 6,500 SF
NON-VIABLE RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE/DEPTH
LONG TERM VACANCY SINCE CONSTRUCTION
MINIMAL SALE TAX GENERATORS
HAIR SALON
PRIMARILY SERVICE
MARTIAL ARTS
PRIMARILY INSTRUCTION
OPTICAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE W OPTICAL SALES
SINGLE SALES TAX GENERATOR
RESTAURANT
PARKING ISSUE W RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
PENNEY PARKING STRUCTURE RETAIL SPACE
GROUND FLOOR
NEVER DEVELOPED/VACANT UNUSED SQUARE FOOTAGE
ADJACENT CORNER PARCEL AT INTERSECTION OF WOLFE ROAD AND VALLCO PARKWAY
NEVER DEVELOPED/VACANT LAND.
TRAVIGNE PLAZA
BUILT 2003
FRONT GROUND FLOOR FIVE RETAIL RENTAL
HAIR & NAIL
QUlZNOS CLOSED> PUMPS
TANNING
THE BEAUTY CREATION
VACANT: VERDE TEA CAFE MOVED TO MARKETPLACE; BONJOUR MOVED TO ST.
JOSEPH PLACE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-127
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
SHARED PARKING CONCEPT
LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKING
VALLCO
Heart of the City Specific Plan enacted by the City Council on October 2, 1995. Heart of the City
Specific Plan updated by the City Council on January17, 2012 after 10+ public meetings over a two
year period.
1.01.020 Land Use and Zoning - Permitted and Conditional Uses
A. Commercial - All Permitted and Conditional Uses in accordance With the Zoning
Ordinance regulations of the City's General Commercial (CG) zoning district.
Uses such as professional, general, administrative, business Offices, business
services, such as advertising bureaus, credit Reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies,
stenoGraphic services, and communication equipment buildings, Vocational and specialized
schools, dance and music studios, Gymnasiums and health clubs and child care centers and other
Uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the general public shall be limited
to occupy no more than 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and/or
50% of the rear of the building.
Comments: 1.01.020 has been ignored on several projects.
B15-16 Housing Analysis
What is the ratio of ownership type of residential units vs rental type of residential units?
Aviare:
140 apartments > 140 condominiums in = 140 apartments
Rosebowl > Nineteen800
204 condominiums > 204 apartments
Public Perception. Other constraints to housing production in the City include public opinion,
specifically community concerns about impacts on the school districts, traffic, and parks.
Over the past several years, a number of housing developments and related planning efforts have
been subject to citizen initiatives and referenda. Citizens' concerns about the impacts of housing
development on community quality of life remain a significant potential constraint to housing
development.
Pursuant to CEQA Section 15131, Economic and Social Effects,
comparing ownership and rental information is not required in this EIR
because it is not pertinent to the analysis of significant physical effects
on the environment. See Response to Comment B03-20.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-128 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Local developers indicated that public opposition to new development can be an obstacle to the
production of both market rate and affordable housing in Cupertino. In any jurisdiction, the
entitlement process can be a costly one. In Cupertino, several developers successfully obtained the
necessary entitlements from the City but had their projects halted by citizen referenda, resulting in
financial losses. This threat of a referendum and associated financial losses makes development in
the City more risky.
The potential for community opposition means that good design and planning are essential,
particularly for higher density projects.
Source: Draft Consolidated Plan 2010-2015
City of Cupertino
April 2010
Page 85
B15-17 PUBLIC BENEFITS VS PROJECT BENEFITS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE B AND ALTERNATIVE C IN REFERENCE TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT USES THE
PHASE, AN INCREASED HEIGHT WITH RETAIL AND PROJECT-WIDE BENEFITS. THE TERM,
PROJECT-WIDE BENEFITS, REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DEFINITION.
DOES PROJECT-WIDE MEAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT BENEFITS OR COMMUNITY PUBLIC
BENEFITS?
A discussed on page 3-13 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft
EIR, General Plan Policy 2-23.A, Community Benefits Program, states
that at the discretion of the City Council and as indicated in certain land
use policies, the City Council may approve heights different from the
maximum base height standard in Gateways and Nodes identified in the
Special Areas Map, if a project includes a retail component and provides
community benefits. A list of community-wide benefits is provided on
page 3-14 in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. There is no discussion of
project-wide benefits in the Draft EIR. See Response to Comment B11-
01.
B15-18 Park & Trail Analysis
Resolution #12-098
49. CREEK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $65,000 to the improvements of a trail
connection along Calabazas Creek from Vallco Parkway to 1-280. This contribution shall be used by
the City to administer a creek trail plan and necessary approvals and improvements. If this fund is
not used within five years of the project completion then it shall be returned to the applicant.
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-129
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Status of Apple park?
B15-19 HOTEL ANALYSIS
"The area of Cupertino around Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevards is one of the
strongest office hubs within the Market Area, and its prominent technology tenants likely drive a
significant portion of the demand for business travel and meeting space. In fact, two more hotels are
planned for this area, representing the only hotel developments currently in the pipeline in the entire
Market Area. At present there are no hotels in the Market Area that can accommodated more than
285 people in a single room."
"A 123-room Hyatt Place recently received planning approval, and the project is slated for
completion by the end of 2012. With 6,000 square feet of meeting space, the Hyatt Place will
become the Market Area's largest hotel meeting facility in term of conference square footage."
"Another hotel is planned as part of the 17-acre Main Street Cupertino development at Vallco
Parkway....as a condition of approval, Sand Hill Property Co. has agreed to provide a 400-person
banquet facility if the hotel exceeds 160 rooms."
Comment: The 123-room Hyatt Place became 123-room Aloft Hotel with 1,110 square feet of
meeting space; the 160+ Main Street Cupertino became Marriott Residence Inn with 7,095?
configurable square feet of restaurant/meeting space (contiguous sf needs to be confirmed).
Aloft Hyatt Place> Aloft. 6,000 sf of meeting space> 1,000 sf
Cypress
"Perfect for meetings or social events, Park Place (Restaurant) and the Cypress Hotel boast over
6,000 square feet of flexible meeting space, including an outdoor terrace space overlooking Cali Mill
Plaza."
Source: 2014/2015 Community Guide & Business Directory
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Comment: Cypress
Cali Ballroom consist of combining Cali A, B, and C = 3,040 sf
Parkview consist of combining Parkview West/East = 1,245 sf
Soleil = 612 sf
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-130 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Total of 3 separate locations 4,897 sf
See diagram
Source: Floorplans
Cypress
B15-20 Main Street Cupertino 250 > 180 rooms. Committed meeting space undetermined at this time due to changing conditions of approval. Resolution #12-098 4. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PERMIT EXPIRATION Approval of a Modification to the Master Use Permit is granted based upon the site plan identified dated received August 28 2012 to allow the construction of a hotel with 180 rooms; ... 6. HOTEL OPERATIONS The hotel shall be permitted to operate as a 24 hour late business operation and shall provide a minimum 6,500 square foot restaurant and meeting space area on the ground floor of the hotel
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-131
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
along the Town Square. Any additional or revised uses for the hotel will be reviewed at the time
specific business operation information is provided about these uses to determine if they are
permitted and will require a separate Use Permit application.
Note: This modifies the Condition No 5 in the approval dated January 20 2009 to replace the
requirement for a 400 person banquet facility with a 6,500 square foot restaurant and meeting
space.
Comment: "Since a day conference center typically require subsidy, the... should consider
incorporating a conference/meeting space use into a new hotel property....requiring as has the City
of Cupertino a space with a capacity for up to 400 to 500 as a condition of hotel use. The hotel
would have to be sized over 150 to 200 rooms to support such a meeting space."
"...Iargely devoid of dedicated, day-use meeting facilities that are designed for business use. While
a number of facilities exist that can accommodate business meetings of 50 to 500 people, the bulk
of them are publicly-run community centers and community colleges. Though many of these
properties were recently constructed or renovated, and all are outfitted with some degree of meeting
equipment, they may not appear professional enough to appeal to certain business users."
Comment: Cupertino Community Hall
# of rooms: 1
Capacity: 152 to 170 depending upon configuration
Cupertino Senior Center
# of rooms: 4
Capacity: 10 to 200
Quinlan Community Center
# of rooms: 2
Capacity: 80 to 300
Recent users: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club of Cupertino
Flint Center for Performing Arts
# of rooms: 1
Capacity: 2,400
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-132 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Recent users: Corporate events: Evernote, Seagate, Netflix, Hot Chips 26 (8/10/14 to 8/12/14).
Comment: Use of these existing facilities would improve the cost effectiveness and utilization of
these public facilities. Perhaps a public/private entity could be considered to promote this type of
use.
Comment: 2015 Cupertino Educational Foundation Gala at Fairmont San Jose on March 21, 2015
2014 Cupertino Educational Foundation Gala at Fairmont San Jose on March 1,2014
2013 Cupertino Educational Foundation Gala at Fairmont San Jose on March 9, 2013
Dynasty
# of rooms: 10 private
Capacity: 10 to 50
# of rooms: 2
Capacity: 600
Tatami
# of rooms: 1
Capacity: 200
2014 General Plan Amendment:
Study Area #1: 250-room hotel/conference facility
Cupertino Inn
Goodyear Tire
Study Area #2: No hotel contemplated
City Center
Study Area #3: No hotel contemplated
PG&E
Study Area #4: No hotel contemplated
Mirapath
Study Area #5: Possible hotel
Cupertino Village
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-133
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Study Area #6: Possible hotel
Vallco Shopping
Center
Study Area #7: Possible hotel
Stevens Creek
Office Center
Comment: There should be a hotel allocation that requires a 5* hotel component with 200 to 250
rooms with a 400 person facility for meeting, conference and banquet dining.
B15-21 HEIGHT ANALYSIS
1.01.030 Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation
A. Height
1. Maximum - Forty-five (45) feet, except where regulated by the Cupertino General Plan -
Maximum Building Heights.
2. The primary bulk of buildings shall be maintained below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial
street curb line or lines in all areas subject to the Heart of the City standards except for the
Crossroads area and the Vallco area. See the Crossroads Streetscape Plan and the Maximum
Building Heights diagram in the Cupertino General Plan for details.
Comments: 1.01.030 There is no Crossroads Streetscape Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan will be superceded by the 2014 General Plan Amendment after
only one year of preparation: The 2000 - 2020 General Plan maximum building heights of 30 feet,
45 feet, and 60 feet will be changed substantially by the 2014 General Plan Amendment as follows:
2014 General Plan Amendment: Alternative C
Study Area #1: Cupertino Inn Goodyear Tire
Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 130 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide
benefits
are provided).
Alternative B: 60 feet up to 90 feet
Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet
Impacts from increased height limits under the proposed Project are
discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. See Response to
Comment B11-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-134 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Study Area #2: City Center
Maximum height would be 75 feet (up to 110 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide
benefits
are provided).
Alternative B: 60 feet up to 90 feet
Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet
Study Area #3:
PG&E
Study Area #4: Mirapath
Alternative A Maximum height remains unchanged at 35 feet
Alternative B Maximum height remains unchanged at 30 feet
Alternative C Maximum height remains unchanged at 45 feet
Comment: What does unchanged mean?
Study Area #5: Cupertino Village
Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 130 feet ... (if) there is a retail component and project-wide
benefits are provided).
Alternative B: 60 feet up to 95 feet
Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet
Study Area #6: Vallco Shopping Center
Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 85 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide benefits Center are provided) in South Vallco Gateway West Alternative B: 45 feet up to 60 feet (or) Maximum height (would be) 75 feet (up to 160 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide benefits are provided) in South Vallco Gateway East. Alternative B: 60 feet up to 110 feet
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-135
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet, up to 60 feet with retail
Study Area #7: Stevens Creek Office Center
Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 75 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide
benefits are provided).
Alternative A & B: unchanged at 45 feet
Source: General Plan Amendment
Concept Alternatives Report
Section III
Study Area Potential Projects
Page 34
B15-22 Comment: Viable retail component
Define "project-wide"
Define 'benefits"
See Response to Comment B15-17.
B15-23 Comment: Why can Vallco Shopping Center either be in South Vallco Gateway West or South
Vallco Gateway East?
Vallco Shopping Center encompasses property on both the East and
West of Wolfe Road. Since the development standards for property on
the east side of Wolfe Road are different from the development
standards for property on the west side of Wolfe Road, two different
planning areas have been identified – South Vallco Gateway West and
South Vallco Gateway East. The comment poses a question regarding
the location of the Vallco Shopping Center and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or
mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR.
B15-24 Comment: The 2000 - 2010 General Plan allows an increase in height to 60 feet if there is a retail
component only in South Vallco Gateway West or South Vallco Gateway East.
Source: City of Cupertino
2000 - 2010 General Plan
Community Design
Figure 2-D Maximum Building Heights
Page 2-11
See Responses to Comments B11-01 and B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-136 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Comment: The 2000 General Plan Amendment aIlowed an exception to the maximum height limit of
75 feet to permit a 102-feet apartment complex and a 108-feet hotel.
Comment: There should be a "Maximum height of ? only for a 5* hotel component with 200 to 250
rooms with a 400 person facility for meeting, conference and banquet dining.
B15-25 SETBACK ANALYSIS
2000-2010 General Plan
Setback Ratios
Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial street curb line or
lines except for the Crossroads and Vallco areas.
For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.
For the Vallco area:
Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1,5 feet of setback for every 1 foot of building
height) slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd., Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue curb
lines and below 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road curb line.
Source: City of Cupertino
2000 - 2010 General Plan
Community Design
Figure 2-D Maximum Building Heights
Page 2-11
Comment: Define setback
Comment: What is allowed in setback area?
Comment: Will 2014 General Plan Amendment change the above setback ratios?
Comment: There is no Crossroads Streetscape Plan
As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR beginning on
page 1-2, the Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing
Element Update, and associated Rezoning. See Response to Comment
B03-17.
The term “setback” is defined in the Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.08,
Definitions, to mean 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. The allowable use vary by setback area
(i.e. front, rear, side). The amended General Plan policies do not
indicate setback ratios along streets. There is no Crossroads
Streetscape Plan at this time. It is anticipated that a plan will be created
at some future date.
B15-26 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Level of Service
TABLE 4.13-3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON
Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed Project are described
in detail in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR,
beginning on page 4.13-49. Impacts on intersections already operating
at LOS F are disclosed.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-137
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
AVERAGE DELAY
Level of Service Description Average Control Interval Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds)
(Seconds)
A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles
arrive during the green phase and do not stop at ail. Short 10.0 or less 10
cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than LOS A, 10.1 to 20.0 10 causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. C Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Some vehicles must wait more than one cycle at this level. The number of vehicles stopping 20.1 to 35.0 15
is significant, though may still pass through the intersection
without stopping.
D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer
delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to- 35.1 to 55.0 20 capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and wait more than one cycle. E This is considered to the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long 55.1 to 80.0 25 cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Some
vehicles must wait more than two cycles.
F This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers.
This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many vehicles must wait more than two cycles. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. Greater than 80.0 30 >80.1 to 110 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. (Washington, D,C. 2000) Comment: Given that each Level of Service (LOS) category increases by 5 seconds, some signalized intersections are in LOS categories greater than LOS F:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-138 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Hypothetical Level of Service
G 110.1 to 145
35
De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 SB Ramp/Cupertino Jurisdiction (LOS D) CMP am 110.9 Wolfe Rd. and 1-280 NB Ramp/Cupertino (D) CMP am 113.2 1-280 SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Blvd/Santa Clara (E) CM pm 118.3 Lawrence Expressway SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Blvd/County (E) CMP am 112.4
H. 145.1 to 185 40 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd./De Anza Blvd and Homestead Rd/Cupertino (D) CMP pm 181.4 De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 SB Ramp/Cupertino (D) CMP pm 162.2 De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd/Cupertino (E+) CMP pm 160.4
Source: 4.13 Transportation and Traffic
Table 4.13-13 2014 Draft General Plan Amendment City of Cupertino
B15-27 Comment: Some of these intersections connect with freeway segments that are LOS F. See Response to Comment B15-26.
B15-28 Comment: Hexagon concludes that under the proposed Project scenario compared to the 2040 No
Project scenario ... presented in Table 4.13-13... "16 intersections would operate at an unacceptable
level of service... Five of the sixteen (16) intersections 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."
This statement seems to minimize the traffic impact:
See Response to Comment B15-26.
B15-29 No Project
LOS Peak Avg. Avg.
# Intersection Standard Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 5 Sunnyvale/Saratoga D am 51.2 D 101.5 F Homestead RD pm 66.1 E 181.4 F 6 De Anza Blvd D am 46.4 D 100.0 F I-280 NB Ramp pm 71.7 E 162.2 F 7 De Anza Blvd D am 47.0 D 110.9 F
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-139
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
I-280 SB Ramp pm 35.3 D+ 99.9 F 8 De Anza Blvd E+ pm 76.2 E- 160.4 F
Stevens Creek Blvd
9 De Anza Blvd D pm 70.7 E 108.8 F
McClellan/Pacifica 16 Wolfe Rd D pm 51.9 D- 105.2 F Homestead Rd 18 Wolfe Rd D am 88.3 F 113.2 F I-280 NB Ramp pm 36.5 D+ 70.3 E
19 Wolfe Rd D am 38.9 D+ 86.0 F
I-280 SB Ramp pm 24.7 C 85.7 F
29 I-280 SB Ramp E pm 84.9 F 118.3 F
Stevens Creek Blvd
B15-30 Study Scenarios
The potential effects of the proposed Apple Campus 2 project on the study intersections were
evaluated during the AM and PM peak hours for the following six scenarios:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions
Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions: Scenario 1 plus traffic generated by the proposed
project and roadway system modifications proposed as part of the project.
Scenario 3: Background No Project Conditions: Existing volumes plus traffic from "approved but not
yet built or occupied" developments.
Scenario 4: Background Plus Project Conditions: Scenario 3 plus net-added traffic generated by the
proposed project and roadway system modifications proposed as part of the project.
Scenario 5: Cumulative No Project Conditions: Scenario 3 plus traffic from pending developments in
the area.
Source: Study Scenarios
Apple Campus 2 Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
by Fehr & Peers
May 31,2013
The comment provides background information on the traffic analysis for
the Apple Campus 2 project .
As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft
EIR, the traffic impacts scenarios analyzed in the EIR include the 2040
No Project Traffic Conditions and the 2040 Proposed Project.
Also see Response to Comment B03-17 regarding the difference
between a program-level EIR and a project-level EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-140 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
Comment: It seems that the potential effects of the proposed 2014 General Plan Amendment were
evaluated for only the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions
Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions
B15-31 Comments: Hexagon also concludes that
TRAF-6 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts.
The analysis of the proposed Project, above, addresses cumulative impacts to the Transportation
network in the City and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts Would be the same as
proposed Project-specific impacts.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable
Source: Mitigation Measures
2014 General Plan Amendment: Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Document: 4.13 Transportation and Traffic
by Hexagon Transportation Consultants
2014
Resolution #12-098
93 TRAFFIC CALMING
The developer shall agree to fund up to $100000 for the purpose of mitigating traffic impacts in the
adjacent neighborhoods resulting from the project for a period of 5 years following project
occupancy. The developer shall submit a bond for this purpose which will be released 5 years from
the date of project occupancy.
The comment recites information stated in Chapter 4.13, Transportation
and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, and background information concerning
another project. See Response to Comment B15-01.
B15-32 EIR for Valley Fair
I-280/I-880 interchange to be completed Spring 2015
$62.1 million
Construction in progress as of July 2014
Completion of interchange ? months after completion of Valley Fair Renovation
See Response to Comment B15-01.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-141
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B16 Apple
B16-01 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 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 longstanding height limit of 60 feet for the Hamptons site, for all structures located within 50 feet of the parcel line abutting Apple Campus 2 or 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 Apple Campus 2, nor unreasonably impact view corridors or sunlight, or 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.
The comment expresses concerns about the proposed height increase on potential Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) with regard to the privacy and security of the Apple Campus 2 project. However, neither issue constitutes a physical effect on the environment as defined by CEQA, and therefore are not addressed in the EIR. As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR beginning on page 1-2, the Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning, but not the site-specific impacts of future development, which will require submittal to the City of site-specific applications and plans. See Response to Comment B03-17. Impacts of the proposed Project on view corridors, sunlight and light and glare as a result of the proposed height increases, including proposed height increases on potential Housing Element Site 10, are addressed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. Impacts from light and glare are discussed under Impact AES-4, and were found to be less than significant because new developments would be required to comply with the General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels. The City's General Plan policies require reducing light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses by buffering new development with landscaping and trees. The preservation of mature trees with substantial tree canopies would diffuse the overall amount of light generated by new development and glare generated by windows of multistory buildings. Furthermore, because the Project Component locations and surrounding area are largely developed, the lighting associated with the proposed Project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the Project Study Area or its surroundings.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-142 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
See Response to Comment B11-01.
B16-02 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.
See Response to Comment B11-01 with regard to building heights.
As discussed in Response to Comment B16-01, effects on privacy and
security of private property do not constitute physical effects on the
environment. As discussed in Response to Comment B03-17, the Draft
EIR analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed General
Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning.
No specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project.
The evaluation of individual projects, including potential future
development on Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons) that may be proposed
under the General Plan, will be conducted at the time that site-specific
development applications are filed. Accordingly, this EIR may be used
for tiering purposes but is not intended to provide site-specific evaluation
of future development projects.
B16-03 2. Apple Designed the Apple Campus 2 Project Assuming Compliance with Existing General Plan
Policies
While Apple's goals for the campus are hugely ambitious, Apple carefully stayed within 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
See Responses to Comments B11-01, B16-01 and B16-02.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-143
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
parking garage is setback from the Hamptons and 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%.
B16-04 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.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, on page
3-20, the net increase in housing units permitted on Housing Element
Site 10 (The Hamptons) would be 820. As stated on Draft EIR pages 3-
12 to 3-13, a maximum number of 4,421 residential units was analyzed
in the Draft EIR because that is the maximum number of new residential
units that would be permitted under the proposed Project. Therefore,
while the physically possible realistic yield of the combined potential
Housing Element Sites shown in Table 3-21 equals 4,804, only a
maximum of 4,421 units would be permitted over the 26-year build out
horizon of the proposed Project. Therefore, the EIR analyzes the
maximum number of units that would be permitted to be constructed
under the proposed Project. The significant environmental effects of the
proposed increased development density and increased building heights
that would be allowed on the identified housing sites, including Site 10,
are analyzed at a program level in the resources sections of the Draft
EIR.
As discussed in Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02 and B16-03,
no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project
and the site-specific evaluation of individual projects, including potential
future development on Housing Site 10, would be required at the time
that project-level site plans are submitted to the City as part of a specific
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-144 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
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 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 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. These needs are well documented in
the AC2 EIR and in City findings for the campus, and must be respected.
project development application at this location.
See Response to Comment B11-01 with regards to building heights.
B16-05 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.
See Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02, B16-03 and B16-05. As
discussed in these previous responses, the proposed Project analyzed
in the EIR consists of plan-level approvals, and no specific development
project is proposed or authorized for Housing Element Site 10 (The
Hamptons). Therefore, the Draft EIR for the proposed Project does not address the project-level concerns of the commenter. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, the Draft EIR, on page 4.1-30, a maximum building height of 85 feet at Housing Site 10 is considered in the Draft EIR. The comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR relies on the potential for setbacks as the basis for finding less-than-significant impacts aesthetics impacts. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, in all the areas where additional height is allowed, potential future development would be subject to the City’s discretionary review processes, including the Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval Review, in accordance with Section 19.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Future development would also would be required to comply with the Design Standards in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the Vallco Master Plan, and the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, and other applicable conceptual
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-145
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
plans and General Plan policies, to ensure that the bulk, mass, height,
and architectural character of new development are compatible with
surrounding use, and minimize impacts from light and glare. See
Response to Comment B16-01. Impact AES-2 analyzed the impacts to
scenic resources from the view shed of I-280, a designated State Scenic
Highway, and concluded that land use or intensity changes do not
represent a substantial reimagining of the character of the Project
Component locations in the I-280 view shed.
See Response to Comment B11-01 with regards to building heights.
B16-06 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 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.
Consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR does not analyze impacts on
private views. As stated in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, on
page 4.1-21, public view corridors are areas in which short-range,
medium-range and long-range views are available from publicly
accessible viewpoints, such as from city streets. The Apple Campus 2
project is a private development and not a publically accessible viewing
location, and the views from private development in Cupertino are not
considered protected views. The additional studies requested by the
commenter for future development on potential Housing Element Site 10
(The Hamptons) could be required by the City at the time a specific
development project is proposed. Generally, the City does not require
shade and shadow studies for evaluating development; but does have
setback standards in the zoning code; however, as previously discussed
in Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02, B16-03, B16-05, no
specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project and
the evaluation of individual projects, including the potential future
development on Housing Site 10, would be required at the time that
project-level site plans are submitted to the City as part of a specific
project development application at this location.
See Response to Comment B11-01 with regards to building heights.
B16-07 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
See Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02, B16-03, B16-05 and
B16-06.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-146 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
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 c hapter 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.
Impact AES-2 analyzed the impacts to scenic resources from the view
shed of I-280, a designated State Scenic Highway, and concluded that
land use or intensity changes do not represent a substantial reimagining
of the character of the Project Component locations in the I-280 view
shed. Therefore, in addition to considering the impacts to the view shed
from I-280, this impact discussion also considered the changes to the
overall character as a result of the proposed increases to height. Impact
AES-3, which discusses whether the proposed Project would
substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of the sites that
have the potential to be developed or redeveloped under the Proposed
Project, analyzes affected special areas, study areas and housing sites
on pages 4.1-33 through 4.1-38. These areas are already developed,
underutilized and/or in close proximity to existing development. The
Draft EIR concludes that gradually increasing urban development in
areas that are already developed with commercial, industrial and
residential uses will not substantially degrade existing visual character
or quality. Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-27 to 4.2-38. This conclusion is supported
by substantial evidence. Also see Response to Comment B11-01.
B16-08 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 "[d]evise 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.
The impacts to views of scenic resources as result of the proposed
Project is discussed under Impacts AES-1 and AES-2 in Chapter 4.1,
Aesthetics of the Draft EIR. These impacts were found to be less than
significant. Potential future development where increases in height are
requested would be subject to the Architectural and Site Review
process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Future development would also be required to comply with Design
Standards outlined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the Vallco
Specific Plan, and other Conceptual Plans. In addition, potential
aesthetic impacts of future development under the proposed Project,
including development in the hillsides, would be mitigated to the extent
feasible with the existing and proposed General Plan policies . For
example, Policy 2-47, Hillside Development Standards, would require
the City to establish building and development standards for the hillsides
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-147
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
that ensure hillside protection. See Response to Comment B16-07
B16-09 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.B.2.b.(4)). We request the City to study this
topic in connection with the proposed building envelope.
Setbacks established in the zoning code allow for light and air for
buildings within a project and for adjoining properties. Key criteria for
review of new development include compatibility with surrounding sites
including abrupt changes in scale and the availability of light and air.
Should any impacts to shade and shadow be identified at the time, the
need for a shade and shadow study will be considered. Additionally,
since this is a Program EIR, no detailed, project-specific analysis for
shade/shadow was prepared. See Responses to Comments B03-17.
As discussed throughout Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR,
potential future development in all areas where increased heights would
be permitted also would be subject to the Architectural and Site Review
process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance or
would be required to comply with Design Standards in the General Plan,
Heart of the City Specific Plan, or other appropriate Conceptual Plans,
the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, or the South Vallco Specific Plan.
See Response to Comment B11-01.
Impacts from light and glare are discussed under Impact AES-4, and
were found to be less than significant because new developments would
be required to comply with the General Plan policies and Municipal
Code provisions that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive
light levels. See Response to Comment B16-01.
B16-10 5. Apple Requests Additional Changes and Corrections to the General Plan Amendment
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.
As stated by the commenter, the Draft EIR acknowledges the removal of
Pruneridge Avenue in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic. As
discussed in the Draft EIR, Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino was
recently vacated between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue as part of the
Apple Campus 2 project. The physical roadway still existed at the time
that the aerial photo used to prepare the base map for the EIR was
taken, however. The depiction of Pruneridge Avenue on the figures in
the Draft EIR has no bearing on the conclusions in the EIR concerning
the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-148 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
• 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.
The City acknowledges that it has previously entered into a
Development Agreement for the Apple Campus 2 project. That
Development Agreement was fully analyzed in the Apple Campus 2
Project Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number
2011082055. The proposed Project does not affect the subjects
covered by the Development Agreement.
The Draft EIR has been revised to correct a typographical error in Policy
2-44 identified by the commenter. Revisions to the Draft EIR are
included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to
Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or
significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR.
The comment related to the definition of “Major Employer” is
acknowledged.
B16-11 • 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 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.
The commenter correctly describes that Table 3-5, Existing and
Proposed North Vallco Special Area Development Standards, in
Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, on page 3-24 shows
that the difference between the remaining units permitted under the
current General Plan (297 units) and the buildout under the proposed
Project (825 units), which is 528 units. The EIR analyzes the significant
environmental effects of the proposed Project. Hence, a total of 825
additional units in the North Vallco Special Area was analyzed in the
Draft EIR. The difference between the development potential of the
proposed Project and the remaining development potential under the
current General Plan is shown for information purposes only; no
analysis in the EIR is based on this number. As stated on page 3-13, a
maximum of 4,421 residential units was analyzed in the Draft EIR. See
Response to Comment B16-05.
B16-12 • I-280 Northbound Ramp Improvements. It appears that the EIR does not assume some of the
improvements Apple is making to the Wolfe Road and E-280 northbound ramp. We believe this
accounts for the discrepancy between the finding in the AC2 EIR that with mitigation, that
As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the EIR, of this Final EIR, page
4.13-42 has been revised to acknowledge the addition of the third
northbound through lane as an Apple Campus 2 improvement. In
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-149
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
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 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.
addition, page 4.13-54, under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 has been
revised to clarify that 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
added northbound traffic due to the general plan development.
These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance
determinations provided in the Draft EIR.
B16-13 • 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.
The Draft EIR has identified a deficiency at the Wolfe Road/I-280
interchange and significant impacts to intersection levels of service at
both the northbound and southbound ramps (i.e. Wolfe Road and I-280
Northbound Ramp (#18) and Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp
(#19)). Adding lanes to Wolfe Road, which could require widening the
overcrossing, has been identified as a potential way to mitigate the
impacts. There may be other ways to mitigate without widening the
overcrossing. Any changes to the interchange would require the
preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) in accordance with Caltrans
procedures. The PSR would study all potential ways to improve
operations and would select the design that provided the most cost-
effective solution for all transportation modes.
B16-14 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 Irvine 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.
See Responses to Comments B16-01 through B16-13.
B17 Jonathan Sanchez
B17-01 Do you know when the Draft EIR will be posted regarding the General Plan Amendment? We
received a notice in the mail that the Draft EIR would be available here online.
The Draft EIR was made available for public review for 45-days from
Wednesday, June 18, 2014 through Friday, August 1, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-150 AUGUST 28, 2014
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Number Comment Response
B18 Youichi
B18-01 Thanks for your all information from Housing Element report. From postcard in my mail, I have come to this website to read more about housing in Cupertino. I think there is not enough housing in Cupertino for other familys like mine. I work and live in Cupertino for 7 years but also travel to Japan. My two daughters attend primary school in Cupertino and their friends are here so we would like to live here for longer time. We rent the apartment in Cupertino but rent every year is going up. I think Housing Element report suggestion for more building height and more du/ac can help with more future housing in Cupertino and help keep rent to stop going up so quick. The location near freeway or big road in Cupertino can support more familys and I think noise will not be a problem. Cupertino is great place to live and I think more apartments can help more familys like mine in future.
The comment is acknowledged.
B19 Anonymous
B19-01 As a daily bike commuter, I would like to see more bike lanes through the major corridors of
Cupertino. More density (and thus cars) is fine with me as long as there are clear and well-marked
paths for bicyclists and appropriate signage/markings for the car commuters to pay attention.
The comment is acknowledged.